Bligbi » Reproductive Rights

100 days of Reproductive Justice under Obama

Karen — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:49:58 +0000

Here’s a slide show on reproductive accomplishments (and failures) during Obama’s first 100 days:

Possibly Related Posts

Zygotes get no love in North Dakota

Karen — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:11:23 +0000

The absurdly ridiculous and dangerous “personhood” amendment in North Dakota has been laid to rest by the state Senate.

Senators voted 29-16 Friday to reject legislation that sought to define as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." The "personhood" status would include a developing embryo from the moment of conception, whether inside or outside the womb.

Just how bad was this legislation? A Republican senator was it’s most frequent critic stating that it “reaches far beyond protecting human rights” and that it would cause more problems for the state than it would solve.

Possibly Related Posts

FDA ordered to rethink Plan B age restrictions

Karen — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:34:41 +0000

Here’s some good news via Reuters.

A U.S. court on Monday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its decisions on the sale of the Plan B emergency contraceptive and ordered its producer to make the pills available to 17-year-olds without a prescription.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a 52-page ruling, said its order to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds under the same conditions it is currently available to older women must be complied with within 30 days.

As it stands, Plan B is currently available without a prescription with identification.

Possibly Related Posts

Priest just says "No" to Obama supporters

Karen — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:06:26 +0000

On the heels of Catholic bishops vowing to continue their war on the rights of women comes yet more news of Catholic leaders being assholes. This time it’s a priest in South Carolina who’s decided to tell Obama supporters not to take communion.

His reason? Because supporting Barack *Hussein* Obama over that other guy who was running “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

“Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president,” Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

And what has the “most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve” done to deserve his title?

show

Horrible little man, eh?

Possibly Related Posts

On pregnancy as a consequence

Karen — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:44:45 +0000

If pregnancy is the best thing that could ever happen to a woman, why do the forces of the pro-forced pregnancy brigade constantly refer to pregnancy as a consequence?

Consequences are bad things. No one wants to suffer the consequences. Winning the highest jackpot in your state’s history is not a consequence of gambling. Getting evicted because you spent the last three months of rent money on lottery tickets trying to win that jackpot is a consequence of gambling.

Furthermore, when we talk about consequences we’re usually talking about things that happen when we choose to do things that are, in and of themselves, wrong.

For example, dropping dead of a heart attack at an age where death by a heart attack isn’t likely. The best way for a young person to drop dead of a heart attack [the consequence] is to make the decision to eat poorly and get inadequate exercise [the wrong choice]. On the other hand, a young person who drops dead of a heart attack because of a inherited heart problem, is merely tragic. No bad choices. No consequences.

Ergo, when it comes to pregnancy being a consequence, the idea that it is a consequence is based, wholly or partly, on the idea that sex is a bad thing. This also explains why people who will say that abortion is murder will permit victims of rape to abort their pregnancies. Those women did not make the decision to have sex and thus should not be forced to suffer the consequences of that decision.

And people say that religion’s positive influences, especially in the arts, outweighs, to some extent, the bad it’s done.

Hmph.

What piece of artwork, what statue, what song is so stunning in it’s beauty that it should compell us to conclude that maybe, just maybe, turning a normal human activity into a dirty despicable deed that one should suffer consequences for commiting isn’t so bad afterall?

Possibly Related Posts

Bishops promise war against Women

Karen — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:46:06 +0000

While Obama has often used the right wing frames when it comes to abortion, Obama made a promise to those of us who support reproductive freedom. His promise was that one of his first acts as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

What is FOCA? It’s a bill that forbids state interference with the reproductive choices of women. Every statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice or other action present and future will be considered null and void.

So, what’s a anti-choice activists to do? Why vow to continue the war against against women, of course. And that’s exactly what a group of Catholic bishops here in America have promised:

The nation’s Catholic bishops decided yesterday to fire an opening salvo at the incoming Obama administration, pledging to work with the new president on issues such as immigration and healthcare but also warning that the Catholic Church will do everything it can to oppose his support for abortion rights.

