In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Early-Term Abortion Legalized in Mexico City

Good news for women in Mexico City: the Mexico City legislature has legalized abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, a big step forward for women’s health:

Feminists hailed the vote as a clear victory. For decades, poor women here have resorted to clandestine clinics, traditional midwives and herbal potions to end unwanted pregnancies. Scores die every year in botched abortions. “It’s a triumph for women’s rights,” said María Consuelo Mejía, the director of Catholics for the Right to Decide.

The usual grumbling from pro-lifers and religious groups ensued, and the law will likely be challenged. But in the meantime, the vote shows that the legislature of Mexico City is beginning to break free of the Church’s influence, and not just on reproductive issues:

The fight has driven a wedge into this deeply Catholic society and shed light on the waning influence of the church in the wake of sexual abuse scandals involving priests. In January, church leaders could not stop the city assembly from passing a law allowing civil unions among homosexuals.

Now with this vote, this capital city became the largest entity in Latin America, outside Cuba and Puerto Rico, to permit women to have abortions on demand in the first trimester. The vote, which legalized abortion within the federal district, means that the 10 million women in Mexico City and its suburbs will have easy access to an abortion. And anyone living in Mexico could travel here for an abortion.

Proponents of the law say they hope it will become a model for states in Mexico, most of which only allow abortion under conditions like rape or danger to the mother’s health.

Make no mistake: this will save lives as it allows women access to safe, legal abortion. Congratulations, Mexico City!

Thanks to Melissa M. in comments.

Mother, May I Sleep With Danger? Well, just as long as you don’t marry him, honey, he might turn out to be an MRA

It’s late, I’m tired, and I have a million other things to do right now, but I could not pass this up. Seems that MRA David Usher has identified the source of the problem with American women, who are gettin’ all above themselves, thinking they have a right not to be beaten by their husbands:

Lifetime Television.

While Don Imus is being thrashed within an inch of his career for making neanderthal comments about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, and the real victims of the Duke Rape Case have finally been identified, radical feminists at Lifetime Movie Channel are committing acts of social violence against men that are far worse.

That’s right, kids: Melissa Gilbert and those hairy-legged radfems at Lifetime, with their soft focus and their Tinkly Pianos of Peril, are behind an even greater social menace than malicious prosecution: the Lifetime Movie!

Read More…Read More…

Virgnia Tech and Mental Illness

The reporting on the Virginia Tech tragedy has been cringe-worthy for many reasons. The conservative punditry has been worse (especially the bending over backwards to figure out how we can blame Muslims for this one). But of the myriad causes of Cho’s violence cited by people on all sides of the debate, mental illness has been the primary one. And, obviously, that analysis is solid — no one denies that Cho was seriously mentally disturbed, and was not getting the help he needed. But what worries me is where that analysis is going, particularly in conservative circles — where the answer seems to be, “Lock up the crazies. And blame the ACLU if you can’t.”

If you ask me, if we are going to let these crazies run free, not forcing them to be institutionalized, then we need to goddamn well do a better job of protecting the public from them. There’s a reason why they used to be locked up, and it was to protect society. Virginia Tech totally dropped the goddamn ball with this guy; there’s no reason why they should have to educate dangerous people. I know, it’s all about wishy-washy liberal ideals–can’t deny someone with mental illness their “right” to a college education. “Diversity.” My ass. I hope the families of the dead victims sue the hell out of VT for letting this creep anywhere near their kids after all the concerns were raised by students and faculty. I hope they sue the state for letting him go when they had him. I know suing won’t bring their family members back, but maybe it’ll start people thinking about how to deal with lunatics a little better. You can bet if people are faced with multi-million dollar lawsuits, they’ll use their heads.

I’m sick and tired of these crazies and the shit they do to other people. To hell with the simpering ACLU and all these ridiculous liberal idealists who want them to have “rights” like the rest of us without the responsibilities.

