anythings.org

Rebecca Walker really just wants me to hate her, doesn’t she? I feel like she’s playing an immature game where she pisses off feminists across the globe in a desperate plea for attention and wealth. Here’s a tip: you’ll never be your mother, so just let it go. Alice Walker is a far better writer, and a much more likable person overall. On the bonus side, Alice Walker doesn’t hate feminism and blame it for everything she sees wrong with the world.

After her ridiculous article for the Daily Mail where she blamed feminism for women’s lack of babies, she found a way back into the media spotlight by publishing an article on CNN calling Clinton’s female supporters “reverse-sexists.”

But with a Democratic house divided, now is the time for healing, and this can only happen if Hillary’s staunch female supporters let go of the reverse-sexist ideology that women are inherently better, wiser, and more compassionate leaders.

They will have to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is actually a man — if it’s the right man. Obama’s vote against the war, marriage to his female mentor, outstanding record on reproductive choice and a host of other progressive issues, and his uncanny ability to inspire people all over the world suggest he’s just that.

It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility.

I really thought we’d gotten over this whole thing about women voting for Clinton because she was a woman, and black men and women voting for Obama because he was African American, but apparently Rebecca Walker doesn’t agree with me. While I’m sure some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman and some African Americans voted for Obama because he was, I’m sure the majority of them were motivated by their political views, and not their similarity to their candidate of choice, whether it be race or gender. I really thought the feminist movement came to terms with this awhile ago: people are so shallow and stupid as to vote for the candidate that matches their personal identification, and accusing them of doing so is downright offensive and patronizing.

I didn’t even need to get to the need of the article where she admits to being an Obama supporter before I figured out that she was one. It’s almost like she’s trying to prove to the world just how bad-ass of a feminist she is by saying “see, look at me, I rose above the female greed and voted for the male candidate!”, as if that somehow makes her better than the feminist women who voted for Clinton.

I’m sorry, but where is her feminist solidarity? Does she really think she is so much more superior than the women who voted for Clinton because she didn’t engage in “reverse-sexism?” For a woman who is striving to encourage empowerment of individuals across the lines of race, gender, etc, she really doesn’t think highly of her fellow women.

She accuses women of voting for Clinton simply because of gender, but pens no response to the men who have voted for her, harking back to the stereotype that men are logical thinkers, and women are irrational and emotional. Why is it acceptable to call women out for voting for Clinton, but say nothing to the men who did? Were all women who voted for Clinton motivated by her gender, and the men motivated by her political views and campaign promises? If she’s going to continue playing such an immature game of blaming feminism for society’s problems, maybe she should make the jump and find a way to blame feminism for all the white men and women who voted for McCain, as well as all of the African Americans who were blinded by their race and voted for Obama.

But she won’t. And you know why? Rebecca Walker hates the feminist movement and she hates empowered women. She blames it for everything that was wrong with her childhood, and she blames it for her terrible relationship with her mother. Why not blame it for her ambivalence regarding motherhood, or the way women voted in 2008? One can only imagine what else she’ll find to blame feminism for. Higher clothing prices because we dare to demand non-sweatshop clothing? Global warming because feminism encouraged us to be the women we wanted to be, so we used aerosol hairspray and put a hole in the o-zone layer? Really, Rebecca, let it go.

Hating the feminist movement from the inside does nothing to increase its effectiveness, no matter how you try to mask your hatred of other women and the movement.

And BY THE WAY, there is no such thing as “reverse-sexism.” Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while more women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis than men, it can cross gender boundaries and create problems for men as well.

Via Feministe.

