A hypothetical scenario:
Let's say I'm with my partner and, despite our best efforts, one of his swimmers gets through; let's also say that my right to control my fertility (either through consistent and regular access to birth control and/or abortion services) has been rendered illegal. The right to medical privacy, as well as the right to a safe and legal abortion, has been taken away from me and millions of other women in my state.
How much time should I do for getting an abortion?
Watch the video, read about the campaign here and share your thoughts.
Showing posts with label choice matters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label choice matters. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Monday, September 01, 2008
shame? what shame?!
My friends say I don't have enough empathy; they say that because I live a certain way (a way that makes logical sense to me) that I am confounded and impatient when others apparently don't.
They have a point.
I was reading this piece about a young woman's quest to buy Plan B contraception and I found myself becoming frustrated. In her piece, she's given the runaround by clueless pharmacists, nurses and doctors - people who should know better, who should know what Plan B is, that it's available over the counter and does NOT require a prescription unless you're under 18. And in the comments, other women tell of the same runaround as well as the shame they felt in having to explain that they had sex, their regular contraception failed and they needed Plan B immediately.
My frustration has two objects:
Object 1: the medical profession who clearly didn't get the effing memo that Plan B went OTC one year ago. How the frak do you call yourself a professional when you don't know this? And how do you feel about giving women the wrong information, delaying their ability to use Plan B effectively? Really. I want to know. If there are nurses or pharmacists out there who have told women they need a prescription for Plan B, please tell me why you don't know how to do your job.
(Yes, I'm angry. Professional sloppiness makes me angry. It's a pet peeve of mine and it's not reserved for folks who don't know that Plan B is available to women over the age of 18 over the frakking counter!!)
Object 2: women who had no clue about Plan B (that it existed, where to get it and thought the whole thing was befuddling - where have you been for the past year? Why haven't you been paying attention to issues that affect your body's liberty??) and those who felt shame even if they did nothing to deserve the shaming. You are a GROWN WOMAN. You have a basic frakking human right to have sex, have accidents happen and you have no business feeling ashamed for needing, asking for, Plan B.
(Why do I call it a right? Because it's the frakking basic human condition - we humans have sex, have accidents and shit happens.)
Don't get me wrong. I know the feeling. When I first got my period and I had to go into a grocery store and ask for tampons and sanitary napkins, the grocery dude smirked and I wanted to die.
But I was 11 years old.
I'm 39 now. Someone tries to make me ashamed of my sexuality, or my body's requirements, and I will verbally punch them in the scrotal sac. We are Western women living in the most privileged country on earth. And we still feel shame for asking about birth control?? We feel shame in the face of someone's unprofessional ignorance?? Lord on a stick!
Sometimes I think our foremothers look at us and roll their eyes in disgust.
I know there are real issues about access and pharmacist's refusals to dispense. I know that. But this isn't about that - I'm talking about middle class women who should know better! My frustration is about a certain kind of woman who feels shame first, rather than anger that she's getting pushed around by an ignorant nurse!
I know. Pillory me. My attitude is intolerant, arrogant and maybe bordering on sexist.
But FRAK if I don't feel that women should get angry first and feel shame later. When it comes to sex or our bodies why is our default emotion shame? What patriarchal bullshit is that? Aargh!
(taking calming breath)
Now. Where to get emergency contraception/Plan B (Plan B is the brand sold in the US) if you aren't blessed with a Walgreens or CVS in your neighborhood, or if you suspect your local pharmacist might be a Bible banger who thinks contraception kills babies:
You can start here. It has a helpful zip code finder for emergency contraception providers as well as tip sheets for how to explain what you need, how to answer the questions they may ask and what usual costs are. (I paid $50 at CVS.)
Rant over. Carry on!
They have a point.
I was reading this piece about a young woman's quest to buy Plan B contraception and I found myself becoming frustrated. In her piece, she's given the runaround by clueless pharmacists, nurses and doctors - people who should know better, who should know what Plan B is, that it's available over the counter and does NOT require a prescription unless you're under 18. And in the comments, other women tell of the same runaround as well as the shame they felt in having to explain that they had sex, their regular contraception failed and they needed Plan B immediately.
My frustration has two objects:
Object 1: the medical profession who clearly didn't get the effing memo that Plan B went OTC one year ago. How the frak do you call yourself a professional when you don't know this? And how do you feel about giving women the wrong information, delaying their ability to use Plan B effectively? Really. I want to know. If there are nurses or pharmacists out there who have told women they need a prescription for Plan B, please tell me why you don't know how to do your job.
(Yes, I'm angry. Professional sloppiness makes me angry. It's a pet peeve of mine and it's not reserved for folks who don't know that Plan B is available to women over the age of 18 over the frakking counter!!)
Object 2: women who had no clue about Plan B (that it existed, where to get it and thought the whole thing was befuddling - where have you been for the past year? Why haven't you been paying attention to issues that affect your body's liberty??) and those who felt shame even if they did nothing to deserve the shaming. You are a GROWN WOMAN. You have a basic frakking human right to have sex, have accidents happen and you have no business feeling ashamed for needing, asking for, Plan B.
(Why do I call it a right? Because it's the frakking basic human condition - we humans have sex, have accidents and shit happens.)
Don't get me wrong. I know the feeling. When I first got my period and I had to go into a grocery store and ask for tampons and sanitary napkins, the grocery dude smirked and I wanted to die.
But I was 11 years old.
I'm 39 now. Someone tries to make me ashamed of my sexuality, or my body's requirements, and I will verbally punch them in the scrotal sac. We are Western women living in the most privileged country on earth. And we still feel shame for asking about birth control?? We feel shame in the face of someone's unprofessional ignorance?? Lord on a stick!
Sometimes I think our foremothers look at us and roll their eyes in disgust.
I know there are real issues about access and pharmacist's refusals to dispense. I know that. But this isn't about that - I'm talking about middle class women who should know better! My frustration is about a certain kind of woman who feels shame first, rather than anger that she's getting pushed around by an ignorant nurse!
I know. Pillory me. My attitude is intolerant, arrogant and maybe bordering on sexist.
But FRAK if I don't feel that women should get angry first and feel shame later. When it comes to sex or our bodies why is our default emotion shame? What patriarchal bullshit is that? Aargh!
(taking calming breath)
Now. Where to get emergency contraception/Plan B (Plan B is the brand sold in the US) if you aren't blessed with a Walgreens or CVS in your neighborhood, or if you suspect your local pharmacist might be a Bible banger who thinks contraception kills babies:
You can start here. It has a helpful zip code finder for emergency contraception providers as well as tip sheets for how to explain what you need, how to answer the questions they may ask and what usual costs are. (I paid $50 at CVS.)
Rant over. Carry on!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
dear president bush: you really suck
Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid - NYTimes.com
This is the proposed intent:
How this report proposes to define abortion:
What's the significance of the 'conception' and 'before implantation' lingo? It pretty much makes hormonal contraception into an abortifacient, which it is NOT.
This is the potential impact (from Womens eNews):
What else is impacted?
My fricking right to control my fertility without having a bunch of patriarchal asshats forcing me to tie my tubes (or stop having sex.)
Why am I kvetching about tying my tubes?
Because if hospitals are suddenly to be staffed by squeamish religious types who believe the Pill (and other devices) kills homunculi babies, then the only way to prevent pregnancy, clearly, would be to sterilize myself.
