Vigilance

This morning I had a meeting at Planned Parenthood. Just the administrative offices, not a health centre. So I went there not really thinking about security measures, but the offices have to be thorough about who comes in and out of the building. The door is not open to the public, but you have to be buzzed in; you then have to be booked in, give photo ID, and be accompanied by a PP employee - you don't get to just wander up on your own. The ugliness that forces these measures stands in strange contrast to the mission statements on the walls that discuss the importance of women's lives, autonomy, and strength. I probably wouldn't have blogged about it, but then I saw this piece of news on Jezebel -about a (fortunately) rubbish attempt at bombing a clinic in Wisconsin - and the links between the measures and the need for them became much clearer. And it reminded me how brave providers are when all they should have to worry about is their patients.

And made me more determined about the Bowlathon that raises money for women who cannot afford to pay for their abortions. We've entered a team and anything anyone can give would be great. So that's that.

Something Good Can Happen To You

I'll be honest, it's been a pretty hairy work week. I've been tired and grumpy.

But yesterday, two rather wonderful things happened.

For the women and men who use Planned Parenthood in Indiana, thankfully the District Court slapped down Indiana's attempt to completely shut down federal funding. That Indiana was willing to prevent health care for thousands of people because of the tiny proportion of PP's services that are abortions is, sadly enough, pretty standard. But this was a well-reasoned decision and hopefully will stand. Doubtless Indiana will appeal to get to the Supreme Court but, for now, things are good.

But that got overshadowed by the thing that I really did not think would happen, even a few days ago: Gay marriage is legal in NY. Not civil unions, not domestic partnerships, but marriage. Both TOH and I welled up last night just watching the news, let alone the people who'd fought so hard for it. It's bloody brilliant. We are also taking full responsibility for it, by the way: we get married, and less than two months later, it gets signed into law and in less than three months, it will come into effect. Clearly they were waiting for seismic changes in the marriage landscape - if I can, with my general previous flagrant disregard for it, surely the gays aren't going to do it any damage.

Unhealthy Debate

I don't have much to say on the topic of health reform, really. It's just such a big old mess. There are several main topics that have come out of it that really bother me, but I don't want to go on a diatribe here. Still, in case you were wondering (which, if you are at all familiar with this blog, you're probably not as you know what pushes my rage buttons):

1. Abortion is out of the healthcare bill - because it's not healthcare. This is a theme that drives me insane. It's the most common outpatient procedure, it's there because women's mental or physical health is threatened by being forced to carry to term a foetus that they do not want/can't have. And yet, that's not covered, but viagra is? Really? A man's right to have a long-lasting erection is healthcare (and drugs for it can be advertised at all hours of the day), but not a woman's right to bodily autonomy. For eff's sake.
2. The rage and violence and sheer thuggery of some of the opposition to healthcare is, frankly, extremely remarkable. The threats of violence (death threats to Louise Slaughter), the actual violence (bricks through windows), the spitting, the racial "epithets" (don't you just love the fact that everyone says "epithet" when they mean the N-word?), the homophobic abuse toward one of the only openly gay members of Congress... and the guns. The guns. The "blood of tyrants" quotes. To be fair, I oppose this Act, in part, because of the way that women's reproductive rights are being sold down the river. So I am distinctly not claiming that opposition to healthcare is, per se, outright wrong and/or racist. But my response is not violence or threats thereof. It's remarkable how people who are used to getting their own way behave like such violent brats when they can't control the electoral process anymore. And there is nothing like their demonisation of women (Pelosi) and the foreign (Obama) to illustrate why people who are, often, powerless or used to having all the power in the world cannot cope with this shift.

UPDATE: I just read this by Jill, and, of course, she (and Bob Herbert, whom she quotes) say a lot more eloquently than I do what I think I detect in the shifting of privilege / power and why that is making the raging people just so raging.

UPDATE 2: Jill and others also have pointed out the utter failure of Bart Stupak to connect the threats of violence he's received with the intimidation and fear that women seeking reproductive health services - be they tests, contraception, treatment or abortion (and again, that's only 3% of the clients that attend Planned Parenthood,* for example) - when they go to their local Planned Parenthood. Or with the death threats and violence that reproductive health workers receive many/most days of their lives in the US.

