| |
 |
 |
| |
|
| |
Seriously. Kucinich, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, et. al. as potential future presidents? Too cute for words, NARAL.
Now go take the quiz - How much do you know about the future president?
——————-
Tagged: naral abortion feminism repro rights 2008 elections
A few weeks ago, NARAL sent out an action alert to their list of subscribers inviting readers to “Share Your Story”:
In honor of the 34th anniversary of the historic Roe v. Wade decision, tell us why you are pro-choice.
Maybe you had a poignant experience with friends at your first pro-choice march or rally, a memorable conversation with a close female relative about a woman’s right to privacy, or encountered difficulties firsthand when trying to access abortion care or other reproductive-health service where you live.
Tell us your story by filling out the form below.
My submission was short and sweet: “My body, my choice. End of story.”
It should be the end of the story, anyway. Ideally, the discussion would start and end with “My body, my choice.” No further explanation necessary. And you don’t have to be a hairy-legged, man-hating, fetus-eating feminazi to understand that, if men were the ones carrying The Baybeez! to term, “My body, my choice” would be the end of the logical line.
(Of course, you could also argue that pregnant men would make for matriarchal society, since the time spent incapacitated by pregnancy and saddled with dependents is a large part of what’s held women down, but that a whole nother discussion.)
But they aren’t. And it’s not. And here we are, blogging for choice.
There are dozens of reasons why I’m pro-choice. Some are selfish: I’m not particularly fond of baybeez, and if I were to ever accidentally find myself with child, I’d abort it in a metaphorical heartbeat. Even if I were sterile, though, and the issue of choice didn’t affect me personally, I’d still want that right for other women. It’s a matter of basic human rights: no one, male or female, should be required to surrender their body, in whole or part, to another. So-called “pro-lifers” (who in reality aren’t very “pro-life” at all) would never even consider legislation that forces parents to donate their organs to ailing children; why, then, is it perfectly acceptable to demand that women hand over their bodies to unborn, non-sentient feti?
In one word: misogyny.
It’s all about punishing women who dare to have teh sex. It’s about control; controlling women’s sexuality, regulating their power, usurping their autonomy. About claiming their very bodies. Dehumanizing them and treating them like livestock.
“Pro-life” rhetoric is oftentimes framed in religious terms. Yet, I find such arguments disingenuous at best. “Pro-lifers” are more likely to identify as political conservatives who support the war in Iraq; oppose universal health care; and embrace tax breaks for the rich and disapprove of social programs that help those struggling with poverty, mental illness, unemployment, drug addiction, etc. In other words, in all but the sexual arena, these so-called “pro-life Christians” are quite un-Christlike.
Like religion itself, forced pregnancy is more about controlling women than honoring “God”.
Of course, our Constitution also guarantees the separation of church and state - meaning that religious anti-choice arguments are irrelevant in the “abortion wars”. If your God says that abortion is immoral, that’s fine by me. You have every right to follow your own religious mandates (as long as they don’t harm other living - and by “living”, I mean “born” - beings), just as I have every right to follow my secular humanist mandates. And neither of us has the right to force our own choices on the other.
My body, my choice. End of story.
——————
Tagged: blog+for+choice blogging+for+choice repro+rights abortion pro-choice feminism feminist religion misogyny animalswomen
Via Care2 WomensWire:
Hi Kelly,
Are you SICK of mainstream media “talking right?”
YES!
I certainly am. As social conservatives have increased their influence in government, we’ve seen the media increasingly use extremist rhetoric in their reporting, particularly in their coverage of abortion issues. It’s time for an approach that’s really “fair and balanced.”
Ask media journalists to stop using rhetoric in their reporting of abortion rights.
Done.
Think about it: the term “pro-life” has become the default description for someone who is against abortion. This is an EXTREME term, implying that anyone who is for abortion rights must be “pro-death.”
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, I do believe they’re talking to you. (And if they’re not, they damn well should be.)
“Partial-birth abortion,” is perhaps even more insidious. The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other leading legal and medical associations have adamantly declared that this phrase is not medical terminology. Yet, the media continues to use this phrase and others as legitimate medical terms, making right-wing rhetoric seem like factual language in the minds of voters.