The feminist blogosphere has been up in arms lately (rightfully so) about an Oklahoma bill that requires a woman to get an ultrasound, and look at the images, one hour before she gets an abortion. The bill says that the woman will be required to get either an vaginal or abdominal ultrasound, whichever shows the best picture. Aside from this being a completely pointless and unwarranted medical procedure, most women in early pregnancy will have to get a vaginal ultrasound, since that provides the best picture:

The bill combines many new abortion regulations. The most invasive and unprecedented provisions of the bill relate to mandates for an ultrasound before a pregnancy termination can be done. The bill states that either a transabdominal or transvaginal transducer, whichever gives the clearer picture of the embryo, must be used. For early terminations that will mandate an ultrasound done with a probe placed in the vagina. There is no provision for the woman to opt out of this procedure. My main concerns about the bill are the following:

1) The bill dictates how doctors obtain informed consent in a way that does not conform to medically-accepted practice. Current state law already requires the doctor to refer patients to information about development of an embryo or fetus twenty-four hours before a pregnancy termination. The website is one required resource. She must also be notified about facilities that will offer her a free ultrasound.

2) This compels a physician to perform an invasive, vaginal procedure — not for the benefit of the patient, and possibly against her wishes — before the requested medical procedure can be done.

3) The fines for failure to follow the requirements begin at $10,000 go up to $100,000 or more for subsequent violations. The highest fines for negligent homicide or driving under the influence in Oklahoma are $1,000.

4) The bill defines “unprofessional conduct” if a physician does not perform this unnecessary procedure and suggests that the medical board may remove the physician’s license. This violates the standard medical practice that any patient has the right to refuse medical procedures or treatment.

This bill dictates how a doctor obtains informed consent, violates the patient’s right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, and places disproportionate punishments on physicians who do not comply.

Now, just wondering, but has anybody else noticed that a forced vaginal ultrasound is more than a little akin to rape? Last I checked, rape was defined as unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, regardless of what object was doing the penetration. Almost makes me want to go to Oklahoma, get pregnant, have an abortion with a vaginal ultrasound against my will, and then file charges against the state for rape. But let’s be real, that would never happened in a state that is even considering passing this legislation, especially after they brought it back to life after the governor’s veto.

Most amusing to me, however, is #4: if a doctor doesn’t perform the ultrasound but does perform the abortion, the doctor is at risk for losing his/her license to practice medicine, simply for following a patient’s wishes to not perform a medical procedure. Last time I checked, it wasn’t a crime for a physician not to perform a procedure at the patient’s request, but apparently, Oklahoma has decided to make it so.

Our lovely lawmakers have finally gotten up the nerve to tackle Bush’s abstinence-only sex education funding. It’s no surprise that it took a Democrat controlled House and Senate to allow this challenge to happen, but the question is, why didn’t it happen sooner? Despite years of outcry and criticism, it took our lawmakers seven years into Bush’s term as President to put any concentrated energy towards the removal of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

In a letter signed by 76 House and Senate members, they urged Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, to redistribute abstinence-only education funds towards more effective programs, such as the comprehensive sex education that was used several Presidents ago. While I am all for a letter urging someone to action, I highly doubt that will be the solution to ending abstinence-only education. I’d think the many studies from prominent and well-respected institutions that have shown that abstinence-only education does not work would have pushed our legislators to action sooner, but apparently not.

From the National Partnership on Women and Families:

The letter did not suggest specific alternative programs that could be funded, CQ HealthBeat reports. Emily Kryder — press secretary for Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who signed the letter — said that Capps would prefer to fund the type of comprehensive sex education programs authorized by HR 1653 and HR 819, which contain a variety of measures intended to increase access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) — sponsors of HR 1653 and HR 819, respectively — also signed the letter.

Capps in an e-mail said, “Abstinence-only education, such as that funded through CBAE, doesn’t work and is a waste of our limited financial resources.” She added, “We need to give our young people access to accurate information that will enable them to make healthy decisions.” Shays said, “The extraordinary number of teen pregnancies and growing rate of sexually transmitted disease transmission among teens underscores the necessity of comprehensive sexual education.” He added that children “need a responsible education that includes both abstinence and contraception approaches to pregnancy prevention and sexual health.”

