Empathy on the Court

When Obama said that he wanted a justice who was capable of empathizing with the plights of the people who would be impacted by their rulings, I was skeptical at first. After all, the law is cold and hard. It's not about feelings. It's not about empathy. And we shouldn't allow our emotions to adulterate our reason.

But that was before I saw this. A 13 year old girl was strip searched because school officials had been told that she had contraband. What contraband, you ask? A gun? A knife? Crack? No. Ibuprofen. The school officials forced this girl into her bra and underwear and then made her move her undergarments, exposing her body, to prove that nothing was hidden in them.

The Supreme Court ruled that her privacy wasn't violated because it was reasonable to think that she would hide she would hide her "contraband" in her underwear. And, honestly, that is a reasonable thought. What may have been unreasonable was stripping a 13 year old girl. I understand that the school acts in loco parentis, but there have to be limits. Parents are allowed to spank their children. Public school teachers are not. Parents might be allowed to insist that their children strip naked. I'm not sure public school teachers should be.

A strip search in a cold nurse's office, in front of the nurse and a teacher, even a female teacher, can be a traumatizing experience. When I was in my early twenties, not long after 9/11, I was forced to strip down to my skivvies and then padded down in an Oklahoma airport. I can't tell you how violated I felt. For a 13 year old girl, who is in a stage of life where she is highly conscious of, unsure of, and likely uncomfortable with her body, this had to be a mortifying experience.

But the 8 male justices on the court couldn't see what the big deal was. And, from what I can tell, the main point was that it was reasonable to suspect that she had hidded the stupid Advil in her panties (remember, she had no "contraband"). But that's not the only measure of what makes a search reasonable. The invasiveness of a search has something to do with it as well. And these justices, because they were incapable of empathizing with the girl, couldn't see that dimension of this case.

I'm not necessarily saying that the court handed down the wrong decision. We might feel better about the search if she had been said to be hiding crack and they had in fact found it, which makes me think that part of the problem here is that advil isn't the sort of thing school officials should be searching for. But what this case does tell me is that maybe empathy is something a justice needs to have a little of after all.

Read Full Post

5 Reasons Bristol's Pregnancy Matters

So, with the news that Sarah Palin's 17 year old unwed daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, there has been a lot of chatter about how this is a private family matter and we should all just leave poor Bristol Palin alone. I agree that we should leave Bristol alone, but her pregnancy should force some light on the conservative policies and stances that her mother and McCain support. Here are 5 reasons Bristol Palin's pregnancy matters:

#1 Conservatives claim the moral high ground.
It is often complained by liberals that conservative republicans have hijacked the issue of values. And for the most part, this is true. Conservatives tout themselves as the religious who want to preserve traditional marriage (aka deny gay rights), love "the unborn" (aka force pregnancy) and prevent sex from destroying our culture (aka push their backward view of morality on everyone else). Yet Bristol's pregnancy seems to undermine that claim. Not because her pregnancy is wrong. I'm not one to say that premarital sex is immoral. Nor would I expect most liberals to say that there is something morally suspect about coitus before marriage. To most of us liberals, it's none of our business. But religious republicans, republicans like Palin, would say that it is immoral. This is a scandal by their standards, not ours, and yet they are reacting as though their core beliefs do not hold this situation to be a sin in the eyes of their god. I smell hypocrisy.

#2 Conservatives, including Palin, oppose comprehensive sex-ed and fight for abstinence-only education.
Many conservatives oppose anything but abstinence-only education for our teens, claiming that comprehensive sex-ed will lead to more sex. Palin herself opposes comprehensive sex-education and supports abstinence-only. McCain has also claimed that he supports abstinence-only. Now, as we should all be well aware at this point, studies have shown that abstinence-only education does not work, and in many cases, these programs disseminate false information to teens about sex and pregnancy. Furthermore, studies have also shown that comprehensive sex eduation programs are effective in helping teens to dely sexual intercourse or protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy.