UPDATE 3: In point 2 above, I think I have misrepresented what I think. I think this is a good start, but it is health insurance reform, not healthcare reform. There are several things I deeply dislike about this Act (as it is now): a/ I'm not keen on individual mandates - I think that it truly is the government's responsibility to provide healthcare for its citizens. What I am hoping is that the mandates will flood the system with more premiums, and so hopefully lower the costs for all of us. At least, that's in theory what would happen without privatized, for-profit businesses in control of dictating who gets what and for how much money. We'll see if it does work. But I believe this bill doesn't go anywhere near far enough. b/ Women have been sold down the river, again, for their actual healthcare needs when, unsurprisingly, men haven't. And that's depressing and awful and wrong. c/ The "better than nothing" argument is true - it's just not enough and the people of this country that I currently live in deserve much better. I'm not sure if I would have voted for it or not; probably if the votes were close, but if I thought the Bill would pass without me, maybe not.

UPDATE 4: And here we go again - yet another reason why this reform does, indeed, fall short.

* See p8 of the pdf.

Good

No other word for it. Well done to the prosecution.

But I have to wonder - would we have even the same outcome, let alone the speed, if Scott Roeder hadn't done this in a church? There is definitely a part of me that doubts that quite, quite strongly.

Trust Women*

I've written on this before, but one of the things that bothers me most about anti-choice rhetoric is that it's now couched in "concern" for women, but denigrates their choices, intellect and integrity above all else. The Archbishop of Canterbury's patronising - and erroneous - assessment that women don't take life seriously by having abortions was a perfect example of this. Of course, I argued that in fact, abortions indicate that we take child-rearing extremely seriously, because the responsibility of raising a life is above many others (I refuse to say it's the most important thing anyone does: it's extremely important. But so is being a heart surgeon, a teacher, a firefighter, a paramedic - all these things that save lives and instruct our children).

This distrust is present in all the laws requiring ultrasounds before abortions, require waiting periods, require the doctor to read you a script reminding you that this is a human life, and so on. All these things tell you that you haven't thought about this; it's like discarding a pair of tights with a hole in it. Many women agonise over the decision; many women do not. But the idea that we don't consider it properly and think about what's the best thing all round, and we are not trusted, is pernicious and everywhere - particularly in the Supreme Court these days. It's insulting, it's discrimination - and it's utterly wrong. I support women who make the hard choice and have the baby; I support women who make the hard choice to not have the baby. Because it's your choice: and I have no right to distrust that it's the right choice for you.

Speaking of which: I recommend this entire post about tv shows covering abortions last night. But I had to highlight this passage from Private Practice, of all things, showing a gynaecologist being pretty impressive:

Maya: What about you, what do you believe?

Addison: I believe that until a fetus can survive on its own outside of the mother's body that it is not a life. I believe that life begins at birth.

Maya: So you think that my mom was wrong before and now she's right because she wants me to do this?

Addison: I think that your mother and I think differently. I can't help you with this decision. I can and will give you an abortion and I can offer you other options and see you through this pregnancy but I can't help you decide…As your doctor I know this is hard and this is an unimaginable grown up decision but you did a grown up thing and now you are in a grown up predicament and it doesn't matter what I believe or what your mother believes, it matters what you believe.

Maya: But my mom…

Addison: Until the 24th week of pregnancy what a woman does with her own body is her own business. It's the law. And a lot of fine women fought a long time to give you the right to do what you think is best. It's your body. Your choice.

* Today is the annual Blog for Choice day. This year's theme is one particularly close to my heart. In honour of the sterling service he did caring for women of all ages seeking his help, we remember Dr. Tiller and reflect on his urging to "trust women." I really like Jos' post on access and providers - surely more will come during the day. For my previous posts on this, see 2009 here and 2008 here. Note that in 2009, Obama campaigned that he trusted women. Thank goodness that seems to still be the case, at least with regard to the Global Gag rule. In a bad year for choice, that's something for which to be grateful.