Reps. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) also recently sent a letter to Obey that asks for CBAE funding and policy guidelines to be maintained. “Millions of youth will continue to receive education that provides a risk-eliminating advantage gained by abstaining from sexual activity if abstinence education funding is continued,” McIntyre and Terry wrote, adding, “This is not a partisan issue” (Grimaldi, CQ HealthBeat, 3/31).

Call you local legislators and urge them to join sign onto this letter. It may not be the driving force to end oppressive abstinence-only sex education, but it could be the catalyst for something bigger.

Image from Getty.

When I was younger I was quite the reader. I liked to read because I wanted to be just like my mom (and I still do want to be just like my mom, hence the knitting and the reading) and she loved reading, too. After my brother was born, we spent a lot of time trying to prepare him for school by teaching him how to write and read (he has Asperger’s). When we started working with my brother, I started reading more because my mom began purchasing books that were shorter, quicker, and easier to read. I like books that go by quickly, even if they are 700 page bricks. But the one author I never liked was Dr. Seuss.

I was scared to death of Dr. Seuss. The rhymes, the scary pictures, the political undertones, it was all too much for little four year-old me. The only Dr. Seuss book I read was I’ll Teach My Dog 100 Words - which I probably still have memorized. And then, one day, even though she knew better, my mom brought home Horton Hears A Who!. I begrudgingly read the book, and it ended up being one of my favorite books as a child. As an adult, I even have a Horton Hears A Who! tshirt with his catch phrase “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

So this weekend I went to see the movie. I was excited for many different reasons, but the two most prominent being 1.) Horton!! and 2.) amazing new animation technologies. And I can just say, I really really do not like it when my childhood memories get hijacked by wing nuts.

From AlterNet:

Anti-choicers demonstrate at a children’s movie to claim that “a person’s a person no matter how small” — unless that person has a uterus.

The book was written in 1954, long before Roe v. Wade and the modern framework of the abortion debate. If Seuss’ simple rhymes do contain social commentary, they appear to be a condemnation of Cold War era paranoia. But context doesn’t matter to the anti-choice crowd — in fact a quick internet search reveals that there are many out there who believe that God spoke through the decidedly liberal Seuss’ pen, willing him to write this line that can now be used to justify a movement he didn’t support. They are undeterred by Seuss’ widow’s support for Planned Parenthood and an interview with Seuss Scholar Philip Nel, who said that the author threatened lawsuits against anti-choice groups: “It’s one of the ways in which Seuss has been misappropriated. He would not agree with that.” Death of the author, indeed.

This past Saturday a group of anti-abortion protestors filtered in to the Hollywood premiere of the “Horton” film, voiced by Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell and Carol Burnettt, and others. They interrupted the screening with a coordinated protest, shouting during the film and then walking around with tape over their mouths. It was a bizarre stunt, considering the fact that most of the audience was made up of children who doubtless missed their political message, and Hollywood journalists who made fun of them.

But these kinds of shenanigans, while frustrating, weren’t exactly shocking. Despite lawsuits and voiced disapproval from Dr. Seuss and his widow, the “a person’s a person no matter how small” line has snowballed and is now a de facto motto for the anti-abortion movement. Just google the line: some pro-life sites show up above Dr. Seuss.

[…] The anti-choice protesters, incidentally, were happy to ruin the afternoon of hundreds of those kids, too busy advocating on behalf of blastocysts to pay attention to real people — real “small people,” in fact. This kind of behavior sums up the hypocrisy of a movement that would give personhood to a fertilized egg while denying health care to children and physical autonomy to women.

The problem is that those who are particularly proud of saying “a person’s a person” don’t care about actual persons.

And from Seuss’s side of things:

None of this sat well with Audrey Geisel, widow of Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), who attended the screening. So did Karl ZoBell, the lawyer who represents her and who has represented the interests of Dr. Seuss for some 40 years. In an interview with NPR, he said he couldn’t make out the yelling and thought maybe “some nut” was in the theater. Later, he asked the protesters what group they represented, and none would answer. Their silence didn’t seem like an accident to him, which makes sense, because ZoBell has not been bashful about sending cease-and-desist letters to those who appropriate Dr. Seuss’ material for their own purposes. And many do. (According to ZoBell, politicians love to sling the term Grinch at their rivals.)