Now, what should we take away from this? Comprehensive sex education helps prevent teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Abstinence-only education does not. And yet conservatives like Palin and McCain want to prevent teens from getting the information that might help them to avoid the situation that Bristol Palin is now in. Don't you think a mother who is dealing with helping her daughter with a teen pregnancy and has the political clout would work to keep other girls from being put in the same unfortunate position that her daughter is in? Apparently not Sarah Palin.

#3 Many conservatives oppose hormonal birth control or are unconcerned with women's access to it.
Even if sexually active teens and women know that they can protect themselves from pregnancy through various means, that doesn't help if they don't have access to contraception. But many religious republicans flat out oppose hormonal contraception, tossing out science to call the pill and its variants "abortifacents", and hence immoral. That means that the use of contraception is also immoral to this people and if they think abortion should be illegal, then surely "abortifacents" - things that cause abortions, should also be illegal. Furthermore, many conservatives have pushed to allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse to write prescriptions for birth control or fill those prescriptions if they have moral objections, thus limiting women's access, especially in rural areas (like, say, Alaska?).

Now, it's not clear what either McCain's or Palin's positions are on this. Republicans have a way of avoiding discussing their views on birth control (since the vast majority of the American populace is okay with it). But if Palin's "right to life" credentials are good enough to garner the support of the religious wingnuts like Dobson and Robertson, then it's likely that she opposes birth control as well. That would certainly explain why a busy woman in her 40s who already had four children would manage to get pregnant, despite the risks of birth defects (like Down Syndrome) for babies of older women. But denying access to birth control just means more teen pregnancy. More girls like Bristol Palin.

#4 As Governor, Palin slashed funding that would have gone to teen mothers.
Palin used her line item veto to cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. The program gives young single moms a place to stay while they acquire some skills that will allow them to get by in the world. So, Palin doesn't want kids to be educated on how to avoid pregnancy, (probably) doesn't want them to have access to the means to prevent pregnancy, and yet won't give them money to help them once they (surprise!) get pregnant. Of course, this won't affect girls like Bristol, who, thankfully, have supportive (and rich) families to take care of them. But for lots of other young women who get pregnant, that support isn't there. And apparently Palin doesn't care.

#5 "Choice"
In the press release from the campaign on the pregnancy, the family claimed, "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby". The talking heads have been claiming that the fact that Palin practices what she preaches (i.e., that her daughter "chose life") will actually help with the conservative base. With regard to Palin's own recent pregnancy, in fact, many have been pushing the notion that she chose to have the baby despite his condition.

Well, guess what, Sarah Palin is pro-life. She believes that abortion should be illegal, even in
cases of rape or incest. She does not believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. And if she were really, truly pro-life, then neither she nor her daughter would have a choice in the matter. If you are pro-life, then there is no option other than carrying the pregnancy to term. And if there is only one option, then there is no choice. If Palin really practiced what she preached, then she didn't choose anything, and neither did her daughter. Yet the media does not bring this up. Instead, they laud her choice. Wrong. Pro-choicers can laud her choice. To pro-lifers, neither Palin nor her daughter actually had one to begin with, and true pro-lifers should be offended by the idea that either Palin or her daughter actually chose to carry their pregnancies to term. After all, "it's a baby, not a choice" right?

Read Full Post

I Couldn't Agree More

Read Full Post

McCain the Maverick? Not on Reproductive Rights.

There are a good number of people in this country that view John McCain as a bit of a maverick, a man who is willing to stand up to the Republican party has a whole, cross the isle in search of effective compromise, and stand behind his own beliefs even when they conflict with the dominant views of the party. This may very well be true with regard to some issues, but despite some public misconceptions to the contrary, reproductive rights certainly isn't one of them. There are some who have, due to McCain's image as a maverick, taken him to be pro-choice, or at least less anti-choice then the likes of far-righties like G.W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, etc. NARAL has started up a website where you can, according to them, meet the real McCain. And if you follow the links in search of info on McCain's record, you'll be led to a compilation of McCain's anti-choice votes and statements.

If you read through that list, you might be surprised to discover that:

*McCain is staunchly anti-choice, openly in favor of overturning Roe, and determined to nominate judges who will ignore the rights of women.