Read More…Read More…

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

Give us what you got.

Don’t forget the link and description.

I don’t have anything myself, since I’ve spent the entire weekend either at IKEA (what is it about that place? I go in for light bulbs and leave with a sofabed. Subliminal messages? Crack in the Swedish meatballs?) or doing a serious decluttering and clearout in preparation for calling the real estate agent. I’m shooting for an open house in two or three weeks, depending on when I can get the place painted. In fact, given that I’m still working on clearing out (I *have* been here five and a half years), posting from me will probably be pretty light this week.

Kenyan hospitals overwhelmed by women injured by illegal abortion. Thank a “pro-lifer.”

abortion laws
Abortion laws world-wide. Red countries on the map: Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman’s life. Pink countries on the map: Abortion legally permitted only to save a woman’s life or protect her physical health. via.

Compare with:

maternal mortality
via (caution: disturbing images of dead children).

Notice anything?

Unsafe abortion is the leading cause of gynecological emergencies in Kenya, where the procedure is illegal. Several studies all yielded the same conclusion: Hospitals are overwhelmed with women injured (and sometimes killed) by illegal abortion. In one study, 43 percent of all women admitted for gynecological disorders were women who had unsafe abortions; in another, unsafe abortions accounted for 60 percent of gynecological emergencies; in another, 87 percent. More than half of the unsafe abortions in the second study were procured by girls under the age of 14.

Our current international policy promotes abstinence until marriage for women in developing nations (including Kenya). We cut off funding to any organization that so much as mentions abortion — including advocating for abortion rights to save the health and lives of these women. This policy — the Global Gag Rule — puts women and children’s lives in danger in an effort to appease our current president’s “pro-life” base. They’ll tell you that the Gag Rule is in place because U.S. tax dollars should not be funding abortions abroad. What they won’t tell you — because they’re lying through their teeth — is that U.S. dollars have been barred from funding abortions since the 1970s; U.S. dollars did not fund abortions abroad during the Clinton era, when the Gag Rule was rescinded; and U.S. dollars will never fund abortion abroad, even if the Gag Rule is lifted — unless the 1973 Helms Amendment is repealed, and that won’t be happening any time soon. So this isn’t about paying for abortions. It’s about allowing health care organizations to agitate for abortion rights. It’s about allowing health care workers to mention abortion as an option in countries where the procedure is legal. It’s about allowing clinics to fund legal abortions with their own non-U.S. money.

But ideology is more important than reality, and as we cut off health care funds and chant “just get married!,” the bodies pile up (keep in mind that the same clinics which provide reproductive health services are often the same clinics that provide safer sex information, sexual health education, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention information, pre-natal care, and well-baby care).

Dozens of organizations and health care clinics have lost funding because of the Gag Rule. Restoring funding to the United Nations Population Fund, just one of the organizations whose budgets were cut, could prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions this year. Getting contraception to women who want it could prevent 22 million abortions, 23 million unplanned births, and 1.4 million infant deaths.

I covered this more in-depth a couple of years ago, and I’ll re-emphasize something I wrote then:

Bush’s policies have also exacerbated the global AIDS crisis, as many of the family planning clinics that were shut down or de-funded by the gag rule also served as HIV/AIDS education and treatment centers. The U.S. Agency for International Development, for example, provides more condoms to developing nations than any other organization, but its shipments have been scaled back or cut off completely to 29 countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East because of the gag rule.

Funding for condoms is so low that if all the condoms in Africa were evenly distributed to the men on that continent, each man would be allotted three per year.

In places like Kenya, nearly half of maternal mortalities are the result of unsafe abortions. The average Kenyan woman has five births, and lives until the age of 50. The majority of Kenyan women lack access to contraception. And while terms like “unsafe abortion” don’t sound particularly pleasant, let’s keep in mind what the reality of “unsafe abortion” actually is for many women. From a pre-election column I wrote in 2004:*

When you go to cast your vote Nov. 2, remember women like Hillary Fyfe, whose abstinence-based HIV prevention group Family Life Movement in Zambia lost $30,000 in U.S. funding due to Bush’s policies.