But would that really be cost effective for me (or any woman, for that matter)?
Tying ones tubes is not like having a vasectomy; it is not a simple snip-snip that can be done with a local anasthetic, in a soothing doctor's office while a little blue napkin lays across your lap. You don't go home and stay in bed for a few days with an ice pack between your legs. It's major surgery. It's invasive, expensive and hellishly inconvenient.
It looks like this.
Contraception, on the other hand, looks like this .
I've already done this, thank you very much. I would be more than a little resentful if I had to to it again.
As for the petty, ignorant, anti-woman Bush administration, I wonder if they convene meetings with agendas titled "How to Do the Most Damage in What Little Time We Have Left."
This is the proposed intent:
The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.
Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
How this report proposes to define abortion:
“any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”[bold emphasis mine]
What's the significance of the 'conception' and 'before implantation' lingo? It pretty much makes hormonal contraception into an abortifacient, which it is NOT.
This is the potential impact (from Womens eNews):
Organizations that don't comply with the proposed rule could be forced to scale back services due to lack of funding, leaving women who rely on government-funded family-planning clinics with fewer options for affordable services and supplies, Richards said. That would compound their financial difficulties at a time of rising rates of unemployment and higher costs for food and fuel.
...
The regulation could also undermine state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and that require health care insurance plans to cover contraceptives if they cover other prescription medications, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights lobby in Washington, D.C.
What else is impacted?
My fricking right to control my fertility without having a bunch of patriarchal asshats forcing me to tie my tubes (or stop having sex.)
Why am I kvetching about tying my tubes?
Because if hospitals are suddenly to be staffed by squeamish religious types who believe the Pill (and other devices) kills homunculi babies, then the only way to prevent pregnancy, clearly, would be to sterilize myself.
But would that really be cost effective for me (or any woman, for that matter)?
Tying ones tubes is not like having a vasectomy; it is not a simple snip-snip that can be done with a local anasthetic, in a soothing doctor's office while a little blue napkin lays across your lap. You don't go home and stay in bed for a few days with an ice pack between your legs. It's major surgery. It's invasive, expensive and hellishly inconvenient.
It looks like this.
Contraception, on the other hand, looks like this .
I've already done this, thank you very much. I would be more than a little resentful if I had to to it again.
As for the petty, ignorant, anti-woman Bush administration, I wonder if they convene meetings with agendas titled "How to Do the Most Damage in What Little Time We Have Left."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
hands off my ovaries, part one million: contraception does not kill babies!
ChurchGal: the other shoe drops: anti-choicers don't want you to have contraception!
i'm bumping this thread up to the top because i think it's a conversation we should start having in public now that groups are starting to target our legal right to contraception.
yes, our LEGAL right to use medically safe contraception and devices.
i want people to start thinking about the frakking consequences of their arguments, the frakking legal and social impact of their arguments. it's one thing to advocate and wish for the government to lay its hands on all aspects of one's intimate life but it's another to actually think about what this would look like in real life.
so, what would life really look like if fertilized eggs were declared 'people' (with separate, legal status) and how would this impact a woman's already legalized ability to use any kind of contraception?
...
this is an article, too, that one should read, written by pro-life Christian OB/GYNs about the Pill. in particular, for those who say that the Pill is an abortifacient, pay attention to what they say about how the Pill actually works:
"Most hormone contraceptives are noted to work by 3 methods of action:
1)Primarily, they inhibit ovulation by suppression of the pituitary/ovarian axis, mediated through suppression of gonadotrophin releasing hormone from the hypothalamus.
2)Secondarily, they inhibit transport of sperm through the cervix by thickening the cervical mucous.
3)They cause changes in the uterine lining (endometrium) which have historically been assumed to decrease the possibility of implantation, should fertilization occur. This presumption is commonly known as the "hostile endometrium" theory.
A thorough review of the medical literature uncovers ample data to support the first two methods of action, which are contraceptive actions. (Appropriate references will be found in the sections discussing each type of hormone contraceptive.) However, there is no direct evidence in the literature to support the third proposed method of action. This conclusion is shared by the respected Gynecologic Endocrinology textbook authors Yen and Jaffe." [emphasis mine]
further, the article goes on to say "An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that "on pill" conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with "off pill" conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norplant."
in other words, what happens when you conceive off the Pill happens when you conceive on the Pill. nothing's aborted - you're pregnant. so yeah...there goes that argument.
[feministing has another post from another OB/GYN that says pretty much the same thing here. it also mentions this thing called to 'right to privacy' that i think is at the heart of this push to make legal contraception suddenly illegal and harmful. i'll be writing on that later, i think. and, of course, my favorite OB/BYN blog, The Well Timed Period, has lots of useful and medically accurate information here.]
so if nothing's being killed, then why do these groups get their panties in a bunch about women using a Pill, an IUD or Norplant?
i will leave you to speculate.
i'm bumping this thread up to the top because i think it's a conversation we should start having in public now that groups are starting to target our legal right to contraception.
yes, our LEGAL right to use medically safe contraception and devices.
i want people to start thinking about the frakking consequences of their arguments, the frakking legal and social impact of their arguments. it's one thing to advocate and wish for the government to lay its hands on all aspects of one's intimate life but it's another to actually think about what this would look like in real life.
so, what would life really look like if fertilized eggs were declared 'people' (with separate, legal status) and how would this impact a woman's already legalized ability to use any kind of contraception?
...
this is an article, too, that one should read, written by pro-life Christian OB/GYNs about the Pill. in particular, for those who say that the Pill is an abortifacient, pay attention to what they say about how the Pill actually works:
"Most hormone contraceptives are noted to work by 3 methods of action:
1)Primarily, they inhibit ovulation by suppression of the pituitary/ovarian axis, mediated through suppression of gonadotrophin releasing hormone from the hypothalamus.
2)Secondarily, they inhibit transport of sperm through the cervix by thickening the cervical mucous.
3)They cause changes in the uterine lining (endometrium) which have historically been assumed to decrease the possibility of implantation, should fertilization occur. This presumption is commonly known as the "hostile endometrium" theory.
A thorough review of the medical literature uncovers ample data to support the first two methods of action, which are contraceptive actions. (Appropriate references will be found in the sections discussing each type of hormone contraceptive.) However, there is no direct evidence in the literature to support the third proposed method of action. This conclusion is shared by the respected Gynecologic Endocrinology textbook authors Yen and Jaffe." [emphasis mine]
further, the article goes on to say "An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that "on pill" conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with "off pill" conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norplant."
in other words, what happens when you conceive off the Pill happens when you conceive on the Pill. nothing's aborted - you're pregnant. so yeah...there goes that argument.
[feministing has another post from another OB/GYN that says pretty much the same thing here. it also mentions this thing called to 'right to privacy' that i think is at the heart of this push to make legal contraception suddenly illegal and harmful. i'll be writing on that later, i think. and, of course, my favorite OB/BYN blog, The Well Timed Period, has lots of useful and medically accurate information here.]
so if nothing's being killed, then why do these groups get their panties in a bunch about women using a Pill, an IUD or Norplant?
i will leave you to speculate.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
asshat: the entire state of Missouri
The Initiative for the Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortions (via Bitch Ph.D.)