*McCain has voted to support abstinence-only education programs, which have been shown to be ineffective and often involve disseminating falsehoods to kids. He's also voted for substantial funding for such programs to be allocated from the fund for HIV/AIDS. That means that rather then putting our money toward effective means of reducing HIV/AIDS in areas of the world that are experiencing a devestating epidemic, the money is being wasted on ineffective, and dogmatically motivated, programs.

*McCain has voted to support the global gag rule, which precludes any openly pro-choice international organization from obtaining federal funds, even if they use non-federal money to provide abortion services or do not offer such services at all. This prevents these organizations from giving much needed family planning and women's health services to some of the poorest women in the world, and places a burden on other organizations which they may not be able to meet, thus leaving women out in the cold.

*McCain has voted against measures that would make birth control more accessible to women, and has actually voted for parental notification laws that would make it more difficult for teens to access birth control.

*McCain voted to end Title X, which provides women in need with all sorts of medical services, from birth control to vaccinations to cancer screenings.

Now, even if you're opposed to legal abortion, you've got to admit that McCain's record is not just anti-choice, but clearly unconcerned with the reproductive rights and reproductive health of women here in America and around the world. Unless your place on the ideological spectrum has you nestled between Dubya and Pat Robertson, some of McCain's record is going to leave a bad taste in your mouth. After all, if you're interested in reducing abortions, increasing access to and knowledge about contraceptives should be at the top of your list. It's not at the top of McCain's. If you're worried about the AIDS crisis in Africa, then making sure that we are funding programs that have the greatest effectiveness in reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS should be one of your concerns. It's not one of McCain's. If securing the rights and improving the health of women in the US and around the world is something that is important to you, McCain may not be your candidate, because his record clearly demonstrates that it's not important to him.

McCain may have the image of an ideological maverick, but when it comes to reproductive rights and women's health he's right in line with the far right. We should all be aware of that fact when we enter the voting booth this November.

Read Full Post

Hey Career Woman - Hurry Up And Have A Baby!

Penelope Trunk of the Boston Globe has an important message for women – if you want kids, then you best get busy. Your biological clock is ticking. And don’t worry about that career – you’ll have time for it later.

Well, Ms Trunk, first, we career women are all painfully aware of the fact that our biological clocks are ticking. And we know better than to believe those who say “Oh, you still have time for kids later”. But while the field of journalism may be such that you can make your career happen long after your little ones have entered school, not every woman has the same opportunity. In my field – academic philosophy - for example, it is necessary to obtain one’s degree as quickly as possible since this makes it more likely that you will obtain a tenure track position. And believe me, it’s not easy being in a field that is over 70% male. They don’t give you special treatment. The fact that you got married and had a baby doesn’t impact their thoughts when they look at your CV. In fact, in some departments you have to work twice as hard as your male colleagues to even gain their recognition as an equal. Now, if you manage to get a tenure track position (difficult even for males in this field), you then have five years to publish, publish, publish so that you can get tenured. The tenure clock starts ticking the instant you take up your position. During this time you are also expected to teach a full load and perform all the nasty grunt administration tasks that the tenured faculty don’t want to deal with (like directing the undergraduates). This is not easy to do even without young children. And while some universities will stop the tenure clock for women who are having children, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to get a job at one of those universities. You have to take what you can get in this field. Finally, if you live through all this and manage to get tenured, you are now in a position to start a family. Best case scenario, after a four year BA, 5 years post graduate and a 5 year tenure clock, you’re 32. And that's really a best case scenario.

I’m not saying that the world of academic philosophy is any harder than any other career path. That’s just the point. Women face the same sort of challenges in the sciences, in the legal world and in the business world. So what you’re telling us, Ms. Trunk, is that we have to choose. We have to pick between having children and fulfilling our dreams. We already knew that we were likely to face this choice, unless we could manage to somehow be superwomen (and some women do.) But we shouldn’t have to choose. So rather than wasting your time telling us we have to make this choice, Ms. Trunk, perhaps you should be using your position as a journalist to make it clear how unfair the choice is in the first place.

Read Full Post

Horton Hears A.... What?!