ZoBell says it would be nice if these people came up with their own material. But if they don’t go too far—by copping the illustrations, for example—they can use a line like “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” even if it wouldn’t have pleased Dr. Seuss. And it wouldn’t have. The Geisels were opposed to using the Dr. Seuss books for any political agenda.

STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD, ANTI-CHOICERS! And more importantly, stop ruining the childhoods of the millions of children going to see this movie.

I understand that they are trying to make their point in as public a venue as possible, but it is a children’s movie: the primary audience is children (and families)… not exactly the kind of people that need to be converted to their cause.

If a person’s a person (no matter how small), then why is the person in my uterus more important than me?

Ridiculous! I am not that shocked that a Catholic school would cancel Dolores Huerta’s speaking engagement, but at the same time, I thought they would have enough intelligence to understand that the talk was about “her founding role in the United Farm Workers and the importance of public service” and not abortion.

Apparently, to the Catholic church, it doesn’t matter what kind of a person you are, or what type of good you have done for humanity: if you’re pro-choice, you’re out.

From the LA Times:

Huerta said that the school’s principal, Sister Eva Lujano, left a voice mail at her Bakersfield office over the weekend, informing her that she had been disinvited. Lujano was out sick Thursday and unavailable for comment, school officials said.

But the editor of California Catholic Daily, a website that published an article about Huerta’s planned appearance, took credit for scrubbing the talk. Editor Bob McPhail said that after the website’s reporter called the school and a diocese superintendent to ask about the talk, Lujano agreed to cancel the planned assembly for sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders.

“Her appearance would have created the impression that the school was overlooking her prominent role in promoting abortion,” he said.

Huerta, who lives in Bakersfield and runs a foundation there, said she was puzzled by the school’s action. She has been unable to reach Lujano, she said.

“I was not going to talk about reproductive rights at all,” Huerta said. “I think the parents could have asked if their child could be excused.”

Huerta said it was the second time in a month that a talk she had scheduled had been canceled due to protests. Last month, administrators at St. Thomas University in Texas called off an appearance citing her views on abortion.

If the NY Post can be completely sexist when it comes to lying, then so can I. The piece was published over the weekend and it uses a book written by a woman (whose credentials - or lack thereof - are completely ignored) to claim that, in the words of Jessica Valenti, women are fucking liars.

Well, it’s my turn now. So I present you with the Top 10 Things Men Lie About.

1. MONEY
How much they make.

2. BEING A DAD
How much effort they actually put into raising their children.

3. BEAUTY
The amount of time they spend at the gym, their penis size, and their receding hair line.

4. SEX
How many partners they have had and how big of a stud they are in bed. Homophobia. Also see “BEAUTY” for penis size fallacies.

5. THEIR KIDS
Inflating accomplishments, SAT scores.

6. LOVE
Infidelities, marrying for love, relationship satisfaction.

7. FAMILY
Two words - domestic violence. Also: alcoholism, child sexual abuse, incest, spousal rape, therapy, etc.

8. ADDICTION
Internet porn, sex, alcohol dependency problems, workaholic tendencies, affairs, etc.

9. WORK
Embellishing resumes, exaggerating skills, commitment, goofing off in the workplace, inappropriate work behavior, staying late (but really having an affair, see “LOVE”), etc.

10. INFERTILITY AND IMPOTENCE
Ability to maintain an erection and impregnate their significant other.

Men lie about the same things women do - just swap out whatever is important to them. Not all women lie about shopping, some actually detest the thought of going to a mall and buying something from the latest fall collection. On the same token, not all men are obsessed with their penis size.

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, a blogger for Time, says that the author of this book (and subject of the above article) is “perpetuating ugly stereotypes by painting one gender as innately deceitful.” I think I’d have to agree there.