This is how I imagine a conversation to go if such a law was established in Illinois:
Ding: I need an abortion
Nurse: Hm. Really. Why?
Ding: Because I'm pregnant and don't want to be. (Ass)
Nurse: Hm. I'm afraid that's not good enough. Are you being forced to get this abortion?
Ding: Yes. I'm being forced by the very fact that I am pregnant. If I wasn't pregnant, I wouldn't ask for the abortion.
Nurse: You're rather hostile.
Ding: I'm hostile to you because you are standing in the way of me not remaining pregnant.
Nurse: Would you like an ultra-sound?
Ding: No.
Nurse: Have you received counseling?
Ding: Have you?
Nurse: I think we might need to order a psych evaluation. For your safety. Just in case you're being forced to get this abortion against your will.
Ding: I'm not. Have at it. Abort away.
Nurse: I'm sorry. I can't. I'll need to refer you to our social worker who can evaluate your state of mind and then recommend -
Ding: How long will that take?
Nurse: Her earliest opening would be...next month.
Ding: So I'd have to wait another four weeks for my abortion.
Nurse: Yes. Then, perhaps another couple of weeks for an appointment.
Ding: So maybe another 6 weeks until I can get an abortion, pushing me further out of the window to get an abortion before it's considered a 'late term' abortion and not able to get one at all. You're basically going to stall this thing as long as you can until I'm forced to either give birth or rip this fetus from my own belly.
Nurse: Definitely a psych exam is in order.
(Ding lunges across desk.)
Nice fantasy, huh? Unfortunately, Missouri is taking steps to make sure you don't just have to imagine having asshat conversations like this; they actually want to legislate it.
People, it's time for a revolution.
[Note: Dad, I'm not really pregnant. That was totally made up. Do NOT get excited. There are no grandchildren on the way over here.]
This is how I imagine a conversation to go if such a law was established in Illinois:
Ding: I need an abortion
Nurse: Hm. Really. Why?
Ding: Because I'm pregnant and don't want to be. (Ass)
Nurse: Hm. I'm afraid that's not good enough. Are you being forced to get this abortion?
Ding: Yes. I'm being forced by the very fact that I am pregnant. If I wasn't pregnant, I wouldn't ask for the abortion.
Nurse: You're rather hostile.
Ding: I'm hostile to you because you are standing in the way of me not remaining pregnant.
Nurse: Would you like an ultra-sound?
Ding: No.
Nurse: Have you received counseling?
Ding: Have you?
Nurse: I think we might need to order a psych evaluation. For your safety. Just in case you're being forced to get this abortion against your will.
Ding: I'm not. Have at it. Abort away.
Nurse: I'm sorry. I can't. I'll need to refer you to our social worker who can evaluate your state of mind and then recommend -
Ding: How long will that take?
Nurse: Her earliest opening would be...next month.
Ding: So I'd have to wait another four weeks for my abortion.
Nurse: Yes. Then, perhaps another couple of weeks for an appointment.
Ding: So maybe another 6 weeks until I can get an abortion, pushing me further out of the window to get an abortion before it's considered a 'late term' abortion and not able to get one at all. You're basically going to stall this thing as long as you can until I'm forced to either give birth or rip this fetus from my own belly.
Nurse: Definitely a psych exam is in order.
(Ding lunges across desk.)
Nice fantasy, huh? Unfortunately, Missouri is taking steps to make sure you don't just have to imagine having asshat conversations like this; they actually want to legislate it.
People, it's time for a revolution.
[Note: Dad, I'm not really pregnant. That was totally made up. Do NOT get excited. There are no grandchildren on the way over here.]
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
the other shoe drops: anti-choicers don't want you to have contraception!
Feministing has a story here about the campaign from the American Life League to stop folks (uh, women) from using the Pill. It's called The Pill Kills!
Yeah, well. It DOESN'T. Basic science, people. Basic. But who cares about basic science when you can write frakked up stuff like this:
The birth control pill does not reduce the number of abortions. The only difference is that you are killing the baby earlier.
[T]he pill and other contraceptives can stop a tiny child’s implantation in his/her mother’s womb because the pill irritates the lining of the uterus so that the tiny baby boy or baby girl cannot attach to the lining of the uterus and the newly formed human person is aborted and dies. This is called a chemical abortion.
Never mind the fact the Pill prevents ovulation so there's no egg to be fertilized. Never mind the fact the Pill cripples the sperm to prevent it getting to the egg. Never mind the fact ... oh, hell. These people are ass and facts mean nothing to them.
Personally, I cannot extoll the wonderfulness of the Pill enough. It regulated my periods, it cleared up acne and, taken in a super concentrated dose, it also backed me up after a condom malfunction. (Yay, Plan B!)
So frak off, sex-hating old Bible thumping ign'ant prudes. Leave our contraception alone.
(And did I not call this 4 years ago?? I totally called it! Not satisfied with messing about with abortion, the 'I hate women' crowd goes for contraception. Arrgh.)
But what am I thinking? They don't even think married people should use contraception.
Ok, you know what my issue is? It's this: If these people really believe that the Pill kills tiny, cute, little homonculi, then fine. Be stupid. That is their right to be so ignorant, they think a fertilized egg is a person. Fill your quiver, baby. (And then home school the quiver and form a militia and get on the ATF watch list. Whatever.)
But they need to stop telling the rest of us to get on board with their freaking weirdo religious ideas!
Because that's what this is: it's a religious idea about when life begins. Religious freedom means they can do whatever they like; but it's a frikking imposition on MY religious and personal freedom when their actions can negatively impact my ability to control my Supreme Court-supported ability to control my own frakking fertility - according to my own religious ideas.
So. Whose religious ideas win? Mine? Or theirs?
Jeebus. I got so worked up I need a cocktail.
Yeah, well. It DOESN'T. Basic science, people. Basic. But who cares about basic science when you can write frakked up stuff like this:
The birth control pill does not reduce the number of abortions. The only difference is that you are killing the baby earlier.
[T]he pill and other contraceptives can stop a tiny child’s implantation in his/her mother’s womb because the pill irritates the lining of the uterus so that the tiny baby boy or baby girl cannot attach to the lining of the uterus and the newly formed human person is aborted and dies. This is called a chemical abortion.
Never mind the fact the Pill prevents ovulation so there's no egg to be fertilized. Never mind the fact the Pill cripples the sperm to prevent it getting to the egg. Never mind the fact ... oh, hell. These people are ass and facts mean nothing to them.
Personally, I cannot extoll the wonderfulness of the Pill enough. It regulated my periods, it cleared up acne and, taken in a super concentrated dose, it also backed me up after a condom malfunction. (Yay, Plan B!)
So frak off, sex-hating old Bible thumping ign'ant prudes. Leave our contraception alone.
(And did I not call this 4 years ago?? I totally called it! Not satisfied with messing about with abortion, the 'I hate women' crowd goes for contraception. Arrgh.)
But what am I thinking? They don't even think married people should use contraception.
Ok, you know what my issue is? It's this: If these people really believe that the Pill kills tiny, cute, little homonculi, then fine. Be stupid. That is their right to be so ignorant, they think a fertilized egg is a person. Fill your quiver, baby. (And then home school the quiver and form a militia and get on the ATF watch list. Whatever.)
But they need to stop telling the rest of us to get on board with their freaking weirdo religious ideas!