This is just too rich. Anti-abortion protestors decided the perfect venue would be the premiere of Horton Hears A Who - a children's flick. I don't know whether to laugh out loud or let out a big long sigh.

The reason the anti-choice crowd has latched on to this flick? It's theme is "A person's a person no matter how small". Well, duh! But guess what? That doesn't translate to "A person's a person even when it's just a collection of pluripotent cells". And once again - it doesn't matter if a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a person! No person has the right to use another's body without their consent. Sheesh. How long are we going to talk past each other?

Read Full Post

Proposed Bill Makes CPCs Inform Patients That They Can Lie

This is good news. It’s about time that someone did something about these stupid Crisis Pregnancy Centers. What would be better if the bill actually made it the case that they have to tell the truth. But this is a start.

Joseph Bartlett, a Republican who opposes the bill, had this to say in defense of allowing to continue the centers to operate the way they have been:

The premise that we're going to require these organizations to disclaim that they don't have to tell the truth is just about the silliest thing I ever heard," he said. "We certainly don't do that in the case of politicians, do we?

Well, no, Joe, we don’t have a law that tells politicians that they have to admit that they don’t have to tell the truth. But as much as CPCs are more like politicians than they are like actual clinics, these places are falsely giving the impression that they are medical centers, which can be sued for lying to their patients. They aren’t medical centers, and as a result they are free to disseminate all the false information they want without penalty. And they do. Well, if we’re going to allow them to continue parading about like actual medical centers, we can at least make sure that women who go to them are aware of the stakes. What’s really silly here is the fact that you seem to think it’s okay for people to pretend to be offering medical services and then lie to the women who come to them for help.

Read Full Post

Women are Dumb?

One dumb woman - Charlotte Allen - seems to think so. I can't believe the Washington Post published this. Nor can Katha Pollitt (read her article; it's great). The lack of cogent logical argument is enough for me to use this as an extra credit assignment for my Intro Logic students - find all the fallacies! One big (non-logical) contradiction that makes me really wonder about Allen's piece, though, is if she really thinks she's that stupid, and that women should

relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.

why is she bothering writing for the Post? Women like Allen embrace this practical contradiction all the time. Phyllis Schlafly is a perfect example. She's out writing books, giving talks, writing columns and running an organization with the sole purpose of telling women that they should be at home rubbing their husband's feet. Don't these women see this? Oh, wait, I forgot. They are women. And women, we know, can't do logic.

Some other responses to Allen. And a Q&A with her on the article. The Q&A reveals just how misinformed and crazy Allen really is.

Read Full Post

Let's Go Be Lazy in Wisconsin

So, anti-choice pharmacists in Wisconsin don't want to do their jobs. I've given my take on this before. If you can't perform the tasks of your profession, get another job. Don't ask the state to give you an exception. But the anti-choice, anti-birth control pharmacists of Wisconsin are in an uproar about more than just the prospect of dispensing what the doctor prescribes. They're ticked off about the Birth Control Protection Act, which not only protects the rights of patients by forcing pharmacists to do their job, but also defines 'abortion' so as to exclude the effects of contraceptives.

According to ChristianNewsWire, this is beyond the pale, since

It is a medical fact that the morning-after pill (a high dosage of the birth control pill) and most, if not all, birth control drugs and devices including the intrauterine device (IUD), Depo Provera, Norplant, the Patch, and the Pill can act to terminate a pregnancy by chemically altering the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so that a newly conceived child is unable to implant in the womb, thus starving and dying.

Well, no, actually, it's not a medical fact. If you define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization, then yes, IUDs do result in the termination of a pregnancy. And hormonal methods may have the same result, albeit very rarely, since their primary function is to prevent ovulation and thicken the mucus lining the cervix to prevent sperm from penetrating. And usually, if they don't succeed in that, the result is not an embryo being flushed from the woman's system, but implantation. But not only is it not a "medical fact" that pregnancy begins at fertilization, it's silly to even think of defining it as such. If that's the case, then many sexually active women have been pregnant numerous times and had miscarriages. Of course, they can't inform their doctors of this, since they don't know. Additionally, imagine attempting to expand this definition out, given the advances in reproductive technologies. When a doctor fertilizes a woman's egg with her partner's sperm in a pitre dish, is she pregnant? If a store of her fertilized eggs is preserved in deep freeze, does she remain pregnant until her blastocysts die? If she dies while those blastocysts are still being preserved, does that mean that a dead woman can be pregnant? If a couple enlists the aid of a surrogate mother, who is pregnant? It's obviously not the biological mother. But then the woman who has preserved blastocysts can't be pregnant either. If pregnancy begins at fertilization, then someone has got to be pregnant, though. The egg is fertilized, after all. Is the tank pregnant?