While calling women liars isn’t exactly a new and innovative way to diss half of the human species, it is still stings like it is. Men lie just as frequently, and about pretty much the same things, as women. Like learning abilities, the differences among people of the same gender are often greater than those between genders. I don’t understand why this concept is so difficult for people to grasp.

[Image from NY Post]

I think every single feminist blog I read has picked up on Charlotte Allen’s sexist “women are idiots” piece already, but it’s my turn now:

So I don’t understand why more women don’t 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. Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are… kind of dim.

I don’t even know where to begin with this. It’s just so ridiculous that this was even published in the Washington Post. Articles like this not only infuriate feminists because they are based on ridiculous personal views, but they continue to stereotype women. I know more women who don’t fit into Ms. Allen’s (yeah, Ms., not Mrs.!) pathetically chauvinistic view of women than do. And maybe that’s because I use my brain for things other than reading 2007’s lame book of the year, Eat, Pray, Love, but I highly doubt it. I think it’s because I’m a woman, and I’m intelligent.

She, of course, preys on the view of women as “women haters”: us “smart” women (or women like herself, who have accepted our “lower status”) hate these stupid women for all their inadequacies and embarrassments.

Allen also claims that men do stupid things, too, but they have completely justifiable reasons for their stupid actions. Of course, men do stupid things with far less frequency than women, but that’s not her concern. I honestly don’t see how a man can justify liking Rambo because it’s about violence, rape, murder, and mayhem - but a woman can’t justify liking Love Actually because it’s about relationships, communication, and love. How is the former a more sensible reason the latter? Oh, I know, because it is coming from the superior male.

What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?

We don’t. You just think we do. So what if millions of copies of Eat, Pray, Love have been sold? Just as many women don’t own it as those who do.

And here’s a shocker - men fall for the hysterical (disgustingly stupid physical comedy a la Superbad’s menstrual blood scene), the superficial (fake breasts and blond hair - Victoria’s Secret expectations of women and an obsession with outer beauty), and the non-gooily sentimental (overcompensating with too many action films).

And here’s an even bigger shocker - not all men are the same. Oh, and, neither are women.

This post is dedicated to Sergeant Huxtable of the Aspen Village Platoon and Sarah Sannebeck, my little firecracker.

[Image from Getty]

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, aka Reagan 2.0, has just recently endorsed an amendment to the Colorado constitution that would consider a fetus a person.

Aside from the whole ridiculousness surrounding when a fetus becomes a person, this is a dangerous line to cross. When you consider a fetus a person with individual rights, you have to decide whose rights are more important - the mother’s or the child’s? Of course, without the mother, the child wouldn’t exist, but the anti-choice movement doesn’t care about that. They care so much about preventing abortions that they’d do anything to make them completely inaccessible to women in need.

The problem with defining life at conception is most women don’t know they’re pregnant for the first 6 to 8 weeks of their pregnancy. If you are going to a hold a woman responsible for a fetus (aka a person, according to Huckabee) from conception, you need to understand the science behind why you CAN’T.

Huckabee had a few choice words to say in support of the amendment:

“This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception,” Huckabee said in a statement.

“With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value,” Huckabee said. “Passing this amendment will mean the people of Colorado will protect the sanctity of life from conception until natural death occurs.”

Does this mean I can claim the fetus on my taxes before I abort it? Fab!

Even better - does this mean I can get pregnant and drive in the carpool lane legally before I abort it? Amazing!

Here I was thinking I had the right to decide what is in my body… but apparently Reagan 2.0 doesn’t think so. What’s next? If you get raped when you’re unconscious, it wasn’t really illegal?

I can’t believe to express my words of anger, frustration, and downright disbelief about this.

CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) — The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people’s physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.

But it’s an issue that raises major privacy concerns — what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information — from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI’s Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is “important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in.”

But it’s unnerving to privacy experts.

“It’s the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Technology and Liberty Project.