Because that's what this is: it's a religious idea about when life begins. Religious freedom means they can do whatever they like; but it's a frikking imposition on MY religious and personal freedom when their actions can negatively impact my ability to control my Supreme Court-supported ability to control my own frakking fertility - according to my own religious ideas.
So. Whose religious ideas win? Mine? Or theirs?
Jeebus. I got so worked up I need a cocktail.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Blog for Choice: there's no right without access
Let's talk about a great big elephant in the room before folks start celebrating the decreased need for abortion: access. From the Chicago Tribune article:
Bill Beckman, director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee, said he sees the national decline in abortion numbers as a victory for anti-abortion efforts."A number of states over the last five or six years have enhanced their pro-life laws, such as requirements for informed consent and parental notice," said Beckman. "When those laws take effect, the rate of abortion drops. I think the data they're getting is reflecting that change."
What Beckman calls an 'enhancement', I call 'building a financial box around women to make sure they're forced to give birth.'
Clinics offering abortion services are in a decline all over the country; in fact, since 2000, 77 clinics have closed and only 29 have opened. For some women in urban areas - with private doctors and access to a wide range of family planning options - access might not be such a hardship (yes, I know there are other circumstances that could slow down access to abortion in urban areas, like cash, but let's just deal with this.)
But for women in rural areas, travel could mean driving up to 50 miles to get to the nearest abortion provider. To get there and back, that woman would most likely have to schedule time off work taken as a sick day (perhaps an unpaid sick day and perhaps more than one day, particularly if that state requires a nonsensical 'waiting' period), loss of wages, perhaps arrangement of childcare for her other children (which adds to that woman's economic burden), increased travel expenses (i.e., gas) and just the physically wearying fact that she is driving to another county or state for a doctor's appointment.
I don't know about you, but I get pissed off if I have to go outside of my area code to see my ob/gyn, much less another state. And what does it cost me? A walk down the street from my office for a few blocks or, at most, a $7 cab ride if I take a cab from my house.
It is an undue hardship for a woman in downstate Illinois, or another rural area, to take two days off work for her abortion. Roadblocks to access basically put a woman needing an abortion between the proverbial financial rock and hard place. It's neat how the anti-choice folks have cut off a woman's reproductive rights from other realities in her life, like the economic ones. For them what's important is the unborn child; nevermind that there is a material cost to a woman's life if she has a child her life can't support (for whatever reason that it can't.)
In this next election there are some things to think about, the most important of which will be deciding which candidate will be able to ensure women have access to full reproductive health services. A lot of my friends are comfortable that Roe v. Wade will stand, but can we rely on that? Speaking with a lawyer friend tonight, she said that Roe v. Wade is probably one vote short of being knocked over in our forseeable future. We can also probably anticipate 2-3 Supreme Court vacancies in the immediate future. Which Presidential candidate will have the best chance to appoint Supreme Court justices willing to uphold Roe v. Wade? Can we safely rely on a Huckabee, a Romney, an Edwards or an Obama to act in women's best interests? Or can we only rely on a Clinton?
And action on the SCOTUS isn't the only thing to worry about. At the state level, over the past decade, states have become more aggressive in introducing legislation to limit, if not outright ban, access to abortion; states like Kansas, Missouri, The Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah, Iowa, Colorado, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina and Arkansas either already have, or are in the process of introducing, some of the most restrictive laws to affect a woman's right to control her own fertility. States aren't backing away from this fight; anti-choice grassroots lobbying has proven most effective at this level, while we scramble to keep a fricking clinic open in Aurora. (You can check out the states with the least access to abortion at the Abortion Acess Project website here.)
And what will happen in Illinois if our next governor is Republican? (Not so inconceivable, considering how Blago is alienating absolutely everyone these days.) Will the women of Illinois still enjoy access to birth control without the interference of pharmacists? Will we be able to rely on timely access of Plan B birth control? Will we be able to rely on the shrinking number of clinics that offer a wide range of reproductive health services to women? Or will we suddenly have to familiarize ourselves with the days of the underground Jane network, like back in the day? Will we find our family planning needs taking a back seat to a man's outdated, patriarchal ideas of female sexuality and autonomy? Will we suddenly find ourselves planning group trips to Canada or New York or California for a simple doctor's appointment?
The right to control our fertility does not exist if we do not have access to the services that allow us to control our fertility. Access isn't just for the women who have good medical benefits and live in a city and can rattle off where the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic is; it's for women who make barely minimum wage and live in places like Bloomington, Alton or Aurora and there's no one around to help them.
And that's what the issue of access means to me: helping women get over the situation they find themselves in, not making them stew in it for months or years because it justifies a stranger's religion. How does it help that woman to wait days to get done what she already decided? How does it help a woman when we make her empty her wallet to visit a doctor? How does it help a woman when you force her to give birth and take away her ability to control her own fertility?
I guess it doesn't.
Bill Beckman, director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee, said he sees the national decline in abortion numbers as a victory for anti-abortion efforts."A number of states over the last five or six years have enhanced their pro-life laws, such as requirements for informed consent and parental notice," said Beckman. "When those laws take effect, the rate of abortion drops. I think the data they're getting is reflecting that change."
What Beckman calls an 'enhancement', I call 'building a financial box around women to make sure they're forced to give birth.'
Clinics offering abortion services are in a decline all over the country; in fact, since 2000, 77 clinics have closed and only 29 have opened. For some women in urban areas - with private doctors and access to a wide range of family planning options - access might not be such a hardship (yes, I know there are other circumstances that could slow down access to abortion in urban areas, like cash, but let's just deal with this.)
But for women in rural areas, travel could mean driving up to 50 miles to get to the nearest abortion provider. To get there and back, that woman would most likely have to schedule time off work taken as a sick day (perhaps an unpaid sick day and perhaps more than one day, particularly if that state requires a nonsensical 'waiting' period), loss of wages, perhaps arrangement of childcare for her other children (which adds to that woman's economic burden), increased travel expenses (i.e., gas) and just the physically wearying fact that she is driving to another county or state for a doctor's appointment.
I don't know about you, but I get pissed off if I have to go outside of my area code to see my ob/gyn, much less another state. And what does it cost me? A walk down the street from my office for a few blocks or, at most, a $7 cab ride if I take a cab from my house.
It is an undue hardship for a woman in downstate Illinois, or another rural area, to take two days off work for her abortion. Roadblocks to access basically put a woman needing an abortion between the proverbial financial rock and hard place. It's neat how the anti-choice folks have cut off a woman's reproductive rights from other realities in her life, like the economic ones. For them what's important is the unborn child; nevermind that there is a material cost to a woman's life if she has a child her life can't support (for whatever reason that it can't.)
In this next election there are some things to think about, the most important of which will be deciding which candidate will be able to ensure women have access to full reproductive health services. A lot of my friends are comfortable that Roe v. Wade will stand, but can we rely on that? Speaking with a lawyer friend tonight, she said that Roe v. Wade is probably one vote short of being knocked over in our forseeable future. We can also probably anticipate 2-3 Supreme Court vacancies in the immediate future. Which Presidential candidate will have the best chance to appoint Supreme Court justices willing to uphold Roe v. Wade? Can we safely rely on a Huckabee, a Romney, an Edwards or an Obama to act in women's best interests? Or can we only rely on a Clinton?