ChristianNewsWire's nutty statements of "medical fact" aside, what really caught my attention was this:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freely exercise one's religious convictions. The Wisconsin Constitution expressly protects the rights of conscience. Under Article 1, Section 18, of our state constitution, "any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience" shall not be permitted.

Now, obviously ChristianNewsWire and the anti-birth control pharmacists who are pushing this line against the Birth Control Protection Act are thinking that they are going to stop this legislation by claiming it violates their religious freedom through their rights of conscience. Here's the problem. Not every one who is anti-choice is religious, or is anti-choice because of their religious convictions. Are these Wisconsin pharmacists suggesting that it's okay to force someone who is anti-choice, but has no religious affiliation, to dispense birth control? I doubt it. But if this really is about conscience, and not about religion, then the Wisconsin constitution would seem to protect the rights of conscience of vegetarians who work at McDonalds and don't want to serve meat, or vegans who work at Mervyns but refuse to sell wool or leather, or school nurses, or doctors, who believe that vaccines are evil and refuse to distribute them to kids. Or heck, some renegade pastafarians who refuse to serve spaghetti, but insist on working at Italian restaurants. It's their right of conscience, after all. I guess anyone who has scruples against doing something required by a profession can work in that profession and yet not do their job in Wisconsin. My new set of principles - never prostituting my labor out for pay. I think I'll go get a job in Wisconsin.

Read Full Post

Surprise! The More Religious the Society, The Higher the Abortion Rate.

Given that many religious ideologies involve the condemnation of comprehensive sex-ed, or something like it, and various birth control methods, this actually isn't surprising at all. If you're really interested in reducing the number of abortions, taking a more liberal attitude toward human sexuality is definitely the way to go. Oh, and if that's the case, then John McCain is not your man.

Read Full Post

Colorado Has Lost It Too

On the heels of Georgia's proposed bill to define personhood as beginning at conception, Colorado now has a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would do the same. And Mike Huckabee has endorsed it.

I don't think it necessary to rehash the idiocy, from a practical standpoint, of legally defining a fertilized egg as a person. What really confuses me is that it seems as though the people of Colorado and Georgia haven't really thought about this - which is certainly something one ought to do before making something the law of the land.

Speaking of the people of Colorado and Georgia making something the law of the land, since when are facts determined by a popular vote? There is a fact of the matter as to whether or not a fertilized embryo is a person. This is something that certainly hasn't been determined. And without significant justification for the claim, which anti-choicers haven't provided (and I suspect can't provide), voting to recognize this "fact" seems both premature and arrogant.

I'm not saying that we can't possibily recognize a fact even when it's not completely settled. What I am saying is that before you can legally recognize a fact, you should have and provide evidence that it is a fact. Anti-choicers have not done this.

Read Full Post

Abstinence Only Driver's Ed

This is just awesome.

Read Full Post

Colorado Rep. Calls Teen Parents "Sluts"

Oh, this is rich. Colorado Rep. Larry Liston made the following statement a a Republican caucus luncheon about teen parents:

In my parents' day and age, they were sent away. They were shunned. They were called what they are ... There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it ... They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too.

This is a prime example of the pro-life religious right's real agenda. They say they're all for saving babies. But rather than pushing for measures that would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, they'd rather shun those who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being unmarried, young, and pregnant.

