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

Sorry, Feministe, I am leaving you*

I am also leaving New York, because I have found true love, and it’s with this guy. Money quote:

The man told officers Amundson’s bizarre behavior continued. Amundson lay on his side and lifted one leg in the air, exposing himself, the man told police.

“(He) stated that he wished that he could get the image out of his head and that he was very disturbed by Amundson’s actions,” the Seattle detective told the court. “(He) stated that he … never would want his children to see something like that.”

That’s my boyfriend.

____________________________________________
*Kidding, of course. I would never leave you. Unless James Amundson calls me.

Posted in Uncategorized

Why abortion funding matters

In the United States, federal funds do not pay for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the pregnant woman’s life or health. Congressional Republicans are doing their best to get rid of even those narrow exceptions, and it’s crucial to sound the alarm about how hostile their bill is to rape survivors and women everywhere.

But even the status quo is pretty terrible for low-income women. The Hyde Amendment, which has been around for decades, limits federal Medicaid funding of abortion — so low-income women who rely on Medicaid for their health care have to pay for abortion out-of-pocket. “No taxpayer dollars for abortion” is a nice-sounding slogan, but the reality for women on the ground is that insufficient Medicaid funding means that an unwanted pregnancy is disastrous. Via Amanda, The National Network of Abortion Funds has collected the stories of women who have used their services, and the testimonials are heart-breaking. One example:

My son is 11 months old with a serious birth defect. He’s been in and out of intensive care for his whole life and has three or four doctor’s appointments every month. After he was born, I had to drop out of college and I lost my job because of all the appointments. My son’s medical care is covered by Medicaid, but it won’t cover my abortion.

How can I find the money for an abortion when there’s not enough for diapers? And how could I raise two babies when the one I have now needs all that I have to give?

I just moved to this state to live with my best friend and her baby. We thought that we could do better if we worked together, took care of each other.

But now I’ve already had to take money out of our grocery fund to put toward the cost of my abortion. My friend understands, but we’re going to be short on food money for a while. I borrowed money from some old classmates. I sold my television. I managed to scrape together what I needed. But when I got to the clinic, they told me that my abortion would cost $100 more.

$100 more than I had. $100 more than I could imagine finding.

There was no way I could go home without getting my abortion. So I sat down my diaper bag and started pulling things out – formula, bottles, diapers – to sell to the other women in the waiting room. Maybe I could raise that $100 right there.

Let’s keep up the #DearJohn work to make sure that the pool of women who cannot access abortion doesn’t get any bigger. But also consider donating to the National Network of Abortion Funds, to help women in need.

#DearJohn: The GOP Seeks to Re-Define Rape and Restrict Reproductive Health Care

It’s not surprising that with large numbers of Republicans elected to Congress, we’re seeing major assaults on reproductive rights. What is shocking is how aggressive and heartless they are. A new bill, which has a good chance of passing, will deny abortion services to rape survivors; cut abortion care from private insurance policies; and remove exceptions for abortions that preserve a pregnant woman’s health.

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, which is sponsored by vocal anti-choice republican Chris Smith, does the following:

-Re-defines rape. As it stands, federal dollars do not cover abortion, except in instances of rape, incest or a threat to the pregnant woman’s health or life. This bill requires that the rape exception only cover “forcible” rape — so if you’re 14 and you’re impregnated by your 30-year-old “boyfriend,” that’s not really rape and you’d better start saving up your allowance if you want to terminate the pregnancy. “Forcible” isn’t defined in the bill — if you’re drugged and then raped, that might not count, since there wasn’t force involved. There’s also an incest exception, but only for minors — so if your father rapes you and you’re 18, too bad.

-Removes exceptions for the woman’s health. This bill allows federal funds to cover abortion if a physician certifies that the pregnancy will kill her, but allows no exceptions for the pregnant woman’s health. So if, for example, continuing a pregnancy will damage the woman’s kidneys so badly that she’ll need to be on dialysis for the rest of her life? Too bad, that’s not life-threatening.

-Requires that the government continue to fund entities that discriminate against women and endanger women’s health. The text of the bill reads “A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance (either directly or indirectly), may not subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” So health care facilities can not only refuse to provide abortions, but can also refuse to refer women out for abortion coverage — even, I assume, if it’s an emergency situation and the woman’s health or life is on the line — and the federal government cannot withdraw funds. This is particularly troubling when the term “abortion” is being regularly re-defined to include even birth control and emergency contraception. It’s already law that doctors and nurses don’t have to provide elective abortions, and that health care facilities are not required to offer abortion services. But this bill gives any health care provider full reign to discriminate when it comes to reproductive care. If, for example, you’re a rape victim and you go to the emergency room of a Catholic hospital, not only does that hospital not have to offer you emergency contraception, but they can also refuse to refer you to a hospital that does. We’ve seen how this can play out — in Arizona, a nun who worked on a hospital’s ethics committee was excommunicated when she allowed an abortion for a woman who would have died without one. This bill seeks unprecedented protection of health care entities that refuse to provide a full range of health care for pregnant women.

