anythings.org

If you’re going to make an endorsement because you’re trying to help a candidate win an election, that’s fine with me. But when you make an endorsement, make it clear why you’re selecting candidate A in favor of candidate B, don’t just simply state that you’re endorsing candidate A.

My favorite part of the endorsement had to be when Nancy Keenan said the following two sentences in the same paragraph:

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Sen. Obama will be our next president.

It’s nice to know that you aren’t letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment and make endorsements on behalf of an entire agency. Why didn’t she just say “I like Obama better than Clinton, ne-ner-ne-ner-neeee-ner!” - because that’s what it sounds like.

If you read one thing on the entire internet today, make it this article (which I definitely stole the subtitle from, but I couldn’t have put it any better myself). And, if you’re going to buy one book this month/year/whatever, make it his. I haven’t read it, but I will. And soon.

You’d never guess that Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin played a leading role in one of the most tumultuous episodes in recent Boston history, that he was at the center of an abortion case that propelled him into the national debate over Roe v. Wade - a debate that rages to this day.

And so, in his quiet way, does Kenneth Edelin, at least when he thinks about his 1975 manslaughter conviction - eventually overturned - and the way his life was turned upside down for what he sees as political and religious reasons.

Edelin has written a searingly angry account of his trial and conviction titled “Broken Justice: A True Story of Race, Sex and Revenge in a Boston Courtroom.” Tonight from 7 to 9, Edelin will be at Barnes & Noble at Boston University to read from his book, in which he argues that he was targeted by antiabortion forces determined to make an example of him.

“I had to get this book done,” says Edelin, 68. “I’ve been trying to do it for 30 years. It was burning to get out.”

Prior to reading this article, I had no idea who Edelin was. Kenneth Edelin was an African American doctor who was convicted for manslaughter after performing a legal abortion in Massachusetts.

In 1973, Edelin worked as the chief resident in obstetrics at Boston City Hosptial. Performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision, Edelin was indicted for manslaughter in 1974 when he surgically terminated a pregnancy. Convicted on February 15, 1975 and sentenced to a one-year probation, Edelin’s case drew national attention. Edelin appealed the decision and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the conviction on December 17, 1976.

There’s nothing more powerful than a story like Dr. Edelin’s, especially considering the current political climate and the fervor of the anti-choice movement. Stories like Dr. Edelin’s may remind us of the past, but they are also a glimpse into our future if McCain takes the White House in this presidential election. Doctors will be prosecuted for doing their jobs as medical professionals: they will be sent to prison for performing a medical procedure with the patient’s consent.

In the world we live in now, I think it is worth remembering the heroes like Dr. Edelin because if we don’t, it can only happen again. There is no doubt in my mind that he wasn’t targeted simply because he performed an abortion, but because he was a black doctor. This is definitely a book I’ll be picking up on the way home. Hearing about this man’s life, his story, and what happened after the trial are all equally interesting to me, especially since the book was written later after he’s had time to reflect on it.

If you’re in Boston, you should definitely go and see him read. Don’t miss the chance!

Via Pesky Apostrophe. More about Dr. Edelin here and here.

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.

As a woman who falls into the 18-24 and sexually active statistic, it should come as no surprise that I have used emergency contraception at least once in my life. I am lucky enough to live in a liberal town where access to Plan B (and other emergency contraceptives) is readily available without scrutiny.

However, many woman do not live in towns where they can obtain Plan B without scrutiny, discrimination, or harassment. Some women aren’t even aware that Plan B is available to them (at a steep cost) without a prescription from their local pharmacy. In an effort to combat the lack of knowledge, resources, and availability of emergency contraceptives, Back Up Your Birth Control has launched a Day of Action to increase awareness surrounding this vital piece of women’s reproductive health.

From Back Up Your Birth Control:

Back Up Your Birth Control (BUYBC) is a national campaign to expand access to EC by increasing EC education and awareness.

2008 BACK UP YOUR BIRTH CONTROL DAY OF ACTION

The Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign Day of Action is March 25, 2008! Join advocates across the country in raising awareness of EC and ensuring that every woman can back up her birth control with EC when and if she needs it.