Marginalization

The Stupak Amendment has, unsurprisingly, filled me with rage. Rage at the amendment itself, rage at the framing of the issue... just rage. I have no real analysis for you, commentary. But I do recommend these things to read:

• Jeffrey Toobin's piece "Not Covered" in the New Yorker - this is definitely one of the best things I've read on this.
• The Lawyers, Guns & Money people, particularly this piece about concession of middle ground. Amanda Marcotte has been banging on for months about the folly of "middle ground" and seeking a consensus when, as shown by the Stupak followers, there really is none. We should admit it and move on.
• Kate Harding's piece on the framing of the issue as "you little women don't understand the way the world works" is also ace.
  

Awful

The cold-blooded, vigilante murder of Dr. Tiller on Sunday morning has left me speechless, with both rage and an inability to express that rage due to the seeming inevitability of it all.

But the overwhelming feeling is one of despair. Despair at what desperate women will do: those women whose babies are incapable of living, other than for a few hours, in agony because of defects and abnormalities, blood diseases; those women whose babies die in utero, and now, can only find two doctors in the entire United States that will remove the dead foetus beyond 24 weeks. Less than 1% of all abortions are in the final trimester; these require medical indications, such as those listed above. Women may go through labour with such children; that's their choice. But to force them to do so, particularly if it will cause the baby nothing but pain and agony, is inhuman. Terry claimed that what Tiller did was "literally demonic," but I really do believe that forcing a woman to go through that experience and inflict such pain on her baby is more deserving of such a label. Tiller's opponents are cheering this "saving" of unborn babies, yet judging by the stories, most of these babies are desperately desired and will, if they live at all, suffer greatly.

I am not going to post anymore on this, because most of it has already been said elsewhere, and with greater eloquence and focus than I can really muster. There's so much I couldn't collate it all, but I do urge you to read the stories of his patients, that recount his kindness, the funerals he shared with patients, his attempts to support a 15 year old on her birthday while being a patient at his clinic that week.

Arrivals

Babies, babies, everywhere. Today arrived the third of a trio of munchkins born to friends and family in the past seven days. It seems that everyone is getting sprogged up these days. I have two good friends getting married in the near future who plan to start trying pretty much as soon as the vows are done - although hopefully not as visibly as in The Wedding Banquet - and several other friends who are indeed up the duff.*

I am still - even despite my advancing years and ticking clock - very much of the feeling that sprogging is not something I want to do. Nonetheless, if everyone's doing it, I'm very happy that people I think will do wonderful jobs as parents are among them. Particularly as today's arrival was something his parents were told would and could never happen, with or without medical assistance. So he is, for want of a better term, a bit of a miracle. Which should put a spring in your step today, as it has to mine. Because good and much wished-for things can happen to good people.

* There are many fabulous ways to say the horribly coy "with child," my favourite being "up the duff," which is how my dearest HJ told me.

Really?

I've been trying to curtail the rage-infested posts recently, but sometimes you can't avoid them. Reported in several blogs and news outlets:

"We consider this murder."—Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, after a judge granted access to an abortion to a nine-year-old girl carrying twins after being raped by her stepfather.

The Archbishop of Brazil is to excommunicate all those who "helped her," including her mother. It's consistent, at least, with the awfulness of their position, but I do so hope that at least includes the stepfather who raped and impregnated - let's repeat it - HIS NINE YEAR OLD STEPDAUGHTER.

Words defy me.

David Brooks Doesn't Know What He's Talking About

Surprising, I know. On PBS's News Hour last Friday, Mark Shields and David Brooks were asked to assess the impact of Obama's first few days in power - was this or that particular change symbolic, or real? All very interesting. One thing they mentioned was the lifting of the global gag rule. Mark Shields wasn't sure of the effects. David Brooks said the following:

Well, I agree. It would be very curious to know what actual effect it has. I remember going to AIDS groups in Mozambique and Namibia, and we have these big social issue battles over these issues. On the ground, it made no difference at all. So it'd be curious to know what the practical effect is.