Fyfe has seen the results of the gag rule firsthand, as women induce abortions by “swallowing pounded glass, pushing sharp needles or other unsafe instruments through their uterus, pushing poisonous substances up their vaginas like cuttings from trees or roots, drinking bleach mixed with glass, or overdosing on malaria pills.

“All of the above end up with the death of both mother and child,” Fyfe writes. “Or the child dies and the mother is crippled for life. These cases are a daily occurrence.”

In countries where abortion is legal — like the United States — it’s one of the safest surgical procedures around. It’s safer than getting a penicillin shot. But because we love “life” so much, we’ll make it harder for women in poorer nations to have the same right to medical care and bodily integrity. And while we’re talking about how much we love babies, we’ll look the other way when desperate women are drinking bleach mixed with glass to terminate a pregnancy. We’ll look the other way when actual babies — you know, born ones — are dying. We’ll look the other way when children are orphaned because our international policies kill and maim their mothers. And we’ll still have the audacity to call ourselves “pro-life.”

via Feministing.

*Excuse the quoting-of-thyself. It’s just easier than re-researching every piece of information I’ve already written about.

“Pro-Life” Mississippi Has Highest Infant Mortality Rate in the Nation

breaking ground
White dudes in Mississippi inexplicably gleeful about breaking ground for an anti-abortion “memorial to the missing” (no, for real). No word on whether they’re helping to dig graves for the 481 Mississippi-born babies who died in 2005 — 65 more than the previous year, as the “pro-life” policies that these smiling men promote take stronger hold. Also no word on whether any of the $10,000 (or more) that they’re raising will be used to actually promote the health of pregnant women or babies. Or even to help buy headstones for the graves of infants born to poor mothers, some of which are currently being marked with metal signs.

According to a national “pro-life” organization, Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, who has pushed a series of anti-choice laws, has made his state “the safest place in America for an unborn child.”

Too bad the same can’t be said for born children,
as Mississippi now has the highest infant mortality rate in the country.

Barbour is so “pro-life” that he has made medical care — including pre-natal and children’s health care — harder to get.

As a result, the number of non-elderly people, mainly children, covered by the Medicaid and CHIP programs declined by 54,000 in the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. According to the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program in Jackson, some eligible pregnant women were deterred by the new procedures from enrolling.

Mississippi now has the highest infant mortality rate in the country (and other “pro-life” states in the South aren’t doing much better). In Mississippi, 11.4 babies die per every 1,000 live births (compared to 6.9 per 1,000 nation-wide, as of the last time national data was collected). Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina also saw increases in infant mortality. To put that in context, Mississippi has an infant mortality rate right around that of Uruguay, Ukraine, Macedonia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Mississippi’s infant mortality rate is twice as high as that of Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Singapore, Norway, and a slew of other countries.

Mississippi also has the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. And the second-highest rate of child poverty.

Interestingly, a postelection comparison found that “red” states had higher infant mortality rates than “blue” ones. In general, states that restrict abortion spend far less money per child than prochoice states on services such as foster care, education, welfare and the adoption of children who have physical and mental disabilities, according to a 2000 book by political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel.

Schroedel also found that women in antiabortion states are worse off than their counterparts in prochoice states. They suffer from lower levels of education, higher levels of poverty, and a larger gender gap in earnings. They are also less likely to enjoy mandated insurance coverage for minimum hospital stays after childbirth. Together, the conditions make for an abysmal reality for women in Mississippi, which came in fifty-first in a 2004 ranking of the status of women in the fifty states and Washington, DC, published by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

It’s not a coincidence that the most “pro-life” states are the worst places to be born. There has long been a connection between pro-choice policies and healthy women, healthy families and healthy babies. Healthy women make for healthy babies — and pro-choice policies, which value women’s health, affirm women’s humanity, and embrace women’s general well-being, make for healthy women. It should not surprise us that the same people who fetishize fetal life at the expense of women’s lives don’t really give a damn once that fetus becomes a baby. It shouldn’t surprise us that when states under-value women and consider us incubators unworthy of basic self-determination and control over our own reproduction, that women are less healthy, and children suffer because of it.