Next week, the United States Supreme Court will hear two important cases - both of which deal with abortion bans and were conveniently scheduled to begin ONE DAY after the election.
Imagine that.
Already, these cases have been called out by all major American medical associations for using political rhetoric rather than medical language to describe abortion.
Don’t let the truth behind these cases become shrouded by more right-wing extreme speech.
Sign the petition to join Reproductive Health Reality Check in calling on news executives to ensure that journalists stop “talking right” about a woman’s right to choose.
“Fair and balanced” reporting. Isn’t that the least journalists can do for women when they’re reporting on our rights?
You would think. Must be that f’in “liberal media” again.
Sign the petition.
Then go vote for choice on Tuesday.
————–
Tagged: vote voting elections mid-term+elections the+media talking+points feminism feminist reproductive+rights language
“I think it’s great that more pro-life people are finally speaking up about it…It’s always been a touchy subject, but you have to stand strong on your beliefs. Contraception is the root cause of the explosion of the amount of abortions in the world.”
With November 7 rocketing towards us, it’s time for the so-called “moderates” out there - politicians and voters alike - to wake the fuck up to the right wing’s (read: evangelicals’) end game, particularly regarding women’s autonomy. Though they like to frame the debate re: reproductive rights, specifically abortion, in terms of life (”the baybees, think about the baybees!”), there’s nothing “pro-life” about their agenda. Make no mistake: they are anti-choice. Not just “anti- a woman’s right to choose whether or not to abort the parasite residing within her,”* but “anti- a woman’s choice to fuck without experiencing the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.”
Exhibit #1: Their increasingly fervent assault on women’s access to contraception.
Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement’s success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal group of Christian conservatives is arguing that it’s time to mount a concerted attack on contraception.
Their voices were raised in Rosemont on Friday and Saturday at an unusual anti-abortion meeting that drew 250 people from around the nation to condemn artificial birth control. Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.
“Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else,” Joseph Scheidler, an anti-abortion veteran whose Pro-Life Action League sponsored the conference, said in an interview.
See, your reasonable, “moderate” (theoretical) pro-lifer would recognize that contraception is actually the single most effective means of reducing the need for abortion. Our government’s enthusiastic support for abstinence-only education has demonstrated what feminists have known all along: you can’t stop people from fornicating. Ain’t gonna work. Besides, why should they? I know it’s hard to comprehend, but not all folks share your same set of values. For example, this statement:
Damon Clarke Owens, another speaker and president of New Jersey Natural Family Planning, believes contraception changes sex from a “unconditional gift of self” to a conditional act that turns away from “God’s gift of children.”
seriously makes me want to go out and buy a Baby Jesus Butt Plug, just so I can defile Owens’ deity’s image. Repeatedly. Even though I’m not really into that kind of thing.
It must be difficult to walk upright, what with such thick skulls and all, but not all people are Christians. And not all Christians share the same single (misogynistic, homophobic, insert your “ism” here) interpretation of Teh Bible. Shocking, I know. Plus, there is this little thing called separation of church and state. So your particular strain of superstition, while entertaining, cannot be used to justify which rights y’all decide to dole out to the populace.
But wait! Clark has more gems of wisdom to impart to us immoral heathens:
“If the sex act has nothing to do with a child, then what happens if contraception fails?” he asked. “Abortion becomes a backup for failed contraception, another way of getting rid of the unwanted and devalued child.” **
Again, I know we’re contending with that thick skull issue, but…if every American knew how to properly use contraception, had access to it, and made use of it consistently, then there would be very few abortions. And for every broken condom and missed pill, a dose of EC. Voila - problem almost completely solved!
Yet, Bible Beaters, champions of Teh Patriarchy, and other women-haters don’t want to hear it.
“We’ve been trained to steer clear of discussing contraception, as if it were a distraction. I’m tired of this ‘Don’t get off the subject’ mentality. Contraception is the subject.”