And action on the SCOTUS isn't the only thing to worry about. At the state level, over the past decade, states have become more aggressive in introducing legislation to limit, if not outright ban, access to abortion; states like Kansas, Missouri, The Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah, Iowa, Colorado, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina and Arkansas either already have, or are in the process of introducing, some of the most restrictive laws to affect a woman's right to control her own fertility. States aren't backing away from this fight; anti-choice grassroots lobbying has proven most effective at this level, while we scramble to keep a fricking clinic open in Aurora. (You can check out the states with the least access to abortion at the Abortion Acess Project website here.)
And what will happen in Illinois if our next governor is Republican? (Not so inconceivable, considering how Blago is alienating absolutely everyone these days.) Will the women of Illinois still enjoy access to birth control without the interference of pharmacists? Will we be able to rely on timely access of Plan B birth control? Will we be able to rely on the shrinking number of clinics that offer a wide range of reproductive health services to women? Or will we suddenly have to familiarize ourselves with the days of the underground Jane network, like back in the day? Will we find our family planning needs taking a back seat to a man's outdated, patriarchal ideas of female sexuality and autonomy? Will we suddenly find ourselves planning group trips to Canada or New York or California for a simple doctor's appointment?
The right to control our fertility does not exist if we do not have access to the services that allow us to control our fertility. Access isn't just for the women who have good medical benefits and live in a city and can rattle off where the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic is; it's for women who make barely minimum wage and live in places like Bloomington, Alton or Aurora and there's no one around to help them.
And that's what the issue of access means to me: helping women get over the situation they find themselves in, not making them stew in it for months or years because it justifies a stranger's religion. How does it help that woman to wait days to get done what she already decided? How does it help a woman when we make her empty her wallet to visit a doctor? How does it help a woman when you force her to give birth and take away her ability to control her own fertility?
I guess it doesn't.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
huck for president?
Shake, Rattle and Roil the Grand Ol’ Coalition - New York Times
The Enduring Strength of Huckabee - Andrew Sullivan
Holy Huck, Straight out of Flannery O'Connor - Oh, Dave
Meet the Press transcript, Dec 30, 2007 - MSNBC
do you want an ex-baptist preacher for president?
Huckabee has an interesting reply when Meet the Press' Tim Russert asks him about his pastor past:
MR. RUSSERT: But where does this leave non-Christians?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Oh, it leaves them right in the middle of America. I think the Judeo-Christian background of this country is one that respects people not only of faith, but it respects people who don't have faith. The, the key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict. I think the First Amendment, Tim, is explicitly clear. Government should be restricted, not faith, government. And government's restriction is on two fronts: one, it's not to prefer one faith over another; and the second, it's not to prohibit the practice of somebody's religion, period.
MR. RUSSERT: So you'd have no problem appointing atheists to your Cabinet?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, I wouldn't have any problem at all appointing atheists. I probably had some working for me as governor. You know, I think you got to realize if people want--say, "Well, you were a pastor," but I was a governor 10 1/2 years. I have more executive experience running a government. I was actually in a government position longer than I was a pastor. And if people want to know how I would blend these issues, the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor. I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol. But my faith is important to me. I try to be more descriptive of it. I just don't want to run from it and act like it's not important. It drives my views on everything from the environment to poverty to disease to hunger. Issues, frankly, I think the Republicans need to take a greater leadership role in. And as a Republican, but as a Christian, I would want to make sure that we're speaking out on some of these issues that I think we've been lacking in as a party and as, as a nation. [emphasis mine]
my question is, where does the separation between political animal and person of faith begin? if, as Huckabee puts it, faith is an intrinsic part of him, how can he separate that faith from future political decisions, made for a pluralistic society? Huckabee says that his evangelical past leaves non-Christians in the middle of America; i think that's fairly astute. it leaves them surrounded by a government led by an evangelical Christian and a citizenry that believes in the literal truth of the Rapture for the most part. if you were a non-Christian wouldn't you feel a little heebie-jeebie?
the attacks on huckabee from his own party are interesting, too. the times article mentions folks like limbaugh calling Huckabee a fake Republican because of his populist stances on poverty and i have to admit that i always feel sort of good about whatever makes limbaugh get his drawers in a bunch. but then i remember this is a Republican candidate we're talking about. his likeability, speechifying and surprisingly holistic views on education and poverty aside, he's still the man who's the most dangerous to a woman's reproductive freedom. again, from Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: And what would happen to doctors or women who participated in abortion?
GOV. HUCKABEE: It's always the, the point of trying to say, "Are you going to criminalize it?" That's not the issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if it, if it's illegal, it would be.
GOV. HUCKABEE: It would be. And I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about--I consider her a victim, not a, not a criminal. You would...
MR. RUSSERT: But you would punish the doctor.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor. I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead. There's something that just doesn't ring true about the purpose of medical practice when the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is "First, do no harm." Well, if you take the life and suction out the pieces of an unborn child for no reason than its inconvenience to the mother, I don't think you've lived up to your Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm. [emphasis mine]
like his fellow social conservatives who shudder at the thought of women controlling their own fertility, Huck stops short of saying that those women should be thrown in prison. instead, he displays his unconscious devaluing of women by calling us victims. we aren't agents in the decisions we make about our fertility, but objects at the mercy of inveigling doctors or 'inconvenience.' whether his ideas stem from his faith or just a good old lack of trust in women's autonomy, they don't bode well for women's issues; do i want this man as president, wielding the power to appoint supreme court judges?
not so much.
Friday, October 19, 2007
birth control = sluts
a new director of family planning has been named and this time, it's a woman. dr. susan orr used to work for the Family Research Council, a conservative organization known for its anti-birth control stances, and is now going to be in charge of family planning for low-income people.
what does dr. orr think? she thinks contraception isn't a medical necessity because 'fertility isn't a disease.' well, no shit. contraception is just something we women need to have because, otherwise, we'd be pregnant all the frakking time.
i'm truly puzzled at this administration and folks who don't see what's wrong with this picture. birth control is good. it allows a family to control its fertility; it allows a woman to determine when and if she is going to get pregnant; and when access is wide, paired with education about contraception, abortion numbers go down.
but you know what it is: birth control = sex.
when a woman is on contraception, it's a marker that sex is in the makin' and unless you're in a proper heterosexual, monogamous marriage then having sex makes you a slut. (and if you're a dude, having sex just makes you more of a dude.)
so...birth control = sex = slut.
so basically, orr's appointment is just another step in the social conservative's movement to shame/punish women who have sex.
of course, planned parenthood has sent out an alert to oppose orr's appointment.
you know what you have to do.
The Associated Press: Family-Planning Appointment Denounced
what does dr. orr think? she thinks contraception isn't a medical necessity because 'fertility isn't a disease.' well, no shit. contraception is just something we women need to have because, otherwise, we'd be pregnant all the frakking time.
i'm truly puzzled at this administration and folks who don't see what's wrong with this picture. birth control is good. it allows a family to control its fertility; it allows a woman to determine when and if she is going to get pregnant; and when access is wide, paired with education about contraception, abortion numbers go down.
but you know what it is: birth control = sex.
when a woman is on contraception, it's a marker that sex is in the makin' and unless you're in a proper heterosexual, monogamous marriage then having sex makes you a slut. (and if you're a dude, having sex just makes you more of a dude.)
so...birth control = sex = slut.
so basically, orr's appointment is just another step in the social conservative's movement to shame/punish women who have sex.
of course, planned parenthood has sent out an alert to oppose orr's appointment.
you know what you have to do.