Well, it's not really that surprising that those AIDS groups didn't think it would make much difference. I mean, pregnancy and AIDS both come from sex, but the global gag rule directly bans U.S. funds going to any overseas group that even mentions abortion as an option for pregnant women. So, although it does impact all reproductive health providers, and indeed HIV/AIDS is a part, clearly of reproductive health, David Brooks is either misstating, misunderstanding, or just an idiot. You choose which. I'm writing to him to just gently let him know of his mistake. Gently. Honestly.

Blog For Choice

Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Therefore, today is Blog for Choice day! The message this year is: What hopes do you have for women's health in the Obama administration? It's supposed to be a "top choice," but it's hard to pin down one. If I were, my first choice would be the change in approach, because I think all the others stem from that.

Mine are:

• A change in rhetoric and approach. I'm sick of the "abortion ruins women so we're going to save you from yourselves" argument that anti-choicers are now using to argue against choice. Some women are traumatised by their abortions. But a lot are not. I think a lot of what traumatises women is the very fact that they have to make the decision in the first place - that lack of control and being forced to deal with things that affordable contraceptive coverage, for example, would prevent; or, indeed, child care options or better jobs that understand the need for flexibility for parents. Either way, it's not up to you, male Supreme Court justices, to tell me how I will react or prevent me from making my choices because you're worried about my ability to cope. It's not your business. Obama nearly made me cry when he said he "trusted women" at the Democrat's Presidential candidates' debate. His answer could not be more starkly different from McCain's scare quotes. Obama seems to trust us, and has recognised that the Bush administration made great strides backward and is putting women at the forefront of his administration and his policies, domestically and in foreign climes. Thank goodness for his appointing a Secretary of State who recognises that women's fertility and autonomy are essential parts of foreign policy.
  
• A focus on prevention that actually helps women have control over their lives, helps girls feel confident to explore their sexuality safely and without risk of punishment.
  
• A removal of the obstacles preventing poor women everywhere from having control over their fertility and, consequently, their lives and livelihoods.
• An increase in public education about exactly who has abortions and when - most being in their twenties and a majority being already mothers.

Here are links to what some of my fave bloggers are saying about their hopes for this Administration:

• Liss at Shakesville
• Cara at Feministe
• Courtney at Feministing
• Sybil Vane at Bitch Ph.D.

Plus Megan at Jezebel points out that on this day, the mainstream media isn't interested in the right to choose, but the right trying to make sure women don't have that right.

UPDATE: Shakesville reports this statement from Obama to commemorate the anniversary. Agreed, it's not perfect, but (as will happen often, I feel with this administration) just think about what we've put up with for eight years on this.

Desperation

There was an article in the NY Times about women in my neighbourhood and the huge barriers they face in controlling their reproductive health and how they attempt to access abortion, often resorting to self-induced methods that seriously endanger their health. It is sickening to think that communities like in my neighbourhood - social stigma around abortion, lack of resources and access to healthcare - are the kinds targeted by Crisis Pregnancy Centers and the like. I really recommend reading the article, and the thoughtful and incisive letters the newspaper published in response.

Monumental

It's really hard to explain the thoughts and emotions coursing through me in the last few days. I have to admit, I underestimated this country in many ways: that fear would take over, that the machines would mess up, that people would suppress the vote.

Last night was astonishing, in so many ways. But the sheer wondrousness of voting for Obama may mask the other stories that are almost as important. South Dakota, for the second time in two years, rejected an abortion ban, one which was designed to get Roe v. Wade overturned; for the third time, California rejected a parental notification requirement for teenage girls' abortions; and Colorado gave a big fat two fingers up to the Fetal Life Amendment. Yet, these are happy stories because they are rejections of encroachments of our rights, not progressive achievements or growth of civil liberties.

It's even harder to state how disappointing the level of homophobia in this country is. People can harp on all they want about the sanctity of marriage, and how it's nothing to do with the gay folk. But it is. It's homophobia. It's about whether you think gay people are equal. And, according to Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, California, they're not.

It's really odd to feel euphoric and yet utterly depressed. But that's what I feel right now.

Limited

A follow up to this: made myself angry this morning, as I knew I would, by finally listening to the Woman's Hour podcast on reducing the abortion time limits. Nadine Dorries again arguing for reduction of the upper limits, whereas the gynaecologists and obstetricians - the medical professionals who have studied the science - are arguing against it. To reiterate: the scientists, the trained professionals on one side; and a woman who argues "I believe" constantly, not the science folks. Unsurprising, but always worth noting that science not on her side.