After all, a culture that denys its youth access to birth control and then shuns girls who get pregnant, brands them whores, sends them away, and destroys their future couldn't possibly prompt pregnant teens to opt for abortion, could it? At the base of this is just an outright hatred of women, and a fear of female sexuality and female empowerment. Rep. Liston wants us to return to the good ol' days when women's sexuality was treated as something that didn't exist, and women were denied power over their bodies, their futures, their lives, by the very cultural mores that he lauds. And, by the way, as far as I know, the men were never branded as sluts in those good ol' days.

Liston later apologized:

The derogatory term I used was offensive and inappropriate and I would like to apologize for using it.

To my mind, though, this is a non-apology. He apologizes for using the term "slut". But it doesn't matter what word he uses; it's the notion behind it that is offensive. I would only be satisfied by an apology that recognized the misogyny in Liston's original statement, and rejected it outright. I won't be holding my breath.

Read Full Post

Pharmacists and Plan B

Another idiotic ruling with regard to pharmacists and Plan-B has been handed down. At the core of this dispute is, to my mind, the special treatment given to religion in our society. If a vegetarian got a job at McDonalds and then refused to serve meat products because he believed their consumption to be grossly immoral, do you really think a judge would claim that he has a right to keep his job but not fulfill all the obligations that come along with it? Of course not. I have a personal hatred of guns. It's part of the core of my belief system, but I'm pretty sure that if I started working for Walmart and refused to sell the guns they keep in stock, no judge would say that I should have an exception. But because these pharmacists are objecting on religious grounds, they can get away with not doing their job and denying women much needed services. What a load of BS.

Read Full Post

Georgia Anti-Choicers Have Lost It

A bill is being pushed in the Georgia state legislature by anti-choicers in that state. The bill criminalizes abortion, enshrines in law false statements about the effects of abortion, but also, most shockingly, defines a fetus as a person from the moment of conception.

Now, attempting to criminalize abortion is the full out goal of the anti-choice movement, and it is not shocking that they would attempt to legitimize some of the false claims they make about abortion by having them included in legislation. What's really crazy about this bill is the fact that it makes the bald assertion that personhood begins at conception. I'm seriously wondering how the anti-choice movement in Georgia could have failed to consider the implications of making this actual law.

First off, contrary to the reasoning in Roe, a woman's right to an abortion has nothing to do with personhood status, or lack thereof, of a fetus. The right to an abortion derives from the human right to bodily autonomy. No person can use the body of another without their consent. This is what grounds our right not to be raped, our right not to have our organs forcibly removed from us, and our right not to be used in crazy experiments without our consent. Whether a fetus is a person or not may very well impact the moral status of abortion, but it has no relevance to whether or not a woman has a legal right to an abortion.

So defining a fetus as a person from the moment of conception doesn't impact the reasoning behind the conclusion that a woman has the right to choose. But it seems to me that the Georgia legislators who introduced this bill, and the anti-choicers that are pushing it, haven't thought about the implications separate from the abortion issue that result from defining an embryo as a person. Would every embryo be given a social security number? How would that work? Would parents of this embryo get a child tax credit? Would the presumptive father have to start paying child support right then and there? How are they defining conception? If they mean fertilization, this would seriously impact the question of birth control. A number of methods allow fertilization but prevent implantation. Would use of those methods be murder? It seems like they must be, if these anti-choicers are right. And many of them stand behind this conclusion, holding that birth control is an abortifacent - and hence murder.

Invitro fertilization would also seem to lead to murder, since many fertilized embryos created in the process are never implanted, and are eventually destroyed. Guess that means that barren couples will just have to suffer despite the fact that the science exists that would allow them to have their very own child.

Additionally, a goodly number of fertilized zygotes fail to implant and are flushed out of the body. Are those to be counted as deaths? How will we know when such a death has occurred? Will we have to start mandating monthly pregnancy tests for women? Will we be reduced to checking tampons and maxi-pads for the remains of the dead? If they are really serious about this, then, on pain of inconsistency, it seems as though we would have to go through serious privacy violating measures in order to keep track of all these zygote-persons.

If a woman miscarries, or if a fertilized embryo that failed to implant is flushed out of her system, will we be holding her accountable for the death of this "person" if she, say, exercised too much? Or smoked? Or had a glass of wine or two? Or didn't eat enough? How much jail time should a woman who exercises vigorously be given if we happen to find a zygote on her tampon?