The Associated Press: Family-Planning Appointment Denounced
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
clinic to open in illinois!
Feministing has the news: Planned Parenthood's clinic is set to open in Aurora! congratulations to the planned parenthood folks!
(but you know they're in for it. it's going to be a siege on the clinic, the employees and the women who use their comprehensive reproductive health services.)
(but you know they're in for it. it's going to be a siege on the clinic, the employees and the women who use their comprehensive reproductive health services.)
Monday, October 01, 2007
accessing birth control hits home
Behind the Price of Birth Control RHRealityCheck.org
for the first time, i'm on birth control. when i was 18 i was briefly on the Pill to regulate my irregular and heavy periods. now, almost two decades later, i'm back on it. Seasonique is my new best friend. and each prescription roughly costs about $140.
i'm not on birth control simply to prevent pregnancy (though that's an added bonus). seasonique is preventing ovulation to assist in the shrinkage of my fibroid and to give me more of a chance to increase my iron levels - which would be dangerously low if i continued to ovulate and bleed every month.
what if i couldn't afford to buy Seasonique? i'd be screwed. my doctor and i would be in a tough spot - i'd keep ovulating and bleeding, my fibroid could possibly get bigger and more unstable and my anemia would continue unabated, affecting my overall health in a very dangerous way.
for social conservatives who think every woman is just like any other and all reproductive health issues are all the same, and simple, my being able to buy my prescription of Seasonique is no big deal. to some extent, it's not, really. i'm middle class, employed and have great health benefits through my employer. the odds of my not being able to afford a prescription for my birth control is fairly low. but what if i lose my job? what if my job changes? what about other women - what about women in the service industry who most likely don't have comprehensive health care plans, women who are working poor, or student women?
but the paucity of social conservative's rhetoric is patently unthoughtful: 'don't have sex' is their solution to complicated problems like access and, somehow, women who want to control their fertility or must depend on medication to address a reproductive health situation are 'irresponsible.' for these people, living like a religious celibate or 'letting nature, sickness and illness' run its course is preferred to prevention.
birth control has become the newest battle to control women's autonomy and i don't think women (any woman) can afford to be complacent about it. think about what life was like for women before the Pill - no, do more than think about it. research it. look at the laws and policies governing women's bodies before the Pill became available to women and think about what changes that brought to women's lives.
for the first time, i'm on birth control. when i was 18 i was briefly on the Pill to regulate my irregular and heavy periods. now, almost two decades later, i'm back on it. Seasonique is my new best friend. and each prescription roughly costs about $140.
i'm not on birth control simply to prevent pregnancy (though that's an added bonus). seasonique is preventing ovulation to assist in the shrinkage of my fibroid and to give me more of a chance to increase my iron levels - which would be dangerously low if i continued to ovulate and bleed every month.
what if i couldn't afford to buy Seasonique? i'd be screwed. my doctor and i would be in a tough spot - i'd keep ovulating and bleeding, my fibroid could possibly get bigger and more unstable and my anemia would continue unabated, affecting my overall health in a very dangerous way.
for social conservatives who think every woman is just like any other and all reproductive health issues are all the same, and simple, my being able to buy my prescription of Seasonique is no big deal. to some extent, it's not, really. i'm middle class, employed and have great health benefits through my employer. the odds of my not being able to afford a prescription for my birth control is fairly low. but what if i lose my job? what if my job changes? what about other women - what about women in the service industry who most likely don't have comprehensive health care plans, women who are working poor, or student women?
but the paucity of social conservative's rhetoric is patently unthoughtful: 'don't have sex' is their solution to complicated problems like access and, somehow, women who want to control their fertility or must depend on medication to address a reproductive health situation are 'irresponsible.' for these people, living like a religious celibate or 'letting nature, sickness and illness' run its course is preferred to prevention.
birth control has become the newest battle to control women's autonomy and i don't think women (any woman) can afford to be complacent about it. think about what life was like for women before the Pill - no, do more than think about it. research it. look at the laws and policies governing women's bodies before the Pill became available to women and think about what changes that brought to women's lives.
Friday, April 20, 2007
in addition to taxes, the virginia tech shootings, sexual assault month, equal pay day and alberto gonzales on the hot seat, there was the whole supreme court thing banning an abortion procedure with no exception made for the health of the mother.
and, as i predicted years ago, the inch by inch fight to control women's bodies wages on and the prospect that we will have to battle for a long time to maintain autonomous decision making about our own bodies looms larger. (could that sentence BE more convoluted?)
in other words, they're going to wage this fight procedure by procedure, week number by week number, until there's no margin at all and accessible abortions disappear.
so, in the eventuality that this 'abortion' fight becomes even more of an overall 'reproductive rights' fight, what do we really want?
i want over the counter access to Plan B for all girls/women - and i want the experience to be interference-free.
i want all forms of contraception to be covered by my effing health insurance.
i want comprehensive sex education in our schools and universities (you'd be appalled at what college students don't know.)
i want comprehensive pre-post natal healthcare to become an issue for our public officials.
and i want 'choice' advocates to change their message: it's not about choice. it's about comprehensive reproductive health care provision for women. it's about being able to have the best situation to have kids and the best situation not to have kids.
what's so freaking hard about that, people?
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions - New York Times
[and here is a link to Cecily, a mommy blogger who has a great post about what this ruling means in real life terms, as in, to women like her.]
and, as i predicted years ago, the inch by inch fight to control women's bodies wages on and the prospect that we will have to battle for a long time to maintain autonomous decision making about our own bodies looms larger. (could that sentence BE more convoluted?)
in other words, they're going to wage this fight procedure by procedure, week number by week number, until there's no margin at all and accessible abortions disappear.
so, in the eventuality that this 'abortion' fight becomes even more of an overall 'reproductive rights' fight, what do we really want?
i want over the counter access to Plan B for all girls/women - and i want the experience to be interference-free.
i want all forms of contraception to be covered by my effing health insurance.
i want comprehensive sex education in our schools and universities (you'd be appalled at what college students don't know.)
i want comprehensive pre-post natal healthcare to become an issue for our public officials.
and i want 'choice' advocates to change their message: it's not about choice. it's about comprehensive reproductive health care provision for women. it's about being able to have the best situation to have kids and the best situation not to have kids.
what's so freaking hard about that, people?
New Push Likely for Restrictions Over Abortions - New York Times
[and here is a link to Cecily, a mommy blogger who has a great post about what this ruling means in real life terms, as in, to women like her.]
Friday, March 23, 2007
last week, my Fancy Church threw a small fashion show to showcase our social service center and basically call for volunteers. it was sweet: a makeshift stage in the fellowship hall, our pastors and administrators wearing clothes that were donated to the center, thumping disco pouring from the speakers (modified slightly to reflect our churchy environs) and the smell of barbecued meatballs, cocktail wieners and banana pudding wafting from the back of the room. and half the audience smiling in their denturesand nodding underneath their gray wigs.
i leaned over to Roomie and whispered, 'this feels very british.'
she said, 'yeah. i'm having a Vicar of Dibley moment.'