Women (and sympathetic men) - it starts with your right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Let them strip you of that right, and they’ll come for your birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, and EC next. And they won’t rest until you’re trapped in a sappily sentimental version of the ’50s, where you’re perpetually barefoot and pregnant, a nice submissive little thing that honors her husband as if he were God incarnate.
So go Google your county’s website, find and print out a voter ballot, and research each and every candidate listed on that baby. Support candidates who support your right to abort, your right to contracept, your right to choose - your right to bodily autonomy.
It’s my body, and I’m fucking sick of fundies, godidiots, and political opportunists who use and abuse it like a battleground.
—-
* Yeah, I said it. And if the self-loathing beyatches of the Cunt Bag Brigade ™ gotst a problem with my equating a fetus (a fetus, not a baby, you silly wimmins) with a parasite, then take it up with the editors at dictionary.com, who define “parasite” thusly:
“Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.”
** “Child”? Now we’re really confusing terminology, eh?
fetus - embryology (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
child - a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl
Feti are not babies, you med school rejects!
—————-
Tagged: feminism feminist reproductive+rights abortion contraception godbags godbaggers religion sperm+magic
Ann of Feministing has very comprehensive timeline of the FDA’s stonewalling in regards to OTC Plan B up at Mother Jones. (I so did not realize that she works for MoJo…way cool.) The bullshit stretches back to the beginning of GW’s first term - no surprise there.
Anyway, with the FDA tentatively poised to approve OTC emergency contraception for women 18 and older, it’s time to put the pressure on. Here’s an action alert from NARAL to getcha started.
If you’ve got time, check out the hilarious spanking Barbara Walters gave to her ditzy, anti-choice “colleague” on The View. Good stuff there.
UPDATE: Another alert, this one a petition from NOW. And it’s even got a cool graphic! Me likey likey.
(ANOTHER) UPDATE: From the Feminist Majority Foundation:
Tell the FDA that you support immediate approval of EC over the counter!
And thank the Senators who stood strong and asked tough questions during Dr. von Eschenbach’s committee hearing.
Usually I don’t bother reading my elected reps’ responses to my letters. After all, I live in Kansas, a most conservative state - so, most of the time, reading form letters from the likes of Dennis Moore and Pat Roberts do nothing but piss me the fuck off. Not to mention, Moore - who must have attended the same tech school as Ted “The Tubes Ate My E-Mail” Stevens - insists on responding to his constituents’ email via snail mail. Talk about wasting time, paper, ink, and gas. Fucking tard.
But I digress.
As I was flipping through my gmail account, an email about the Teen Endangerment and Grandmother Incarceration Act Child Custody Protection Act caught my eye. It was from my fundie Senator Pat Roberts, so, yeah, the panties are bunching.
Dear Ms. Garbato:
Thank you for sharing your comments about S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
In July, the Senate passed the Child Custody Protection Act, of which I was a cosponsor.
Ouch. Cosponsor, eh? I wonder how I managed to overlook that when I emailed him. It’s futile being a liberal in Kansas.
Anyway, blah blah blah, skipping to the good part…
As my record clearly shows, I oppose abortion on demand and the federal funding of abortions. In addition, I continue to oppose the use of tax dollars to fund abortion services at home and overseas. Again, thanks for taking the time to express your concerns on this important issue. I look forward to your continued advice and counsel.
“Abortion on demand,” eh?
Now, that’s a term that the anti-choicers and Bible thumpers throw around a lot. Just a boilerplate buzzword. But for some reason, I got to thinking about old Pat’s implications here. If he opposes “abortion on demand,” is the converse true? Does he support abortions not performed at the woman’s behest? Just what would an abortion not on demand be? Forced abortion? I think what Patty’s trying to say here is that he’s a closet Communist! (And the man’s got some distinguished company, I must say.)
Kidding, kidding.
I’m not really sure what my point is, other than to highlight the fact that these douchebags like to bandy about terms without giving much thought as to what they’re actually saying. (See: the morning after pill; the abortion pill; pro-life; et al.) “Abortion on demand” is nothing more than a smokebomb used by vagina haters to imply that abortion is to sluts as McFries are to, well, Americans. For Chrissakes, it’s not like women are getting drive-thu abortions once a month because they’re yummy.
| | | |