The Georgia anti-choicers apparently haven't thought about all this. But then again, that's not surprising. If anti-choicers thought a bit more about the implications of their views, they probably wouldn't be anti-choice.

Read Full Post

Sign the Open Letter From American Feminists

Kathy Pollitt at the Nation has just drafted an open letter from American feminists protesting the media's misrepresentation of us as indifferent to the cause of women around the world. I just signed it. And so should you. American feminists are not only painfully aware of the plight of our sisters around the world, but have worked hard to make things better for them. The media's indication otherwise is just another attempt to make feminism look bad. And why on earth would they want to do that, I wonder?

Read Full Post

PAS for Men

The Reproductive Rights blogsphere has been buzzing about the new trend in the anti-choice movement - men's PAS. It all started with this article in the LA Times. And now, there is an excellent article over at AlterNet about this nonsense and how it might pose a danger for reproductive rights.

PAS, or "post abortion syndrome" has been something that the anti-choice crowd has been harping on for some time. It's modeled on PTSD, but, unlike PTSD, there is no real scientific evidence that PAS exists even in women who have had abortions. This hasn't dissuaded anti-choicers from now claiming that men experience it too. Oh, pobrecitos!

Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that there are going to be a wide range of emotional reactions to an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, and to an abortion. Different people are going to react differently both to the situation and to the choice that they make. But a syndrome? If there were some actual evidence, then maybe I'd sit up and take notice, but there isn't. And what the anti-choice crowd doesn't seem to notice (or perhaps, doesn't care about) is that even if PAS existed, this would still not be an argument for making abortion illegal. The fact that the exercise of my rights has an emotional impact on you doesn't mean that I shouldn't have those rights. Unless there are some premises added there, all you've got is a wild non-sequitur.

On a side note, I find this part of the oh-so-woeful story told in the NY Time article particularly telling:

Chris Aubert, a Houston lawyer, felt only indifference in 1985 when a girlfriend told him she was pregnant and planned on an abortion. When she asked if he wanted to come to the clinic, he said he couldn't; he played softball on Saturdays. He stuck a check for $200 in her door and never talked to her again.

Aubert goes on to say that while he feels as though the abortions cleared a path to success for him, his moral compunctions compel him to say that, if he could, he would go back and "save the babies". But when asked whether the women who he impregnated might feel differently, his shocked response is "I never really thought about it for the women".

He never really thought about it for the women. Given his decision to slide a check in the door of one woman and walk away like a jackass, I can't say that I'm surprised. Maybe if he had thought about it for the woman he would have a better understanding of both the reason why women need to have a choice and the choice that this particular woman made. Maybe if he had actually given any thought to it at all, he wouldn't now be so pained by something that, at the time, mattered less to him than a softball game.

Read Full Post

Why I Won't See "Juno".

Like Knocked Up, Juno has raised a good deal of controversy in the feminist blogosphere. But I'm surprised at the positive reactions I'm seeing. Some are calling Juno "post-feminist", others are claiming that it "speaks in a solidly female voice". And, of course, there are anti-choicers who are lauding the leading lady's decision to take the pregnancy to term and pro-choicers who are complaining about the lack of real attention given to abortion issues.

While I tend to agree with some of the complaints about the lack of true perspective with regard to the abortion issue, I can't really say because I haven't seen the movie. And I won't see it. And the reason has nothing to do with the fact that Juno, the pregnant teen who is the movie's main character, opts to keep her baby. Not only would there be no movie if she chose to terminate, but being pro-choice is all about believing that women have a right to decide what happens to their own bodies. Hence the slogan "My body, my choice". My problem with Juno is that, despite the claims of many that it is inherently feminist, it is just the opposite. Juno is anti-feminist. How can I know this without having seen it? Well, I'll tell you.