...
some interesting things in the news lately.
so sad to hear about elizabeth edwards; i think it's rather brave of her to encourage her husband to keep on with his campaign. did anyone catch the katie couric interview? i heard it was a whopper; the reaction to it is rather interesting.
and then there's this article about the black church and gay people, which i thought was noteworthy. what stood out: attitudes toward homosexuality change once contact with gays becomes personal (through family or friends); and what one man interviewed said: 'God loves you but must correct you' or something like that.
(what does God's correction have to do with having gays in church? or preaching tolerance? seems to me that the whole 'gays must be corrected like everyone else' misses the fact that not 'everyone' gets 'corrected' the same way. so, until some straight person is told to get the hell out of dodge for being a lying philanderer, then folks should shut up about other folks needing 'correction.')
then there's this piece about the coast guard academy report whose findings showed that cadets would rather not report someone for sexual assault. considering how prevalent sexual assault is in our military academies, this should give us pause about how we're inculcating particular values in our armed forces. i wonder why we don't admit that our military academies are turning into breeding grounds for violent sociopaths. i mean, that seems to be the kind of soldier we want for our unending war against terror, isn't it? forget words like 'character' 'dignity' 'honor' or 'valor.'
but all is not lost. eric keroack, the anti-contraception 'doctor' who was appointed to oversee federal family planning programs resigned last night. yay!
i leaned over to Roomie and whispered, 'this feels very british.'
she said, 'yeah. i'm having a Vicar of Dibley moment.'
...
some interesting things in the news lately.
so sad to hear about elizabeth edwards; i think it's rather brave of her to encourage her husband to keep on with his campaign. did anyone catch the katie couric interview? i heard it was a whopper; the reaction to it is rather interesting.
and then there's this article about the black church and gay people, which i thought was noteworthy. what stood out: attitudes toward homosexuality change once contact with gays becomes personal (through family or friends); and what one man interviewed said: 'God loves you but must correct you' or something like that.
(what does God's correction have to do with having gays in church? or preaching tolerance? seems to me that the whole 'gays must be corrected like everyone else' misses the fact that not 'everyone' gets 'corrected' the same way. so, until some straight person is told to get the hell out of dodge for being a lying philanderer, then folks should shut up about other folks needing 'correction.')
then there's this piece about the coast guard academy report whose findings showed that cadets would rather not report someone for sexual assault. considering how prevalent sexual assault is in our military academies, this should give us pause about how we're inculcating particular values in our armed forces. i wonder why we don't admit that our military academies are turning into breeding grounds for violent sociopaths. i mean, that seems to be the kind of soldier we want for our unending war against terror, isn't it? forget words like 'character' 'dignity' 'honor' or 'valor.'
but all is not lost. eric keroack, the anti-contraception 'doctor' who was appointed to oversee federal family planning programs resigned last night. yay!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
for the teen in your life: Cycle Savvy
over here at This Woman's Work, she talks about a new book for teen girls teaching them how to read their own body's fertility signals. the full title is Cycle Savvy: The Smart Teen’s Guide to the Mysteries of Her Body and if my niece was 12 instead of 7, i'd give her this for christmas and watch my sister totally freak out.
but for now, my niece will have to be happy with Manners are Good.
but for now, my niece will have to be happy with Manners are Good.
Friday, November 17, 2006
awesome: another man who doesn't know his ovary from his scrotal sac
salon's Broadsheet has an awesome heads up about the guy who's about to be in charge of contraception access and family planning education/policy. sort of like the vet (i.e., dr. dolittle) who was slated to become the head of Women's Issues at the FDA, this new guy is a treat.
he's a pal of leslie unruh, the author of the South Dakota universal abortion ban legislation. (which was defeated.)
he's a schill for the notoriously 'light on scientific accuracy' abstinence-only crowd for the christian right. (which doesn't work.)
(want his bio? check out talk2action's research here.)
he runs a string of those so-called crisis pregnancy centers in massachusets.
and his biggest claim to fame?
he thinks:
(basic science: while it's true that oxytocin plays a major role during labor, breastfeeding and is released into the bloodstream during orgasm - as vasopressin is released in males - and that it does seem to enable trust and ease social anxiety, his basic premise that sexual promiscuity will use up 'too much' and your ability to form bonds with another person will diminish is bullshit - at least not for biological reasons. the number of partners shouldn't matter. if oxytocin levels were subject to fluctuation because of orgasm/sexual intercourse then it would be instance that mattered, not the number of partners.
and what a wonderful, discerning little chemical it would be! if all this was true, then it would also follow that oxytocin is able to distinguish between sex with a marital partner and sex with an extra-marital partner, would it not? genius little chemical!
anyway, oxytocin doesn't 'run out'. if that was the case, every time a woman gave birth she'd be capable of less bonding with each successive child - not to mention that with each instance of sex with her partner, over time, she'd be less able to maintain that bond. see? illogical bullshit.
and doesn't he know that oxytocin now comes in pill or nasal spray? no one has to suffer low bonding!)
this total ignoramus is going to be in charge of a government program for women's sexual health. monday is his first day. nice.
does george w. bush know ANY qualified people??
he's a pal of leslie unruh, the author of the South Dakota universal abortion ban legislation. (which was defeated.)
he's a schill for the notoriously 'light on scientific accuracy' abstinence-only crowd for the christian right. (which doesn't work.)
(want his bio? check out talk2action's research here.)
he runs a string of those so-called crisis pregnancy centers in massachusets.
and his biggest claim to fame?
he thinks:
sex causes people to go through oxytocin withdrawal which in turn prevents people from bonding in relationships. Seriously.
[Keroack] explained that oxytocin is released during positive social interaction, massage, hugs, “trust” encounters, and sexual intercourse. “It promotes bonding by reducing fear and anxiety in social settings, increasing trust and trustworthiness, reducing stress and pain, and decreasing social aggression,” he said.
But apparently if you’ve had sex with too many people you use up all that oxytocin: "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual.” Hear that? Too many sexual partners and you’ll never love again!
(basic science: while it's true that oxytocin plays a major role during labor, breastfeeding and is released into the bloodstream during orgasm - as vasopressin is released in males - and that it does seem to enable trust and ease social anxiety, his basic premise that sexual promiscuity will use up 'too much' and your ability to form bonds with another person will diminish is bullshit - at least not for biological reasons. the number of partners shouldn't matter. if oxytocin levels were subject to fluctuation because of orgasm/sexual intercourse then it would be instance that mattered, not the number of partners.
and what a wonderful, discerning little chemical it would be! if all this was true, then it would also follow that oxytocin is able to distinguish between sex with a marital partner and sex with an extra-marital partner, would it not? genius little chemical!
anyway, oxytocin doesn't 'run out'. if that was the case, every time a woman gave birth she'd be capable of less bonding with each successive child - not to mention that with each instance of sex with her partner, over time, she'd be less able to maintain that bond. see? illogical bullshit.
and doesn't he know that oxytocin now comes in pill or nasal spray? no one has to suffer low bonding!)
this total ignoramus is going to be in charge of a government program for women's sexual health. monday is his first day. nice.
does george w. bush know ANY qualified people??