So, let me get this straight: it’s important to record every defining physical characteristic of every person living legally in the United States in order to better identify criminals? I’m sorry, but if people can remove their fingerprints and not leave their DNA behind, I’m sure they can cover up their tattoos and disguise their eye color.

This is such an invasion of privacy - I can’t believe this is even being considered. I do not feel safe because they have decided to create this database. I feel more at risk because criminals are going to find different, more discrete, and possibly more violent, ways to commit their crimes. An identification database is not going to prevent criminals from committing crimes. Fingerprint and DNA databases haven’t done that, so what makes the FBI think this will?

The Kentucky Senate has passed a bill that, if passed in the House, will ban universities and state agencies from offering benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.

Even worse than the actual decision is the way the Courier Journal describes those who voted against it. One was labeled a “homosexual” after his only quote in the article. The entire article is riddled with quotes about why people felt this ban should be passed. Of course, the big shocker, religious values played a huge part. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, the bill’s sponsor, said:

“I do not recognize domestic partnerships as being a correct thing. My Bible teaches against it.”

Of course, the ridiculous thing behind it all, is that it hurts the Universities in the area. It also hurts the students, who may not get a top quality education in Kentucky because the University couldn’t recruit one expert due to their sexuality and lack of available partner benefits.

University presidents have opposed the bill, saying it hurts their ability to recruit researchers and professors.

University of Louisville trustees voted in 2006 to become the state’s first public university to extend health-insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners, including homosexuals. the University of Kentucky followed suit, and Eastern Kentucky University is looking at the issue.

Nearly 300 universities and colleges across the country, and more than half of the Fortune 500 companies, provide such benefits, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington.

“Our position is and remains that we are hopeful the legislature will allow the universities to have the flexibility to make health-care decisions for their employees and their families,” UK spokesman Jay Blanton said.

U of L spokesman John Drees said the bill would make it difficult to work toward its goal of becoming a top metropolitan research university — a goal the General Assembly set in 1997.

“If you want to compete with the best universities and the best corporations, you need to be able to offer the same types of benefits they offer,” he said.

This just SCREAMS DISCRIMINATION! I never understood why sexuality was such a difficult thing for people to comprehend discrimination of. Religions are constantly fighting for their right not to be discriminated against, and yet, that is a chosen identity. Identities that you are born with, such as gender (unless you change it), race, etc have been protected from discrimination for quite awhile… but sexuality has not. And that’s because the church has people believing that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore a sin:

They also see a homosexual orientation as being a choice. Because they see this “behavior” as wrong (at one point, it was criminal) and preventable, they view the LGBT community as asking for special rights that allow them access to the insitutions that privilege heterosexuals. The process goes something like this: if sin as a choice, and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality must be a chosen path. This argument is, essentially, flawed because it is based on the idea that being LGBT is a choice. (For the sake of time and length, I am not going to go into LGBT as being inborn v. chosen v. environmental debate. My reasons for this are because the Christian Right does not, so I do not need to do so to deconstruct their argument.)

Religious identity is a choice. And according to the Christian Right, being “a homosexual” is also a choice. If religious identity wasn’t a choice, it would be assigned in the ways that gender and race are. Religion is, however, a chosen identity.

Religion is, also, protected by the Consitution. Sexuality is not. This is special rights. The Christian Right’s response to this accusation is that they are not special rights because the designers of the Consitution put them in there, so they shouldn’t be removed. While it is true that religion was added into the Consitution and is protected by law, this response to the argument that religious identity does not dodge the issue of special rights. This still doesn’t answer the question of why religion gets protection but sexuality does not.

Chosen identity or not, there is simply not reason whatsoever that a person’s “choice” to be gay (or straight!) should lead to discrimination in every aspect of their life. The right to marry, secure health care from a partner, safe work environments and protection from employment discrimination, adoption, child custody, and more, are all rights that are not granted to LGBT individuals at the federal level. Instead, they are granted on a case-by-case basis.

My advice? Move to California. It’s nice.