The most “pro-life” countries in the world are some of the worst places for women’s and children’s health. The most “pro-life” states in this country are the worst places in the nation for women’s and children’s health. When “pro-life” policies dominate, infant and maternal mortality spikes, women are under-educated, poverty rises, and children go hungry.

But remember: It’s “pro-lifers” who love teh babies. Because, well, they say so.

Faith-Based Justices

Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has a brilliant piece up at HuffPo today about Gonzales v. Carhart, the “partial-birth” abortion case. Go read now. Go, go, go. It is fantastic.

Stone points out that this case is a blatant conflation of religion with law, and that the five justices in the majority (all Catholics) based their decision on their personal religious morality, rather than on established legal concepts. I’m not going to try to summarize his arguments, because his piece is so good that I won’t be able to do it justice. So, seriously, go read it.

Back? Ok. So I made the mistake of subjecting myself to the HuffPo comments to Stone’s piece, and I came across this gem:

Mr. Stone,

I don’t think you are Catholic or even Christian because if you were, you would understand that Christ commanded us to live our faith everyday.

Now, someone might ask, what do you mean.

Living your faith everyday means that you live it personally at home,at church,at play and at work. Essentially, you always try to live it wherever you are. Now, I’m certainly not perfect and no one is. But living it means if you are a civil servant or even a judge you are just as required to live your faith.

Quite possibly, they were trying to live their faith when they decide to uphold the ruling against partial birth abortion.

Whatever the case,upholding the Constitution of The United States does not preclude a Christian from living his or her faith, quite the opposite in fact.

Personally, I always wonder about people who are Non-Catholics, some of them always seem to think they have their own almighty right to judge us.

Read More…Read More…

Friday Random Ten – the Burn One Down edition

1. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds – Knockin’ on Joe
2. Bill Evans Trio – Stan’s Blues
3. Yo La Tengo – Moonrock Mambo
4. Jill Scott – Gotta Get Up (Another Day)
5. Miles Davis – All Blues
6. Bonny Billy – A Dream of the Sea
7. Tom Waits – Blind Love
8. The Kinks – Picture Book
9. The Avett Brothers – Salvation Song
10. Mark Lanegan – Hit the City

It’s 4/20 dude!! High school stoners, rejoice. And for you, some Cab Calloway.

Posted in Uncategorized

And–

A guest post by pigeon over at Taking Steps on reporting rape from a survivor’s standpoint:

and it would still have turned out really fucking ugly. at best, i would only have had to face social consequences at school, among my peers; at worst, if it actually went to trial, if the media got involved (as cities go—if you could even call it that—the place was pretty small, so it’s entirely possible), i would have been surrounded and questioned and examined from all sides. and that would only be the outward assault—i have no idea how i would have held up emotionally under that kind of scrutiny. and who’s to say what the outcome would have been, i could very well have ended up a liar and a slut who almost ruined some poor boy’s life.

yeah, reporting sure is not looking too appealing.

and then imagine that you didn’t have a supportive family, maybe you risked physical abuse if your parents found out. imagine you’re black and the people you’re reporting to throw back racist stereotypes about how black women are promiscuous and sexually aggressive. imagine you’re a drug addict, imagine you’ve been in trouble before, maybe a lot, maybe you’ve got a record. imagine that he was actually your boyfriend, and that you’d been having sex for a few months now. imagine that your whole high school calls you a slut already. imagine that you really like to wear short skirts.

and how much worse does reporting sound now?