Saturday, November 04, 2006
an indecent proposal: if not sex, then how about this...?
have you heard?
as the human sexuality timeline shortens between When We Used to Have Sex and When Sex is Bad in All Forms, apparently the federal gov has decided to be papa to teens AND adults: they want to spend federal dollars on telling adults to not have sex.
the moral reach of our government has now reached a complete, infantilizing low.
is spending federal dollars to tell already sexually active adults to stop being sexually active really the BEST use of our government's budget? what else would they like to spend dollars on - telling us to brush our teeth, eat our veggies, and look both ways before we cross the street?
figleaf has an excellent idea. since uncle sam hates the idea of us gettin' busy, maybe he'll be cool with us touching our private places in pleasurable ways, instead. i'm pretty sure that masturbation counts as abstinence so perhaps the gals at tulip will be able to apply for some of that federal money to promote an 'abstinent' yet pleasurable lifestyle. you think?
(unless killing pleasure is the point. gasp!)
Friday, October 27, 2006
our reproductive battles from the eyes of the brits
from the guardian article:
when i started teaching, my pedagogy instructors always said, 'if you want discussion, avoid questions that can only elicit a yes/no answer.' so i'd like to rewrite those questions the guardian says our ongoing reproductive health battles prompt:
What are the ethics of forcing a mother to forgo potentially life-saving medical treatment for the sake of the baby she's carrying?
Why should a woman be forced to give birth to a child conceived in rape?
Why should a woman carry to term a baby who won't have a brain?
of course unruh will say yes to easy 'yes/no' questions (so would we on the pro-choice side). but wouldn't it be interesting to hear her answers to the above questions? wouldn't those questions also enrich the discussions on the pro-choice side?
i think so.
America's abortion battlefield | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited
This is America's abortion debate in its purest, most distilled form: yes or no. There is no province for doubt. Should a woman be compelled to carry a baby to term when doctors tell her it will be born with no brain? Should a pregnant woman forgo potentially life-saving medical treatment for the sake of the baby she is carrying? Should a woman be forced to give birth to a child conceived in rape? Yes, yes and yes, says Leslee Unruh, the guiding light of South Dakota's anti-abortion activists. She has devoted her life to ending abortion, driven by her own guilt at having a termination as a young woman.
when i started teaching, my pedagogy instructors always said, 'if you want discussion, avoid questions that can only elicit a yes/no answer.' so i'd like to rewrite those questions the guardian says our ongoing reproductive health battles prompt:
What are the ethics of forcing a mother to forgo potentially life-saving medical treatment for the sake of the baby she's carrying?
Why should a woman be forced to give birth to a child conceived in rape?
Why should a woman carry to term a baby who won't have a brain?
of course unruh will say yes to easy 'yes/no' questions (so would we on the pro-choice side). but wouldn't it be interesting to hear her answers to the above questions? wouldn't those questions also enrich the discussions on the pro-choice side?
i think so.
America's abortion battlefield | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
hide that diaphragm, ladies.
i think i just got heartburn.
no longer just a hidden paranoia amongst the pro-choice, the new evangelical 'war' on contraception has finally broken the surface. i knew it would happen.
i love all the space given to the anti-family planning side while the pro-family planning side is given just a few inches toward the end, legitimizing the idea that people (mostly women) shouldn't have the right to use contraception.
Abortion foes' new rallying point | Chicago Tribune
so.
all those married ladies on the pill or using the sponge, diaphragm or IUD? forget it.
all those married guys who don't want to get a vasectomy and so use condoms? too bad.
everyone else who doesn't want to get pregnant (for various reasons) and who don't believe the same as others about the place of sex in a relationship (or out of one)? yeah, too bad.
sex is only for married folks, people. the fundies have said so.
and now they're going to FORCE you to be celibate.
whether you like it or not.
...
update: want some stats on men, the 'male pill' and their usage of contraception? here's something from planned parenthood -
no longer just a hidden paranoia amongst the pro-choice, the new evangelical 'war' on contraception has finally broken the surface. i knew it would happen.
i love all the space given to the anti-family planning side while the pro-family planning side is given just a few inches toward the end, legitimizing the idea that people (mostly women) shouldn't have the right to use contraception.
Abortion foes' new rallying point | Chicago Tribune
so.
all those married ladies on the pill or using the sponge, diaphragm or IUD? forget it.
all those married guys who don't want to get a vasectomy and so use condoms? too bad.
everyone else who doesn't want to get pregnant (for various reasons) and who don't believe the same as others about the place of sex in a relationship (or out of one)? yeah, too bad.
sex is only for married folks, people. the fundies have said so.
and now they're going to FORCE you to be celibate.
whether you like it or not.
...
update: want some stats on men, the 'male pill' and their usage of contraception? here's something from planned parenthood -
Ask Dr. Cullins: Birth Control
Q: How soon will it be before there's a pill for men?
A: There are still years to go, although there seem to be breakthroughs in the research every once in a while. Finding a safe and effective way to keep a man from producing millions of sperm a day has proven to be more difficult than it is to keep a woman from producing one egg a month.
However long it takes, it will be worthwhile. Men are very willing to take responsibility for birth control, even though there are comparatively few options for them. In fact, men now take responsibility for more than a third of all contraception. More than 20 percent of all couples who use contraception rely on the condom. Nearly 11 percent rely on vasectomy. Three percent rely on withdrawal. And more than two percent rely on periodic abstinence.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
i'll believe it when i see it: the 'oops' plan
dead horse, beaten.
if unintended pregnancies and abortions are to be avoided, then a full range of contraception is necessary for a woman's sexual and reproductive health.
Soon no prescription for morning-after pill?
a doozy:
"You might have an 18-year-old girl who decides that rather than practice safe sex and plan responsibly, 'I no longer have to worry about it. I can just go to the pharmacy,' " said state Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Troy), a Downstate pharmacist for 31 years.
Stephens, who is morally opposed to the morning-after pill and refuses to fill such prescriptions, said selling Plan B over-the-counter compromises patient safety by "taking the doctor and the pharmacist out of the equation."
love how the majority of adult women are held hostage to this hypothetical dumbass 18-yr old AND love how now Rep Stephens is blathering about 'taking the doctor out' of the process when he and his pals think it's just fine for doctors and pharmacists to refuse to dispense plain old birth control.
which is it, doc? you WANT women to have access to prescribed birth control or you DON'T?
(if people just want other people to stop having sex outside of christian monogamous marriage, you've had millions of years to nail it and it still hasn't worked. congrats.)
if unintended pregnancies and abortions are to be avoided, then a full range of contraception is necessary for a woman's sexual and reproductive health.
Soon no prescription for morning-after pill?
a doozy:
"You might have an 18-year-old girl who decides that rather than practice safe sex and plan responsibly, 'I no longer have to worry about it. I can just go to the pharmacy,' " said state Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Troy), a Downstate pharmacist for 31 years.
Stephens, who is morally opposed to the morning-after pill and refuses to fill such prescriptions, said selling Plan B over-the-counter compromises patient safety by "taking the doctor and the pharmacist out of the equation."
love how the majority of adult women are held hostage to this hypothetical dumbass 18-yr old AND love how now Rep Stephens is blathering about 'taking the doctor out' of the process when he and his pals think it's just fine for doctors and pharmacists to refuse to dispense plain old birth control.
which is it, doc? you WANT women to have access to prescribed birth control or you DON'T?
(if people just want other people to stop having sex outside of christian monogamous marriage, you've had millions of years to nail it and it still hasn't worked. congrats.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