NOTE: I realise I did not explain this fully, because I had been expecting to link to the article on the Woman's Hour website, but I couldn't find it. Essentially, the issue I have with Dorries here is that she was arguing for the science, the medicine, the psychological studies, yet she could not find an obstetrician to argue on her side, whereas every official body argues in fact against her. It wasn't about "saving the innocent babies" but about science - and she's wrong. Again.

Home Comforts

Part of my doing repro rights spiel is that I really wouldn't have been as interested if I were back home. Reason being, the right to abortion is not so obviously under threat. However, there is a rabid anti-choice MP, Nadine Dorries, who keeps trying to get the abortion limit reduced. Recently, I posted on my utter annoyance with the horrible David Cameron and his horrible stance on the abortion-limit vote that took place last week. Well, too bad Nadine and tough bloody luck DC, your "moral conscience" vote showed that most people feel that allowing a woman the right to choose IS the definition of a moral conscience. Fabulous. And if that weren't good enough, The Bugle's opening item this week was about it and I absolutely pissed myself on the train home. I'm particularly pleased with it as I'd been saving it for a treat, something I deserved for working hard at bar stuff and the gym this week, and it really, truly was.

M'aidez!

New month, same old anger. This time, it's directed at Oklahoma. A new law means that all women seeking abortions are required to have an ultrasound against their will, and against their doctor's will. Those ultrasounds include vaginal. That's right ladies, the surgical procedures that you can be forced to have against your will are caesarians, and an ultrasound probe stuck up your cooch. Charming. Charming.

Which is why our reliance on the Supreme Court to do the right thing is even more sad. And why this Boston Legal clip is even sadder... because it's just never going to happen.

Gonna Have Myself a Time

South Park first came out when I was at university, and I quite enjoyed it, but mostly for yelling "beefcake" a lot. I didn't watch it regularly until last semester, and am now utterly obsessed. The creators' unrelenting vitriol, and merciless treatment of everyone, is glorious, and pokes equal humiliation at everyone, left and right wing alike.

But last night was particularly wonderful. If you didn't watch, Cartman somehow ends up teaching kids in an inner city high school - none of whom, obviously, are white. Cartman teaches them how to succeed - by cheating like white people. Bill Belichick is his exemplar for the students.

The key moment for me, however, was when a Latina runs out of the classroom, crying because "it's pointless." Why? Because she was pregnant, and she therefore couldn't go to college - . she couldn't have an abortion, because she's Catholic. Cartman's response - but why shouldn't you cheat here? An abortion is the ultimate cheating of a life in your belly. And white girls will have no compulsion about cheating that mistake so that they can go to college and have careers, education, and get ahead.

What is scary is that so often anti-choicers will have abortions, arrange them for their daughters, but think of their situations as exceptions, not those women like this student. And they'll deny this schoolgirl's right to get funding for an abortion, who they will teach about contraception - thanks to the powerful, almost exclusively white folks who voted for Title X, and for the Hyde Amendment, and Abstinence-Only Education. That's cheating, in an abominable way.

Also genius: Mr. Garrison is back! And all thanks to the pregnant man on Oprah...

Missionary

I have discovered my mission for the next ten months or so: Convince so-called liberals that John McCain is really, really, REALLY not going to be a good candidate. I'm mildly (to say the least) obsessed with it.

Reality Check's podcast this week pointed out that with all the kerfuffle over Barack Obama's pastor, maybe we could direct a little attention towards the man that John McCain calls a "spiritual adviser," one Ron Parsley. Ron Parsley is another dreadful human being trying to claim that Planned Parenthood is committing a genocide against black women (death toll = 1500 per day, apparently), compares Planned Parenthood to the KKK (no - really), wants to destroy Islam and anything that progressives cherish.