FEATURED 2008 BACK UP YOUR BIRTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES

The 2008 Day of Action is dedicated to making EC available to all women regardless of their income, insurance coverage or immigration status. While we celebrate the FDA decision that made EC available over-the-counter to women 18 and older, we know that the high cost of EC over-the counter, usually between $40-70 in pharmacies nationwide, is a continuing barrier to some women accessing EC. Making the situation even worse is the fact that many college health centers and safety-net family planning clinics have had to drastically increase the cost of regular birth control methods because of a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act passed in 2005 that eliminated discounts on birth control for these clinics. This means that the four million college-age women across America – along with low-income women who rely on the 400 safety-net family planning clinics – may need to back up their birth control now more than ever before.

This year’s campaign will focus on:

• Raising awareness of the barrier to EC access posed by the high cost of EC over-the-counter
• Educating women, and teens who can’t access EC OTC, about sources of free and low-cost EC in their communities
• Encouraging and providing resources for advocates who are working for a resolution of the DRA price increase
• Highlighting innovative models that advocates and health departments across the country are implementing to help increase access to affordable EC (including free EC days, websites that help women compare EC prices at their area pharmacies, states covering EC OTC under their Medicaid programs, etc.)

Check out their website for more ways to get involved in this year’s Day of Action!

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.

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?

When verbally assaulted at a rally by anti-choicers, Bill responded, and I have to say, I am impressed by his response… and not just because he’s Bill, but because it’s an awesome response. Yes, he got angry, and yes, he may have yelled more than a little… but he did get his point across and (I hope) filled the anti-choicers present at this rally with a more than a little embarrassment.

Anti-choicers have done NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions being provided in the United States, but pro-choicers have. Pro-choice activists have lobbied for more available birth control and other family planning methods to be made available on a wide spread range at extremely low cost. These efforts have only been discouraged by anti-choicers, who refuse to make the connection that more contraception means fewer abortions because they aren’t just anti-abortion, they are anti-contraception. The anti-choicers know that the anti-contraception stance is an extremely unpopular one in America, which is why very few of them publicize it. But if you look at their motives and their rhetoric, it’s very clear: they are against contraception, abortion, and sex for any purpose other than reproductive.

As Bill put it:

“We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth! Tell the truth! If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother, as an accessory to murder, in prison, and you won’t say you wanna do that, because you know that you wouldn’t have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is, you can’t name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions, instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally.”

My favorite part, of course, has been bolded for your reading pleasure. For those dying to see the video, click here.

[Via every feminist blog I’ve read today.]

I love Ellen Page. I have a huge, gigantic, unreasonably large amount of love for her. In the words of Juno, “she is the macaroni to my cheese”. This only makes me love her more.

Is “Juno” a pro-life movie?

Not in the slightest, and if you knew me and if you knew the writer and the director, no one would ever say that. It happens to be a film about a girl who has a baby and gives it to a yuppie couple. That’s what the movie’s about. Like, I’m really sorry to everyone that she doesn’t have an abortion, but that’s not what the film is about. She goes to an abortion clinic and she completely examines all the opportunities and all the choices allowed her and that’s obviously the most crucial thing. It’s as simple as that.

I call myself a feminist when people ask me if I am, and of course I am ’cause it’s about equality, so I hope everyone is. You know you’re working in a patriarchal society when the word feminist has a weird connotation. “Hippie” has a weird connotation. “Liberal” has a weird connotation.

How sick are you of these questions?

Well, because I very much am pro-choice, I don’t really get it. People are always going to project. It’s kind of amazing, though, that a movie that’s caused this much controversy has done really well in America.

Yay!

Why do you vote pro-choice? For me, this has always been an easy question to answer. I vote pro-choice because, above all, I think every woman has the right to decide what is best for her, her future, her potential baby, and her life. Instead of enforcing strict, and more importantly, restrictive, policies on all women, I believe that women should be granted access to the most liberal policies and allowed to make their own decisions.

If you can’t trust a woman to make her own decisions about her life, then what are you saying about half of the human species? Does a uterus make women completely incapable of deciding what is best for their bodies and their life? Does lacking a penis make it impossible for women to make logical decisions about their reproductive, physical, and mental health? I didn’t think so. The bottom line is, by taking away abortion rights, Republicans are telling women one thing: they don’t trust us to make our own decisions.

It’s really that simple. I wish I had more to say, but that’s all there is to it. And maybe, well, KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARY!

(Yes, ovary. I only have one.)