-Cuts tax benefits to any organization or individual that selects an insurance policy that covers abortion. As it stands, most private insurers cover abortion care. This bill, though, cuts tax subsidies that are given to small business owners if those business owners select insurance plans that cover abortion. The same is true for individuals who purchase insurance. This bill would virtually ensure that private insurance companies drop abortion coverage — even where abortions are medically necessary.

This is very, very bad. So we’re organizing an opposition. Here’s what you can do:

-Contact your representatives. You can find them here. Tell them that this bill is unconscionable. Tell them that re-defining rape in “pro-life” terms is disgusting and cruel. Tell them that disallowing funding for abortions to preserve a woman’s health is horrifying. Tell them that the federal government shouldn’t be encouraging private insurance companies to offer less coverage.

-Spread the word. Yes, there is a Twitter hashtag — #DearJohn. You can also tweet directly @JohnBoehner. I tend to look at Twitter campaigns with a bit of a jaundiced eye, but this bill is so outrageous that ringing the alarm through social media could do some real good. Anti-abortion measures like this one tend to get branded as simply no longer allowing taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion (see, e.g., the name of the legislation). But that’s not what this is about at all. This is about targeting rape survivors whose rapes weren’t violent enough to please Chris Smith or John Boehner. It’s about deciding that lasting physical damage to a woman’s body isn’t enough to merit an abortion. It’s about blocking businesses and individuals from selecting insurance policies that cover all of their necessities. Keep that message going, loudly and in public.

-Put some fire under the feet of the bill’s co-sponsors. Here they are. Let ’em have it. Tell them exactly what it is that they’re sponsoring (and tell everyone else, too).

Sady has more about how we can mobilize. So let’s get on it.

Following the Egypt protests

Al Jazeera’s English-language site provides great coverage, and the Guardian is also posting live updates.

If you’re not familiar with the situation, Promoting Peace has a great post detailing the background.

Feel free to leave other resources in the comments. The Egyptian government is fighting hard against the protesters and is reportedly shutting down all access to the internet, which is an unprecedented move. It’s important to keep the spotlight on this.

Boosting the Signal on Scarleteen’s Find-a-Doc

I’m signal-boosting Scarleteen‘s new Find-a-Doc service. For those who are not familiar, Scarleteen is a wonderful organisation aimed at educating teens and other young people about sexuality, and it’s very much worth looking at and passing on to other people – and supporting if you can.

From Scarleteen founder Heather Corinna’s blog post:

We all know one of the best ways to find quality sexual healthcare and other in-person care services is by asking people we know and trust for a recommendation. But that can be difficult, especially for young people: so many are either ashamed about sexual healthcare and other related services, or are afraid that disclosing they’ve had care will result in a breach of their privacy. Many young people don’t even get care they need in the first place, so don’t know anyone to refer someone else to, especially in areas where services are limited or where seeking out services presents a profound personal risk.

We know you can’t always get a good recommendation in-person, so we’re aiming to build the next best thing.

Readers can use our new online tool to find out who Scarleteen users around the world have gotten great care from that they’d personally recommend, and see listings of care services our staff, volunteers and allies know to be bonafide. Or, you can enter your own review to help others find services they need from providers you know are great, or add your review of a provider or service to an existing listing. If you’re a service provider, you can enter information about your clinic, center or practice and it will be published for review. Any of the above can be done anonymously, so no one has to worry about privacy.

The services listed are for sexual and reproductive healthcare, abortion services, counselling and therapy, teen specific, trans and queer specific, rape/abuse crisis services, shelters and more. There are options for services provided using languages other than English, disability access, and different cost requirements. The good people at Scarleteen are trying to build up a database of services all around the world. Do go check it out and, if you have recommendations for good service providers, go contribute suggestions of your own.

Love Stories

I’m in a slightly soppy mood, and that is a mood in which I want to hear your love stories. I was thinking stories of romantic loves you’ve had, readers, but also love for family and friends and pets/companion animals: who and whatever you love! Leave them in comments.

Posted in Fun

Answering William Saletan on Abortion

As much as William Saletan’s writing on abortion drives me slightly up a wall because of his tendency to forget that there’s an actual woman involved instead of just an interesting moral quandary, I do respect his willingness to engage on the issue. So in that spirit, let’s look at his piece today, answering some arguments from pro-choicers and posing new questions:

Last week, I cited the report as a challenge to several feminist writers who have lately asserted a woman’s right to decide not only whether to have an abortion but how long she can wait to make that choice. Gosnell stands charged with abortions beyond the 24-week gestational limit prescribed by Pennsylvania law. I asked the feminist writers whether, in the name of women’s autonomy, those charges should be dropped.I haven’t seen an answer to my question.

Here is an answer: No, the charges should not be dropped in the name of women’s autonomy.

Read More…Read More…