People are starting to point out the hypocrisy of the media for not touching him yet attacking Jeremiah Wright - like this on his "free pass" - but it's not enough. It needs to be in the mainstream. And, more importantly, it needs to go out to self-proclaimed moderates and liberals - these are not even moderate positions. Yet nothing, nothing, nothing is said except in the liberal media. So, self-importantly, tell your friends and make sure it's not just a few of us who can't vote that realise this. PLEASE!

Exchanges

So, David Cameron wants to have the abortion limit in Britain curtailed to twenty weeks. Last year, there was a medical and scientific hearing in the House of Commons to discuss shortening the limit. Conclusively proved - that there was no need to do this. Yet, he's started spouting it again. Feministe kindly provided a link whereby you could email him to point out your opposition. So I did.

The response from Mr. Cameron? Not that he bothered to do it himself, but I quote his Correspondence Secretary:

Dear Grace,

Many thanks for your email regarding abortion.

David Cameron believes this is an issue of conscience and not one he would ever want to see becoming party political.

David personally believes that we should review the abortion limit in the light of developments in medical science and technology. He would support a modest reduction from 24 weeks.

Of course, this response sums up my two points I made in the original email to him. First, I'm also extremely puzzled how the House of Commons hearing's scientific testimony and conclusions - despite attempts to stuff the Committee with anti-abortion activists - can simply be ignored by Mr. Cameron in this instance. But, I suppose, so long as he personally believes it that's fine. Just like personally believing the sun goes around the earth, I suppose.

Second, and more worryingly, it's a matter of conscience for him because it's women's rights; it doesn't matter what medical or scientific evidence has been presented to show that it is not a necessary reduction. You can screw over women because it's what you think is the right thing to do. Can you imagine ignoring scientific evidence because you thought it was a matter of conscience whether or not you thought you should use synthetic blood, for example. Strange how conscience doesn't mean protecting women and keeping it safe and legal.

When I pointed this out, no one bothered replying. 'Nuff said.

Which is where we come to Bill. Bill, Bill, Bill. I have loved him for many years, but recently been going through a "hmm, maybe Clinton effed up an awful lot more than I believed at the time, and we just idolise him because GWB is such a dreadful person." But this video - described in RH Reality Check's excellent podcast (which I cannot recommend highly enough) - reminded me just why he is loved by us progressives. Sigh.

I'm Glad It's Your Birthday

Today is the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Therefore, here's a few things on the world wide web that have been written by extremely eloquent, interesting people about why that's a good thing, and what's at stake if the anti-choicers get their way.

• Jill at Feministe's ten ways to support reproductive justice.
• Jessica at Feministing on why she votes pro-choice (and from last year, why she trusts women).
  
• Bean at L, G & M on voting for reproductive justice.
• RH Reality Check has great comprehensive coverage.
• The National Partnership for Women & Families sums up some of the editorials printed today (including anti-choice stuff, such as the "moral deficit" caused by abortion access... arseholes).
  

NARAL asks you to blog for choice if you are pro-choice. As I am, here's why I'm pro-choice:

Women cannot be equal unless they have control over their fertility and the ability to deal with when whatever precautions they do (or don't take) go wrong. Economic development is key to greater autonomy and power and, hopefully, equality, and you can't be economically developed if you are having children with no choice over the number or timing of your children.

But, even more so, you have no right to force me to carry or not a child; it's my body, my integrity, and my choice. Yet choice is such a luxury for most people, let alone women alone, in the world; so many women have so little power over the course of their own lives that they do not have a number of options from which to make a choice. Hence abortion is not a luxury, and not something we take lightly, but something that is essential to our lives, but we need more: better contraception, better insurance, better healthcare, better education. Better everything.

Overturning Roe v. Wade won't do anything but put women's health in danger, bring more unwanted children into the world for poor women who can't afford the transport to and care in states where abortion is available.

But even if there were no divide between rich & poor, the privileged and the not so, it would still be my decision and my choice. No one has the right to make it for me; I don't force it upon you, so how dare you, Huckabee et al., force it on me? And that's my moral stance: religious men and women do not have the monopoly on morality; my morals dictate that I don't force people to do with their bodies what they do not wish. Abortion is just one part of it - but an essential one for bodily integrity; and, with it, soulful integrity and dictating the course of your life.

I wish I could vote in this election.