There have been a number of movies recently - Waitress, Knocked Up, and now Juno that deal with unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. And this is certainly an issue that should be out there in the public consciousness. But that's exactly where these movies go wrong. All of them treat the issue of unplanned pregnancy in very glib terms. These are not dramas, remember; they aren't even tragicomedies; they are comedies, comedies that derive a laugh from the idea of unplanned pregnancy. Now, I'll be the first to admit that pregnancy can be fertile ground for comedic material, but these movies don't just gain a laugh off of unplanned pregnancy. In the case of Juno, according to reviews, the pregnant teen is portrayed as having an easy pregnancy, parents who are immediately supportive (and perhaps even nonchalant) about her pregnancy, and for whom adoption provides the perfect last minute solution for everyone involved.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but teen pregnancy is no laughing matter, and it is certainly not normal for everything to come so easily for a pregnant teen. Now, I understand that Juno and its fellows Knocked Up and Waitress are fiction. But we seem to very easily forget how quickly fiction can seriously influence our understanding of reality. Think about it for a second. What's wrong with the fact that nearly every female movie star, singer or model in a magazine is paper thin (and in the case of movie stars and singers, simultaneously curvacious in all the right places)? The problem with this is that the longer we are bombarded with images of stick figures with double Ds, the more we, as individuals and as a culture, begin to view this as normal and proper. We start to think that this is what women should look like, and that there is something wrong with any woman who doesn't look like that.

In a similar vein, Juno and movies like it are telling us that unplanned pregnancy is light matter. They are telling us, perhaps not even intentionally, that the way that they portray the situation is normal, and that if you have an unplanned pregnancy and experience anything more than perhaps a realization that life is more complex than you thought and a struggle with understanding yourself and how you relate to others, then there is something wrong with you. That is every bit as anti-feminist as a set of movies that portray women as meek, mild and accepting of male dominance. It is grossly dishonest, and it shapes discussion of this sensitive issue in a way that silences the female voice. Unplanned pregnancy - particularly teen pregnancy - should be part of the public conciousness. But the public should be conscious of the real situation. Unplanned pregnancies are not light and funny. Decisions to terminate do not involve cutsy euphemisms for abortion. Parents are not always supportive. Pregnancies are not always easy. Putting a child up for adoption is not always a perfect solution. It doesn't always end up okay in the end, and even if it does, the road there is far more complex and confusing and painful then the experience of a sassy indie girl gaining a bit of self-understanding and emotional maturity. And that's okay. There is nothing wrong with a woman who has a not-so-funny unplanned pregnancy. There is nothing the matter with a woman whose experience with this trying situation isn't cute. Yet another movie that says different? I'll pass.

Read Full Post

Huckabee Either Intentially Misleads or Is Ignorant of His Own Scriptures

In the recent Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, Mike Huckabee repeated claims about the position of a woman within the context of marriage. This was his statement, which you can find in the complete transcript of the debate:

"... the point, and it comes from a passage of scripture in the New Testament Book of Ephesians is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it's not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It's both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord."

Well, actually, here's the key passage in Ephesians that he's talking about:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to
their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now, it seems pretty clear what's going on here. The Bible is telling wives to submit to their husbands, just as they sumbit to god. So, you should act toward your husband as you would toward god, with all deference, fear, obedience, etc in absolutely everything. On the other side of things, husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ did not love the church as an equal, but as its savior (note the reference to Christ's sacrifice) and leader. This is obviously not a description of an equal relationship or of one of "mutual submission". It is the description of the relationship between a groveling and obedient woman (don't tell me you wouldn't grovel before god if he actually turned up) and her "savior" husband.

In making his statements, then, Huckabee either didn't know the scripture he was referring to, in which case he's rather ignorant of the religion that so apparently motivates his policy decisions, or he intentionally misconstrued it in order to avoid having to face negative backlash over the outmoded and misogynistic teachings that he adheres to. Ignorant believer or anti-feminist liar? I'll let you decide.

Read Full Post

Blog For Choice Day!

January 22nd, the anniversay of Roe, is Blog for Choice Day. This year's topic is why you think it is important to vote pro-choice. If you've got a blog, sign up here and help ignite the blogosphere with rational arguments for choice (and perhaps a little pro-choice ferver).

Read Full Post