Meeting a week after Democrat Barack Obama, a strong supporter of abortion rights, won a majority of the Catholic vote en route to a relatively easy victory, the bishops were clearly agitated by the prospect of eased restrictions on abortion rights over the next four years.

Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Chicago warned that Catholic hospitals might have to close if, as he and other bishops fear based on legislation considered by Congress this year, a Democratic Congress and a sympathetic Obama administration decide to eliminate the right of doctors to refuse to perform abortions

I for one don’t give a fuck if every religious back institution in America chooses to shut down if faced with having to cease discriminating against women. I don’t care how many medical professionals and pharmacists get fired. They should be fired.

Of course, no article about religious leaders threatening to continue a war against a minority group would be complete without some fucked up logic:

Paprocki said he sees “increasingly militant and virulent threats to preborn life.” Another bishop, Jaime Soto of Sacramento, said, “There really is plenty of choice for women in this culture” and warned that legislative changes supported by Obama would create “a culture of coercion for women.”

Doing away with various things that are designed to force women into remaining pregnant against their wills is creating a “culture of coercion”? Yep. It makes sense to me. How about you?

Possibly Related Posts

It’s only terrorism if ‘innocent’ Americans are terrorized

Karen — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:04:11 +0000

Just when I think I couldn’t possibly dislike Sarah Palin more than I already dislike her, she gives an interview where she gets a bit huffy when asked if she considers those who blow up reproductive health clinics to be domestic terrorists.

For those who can’t or don’t want to watch the video, here’s the transcript.

Brian Williams: Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers — hanging out with terrorist – domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post uh 9-11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ‘60’s terrorists, under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?

Sarah Palin: There is no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was um one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon — that is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or um facilities, that uh, it would be unacceptable — I don’t know if you could use the word terrorist, but its unacceptable and it would not be condoned of course on our watch.

While the video above cuts off at that point, her response continues with her stating that she does not regret referring to Bill Ayers as an ‘unrepentant domestic terrorist’. Brian Williams follows up by asking her bluntly what other categories would she call acts of terrorism:

Brian Williams: I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers? Protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails, were thrown? People died.

Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.

Notice how she keeps referring to those who would harm innocent Americans, not just Americans, but the innocent ones.

Know who the non-innocent Americans are? Those who work in or enter the doors of a women’s health clinic.

Sarah Palin doesn’t know if we should refer to the people who have killed doctors, destroyed buildings and harrassed women for providing/seeking a legal medical procedure as “terrorists”.

Possibly Related Posts

McCain’s mockery of women’s health

Karen — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:26:18 +0000

This may sound bad, but I skipped the debate between Obama and McCain Wednesday. I tried to watch it, but McCain annoys the crap out of me and nothing short of a lobotomy could possibly get me to vote for him. So, what did I miss? I missed getting to see McCain do this (via Shakesville):

This is what McCain did when he spoke about late term abortions. He made scare quotes about health exceptions to laws restricting abortion access (video here).

His exact words:

Again…just again, an example of the eloquence of Senator Obama, health of the mother. You know that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything.

He wasn’t finished either. He went on to state that considering the health of women is an extremist position.

Got that? If you think a pregnant woman’s health is something to take into consideration when drafting laws restricting abortion access, you’re now an official member of the Extreme Lefty Brigade.

Believe it or not, it gets worse. Via Cara at the Curvature, here’s another video of John McCain talking about abortion (second video down) where he continues to support outlawing abortion, both federally and locally, even though he understands that doing so would lead to the deaths of women.

Personally, I do not like how Obama chooses to speak about reproductive issues, but I think, at heart, he actually gives a damn about women, unlike McCain who is the true extremist on this issue if only for political reasons.

Possibly Related Posts

NARAL’s such a bully!

Karen — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:44:40 +0000

One day I’m going to figure out how I get on some of the email lists I’m on, but today is not that day. Today is snort at the faux feminists who go by the name of Feminists for Life.

They appear to be upset that NARAL has referred to their deceptive group as being anti-choice.

The truth really does hurt apparently because that’s exactly what Feminists for Life(FFL) is – anti-choice. They do not support a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy for any reason.

From the Q&A section of their site concerning abortions due to the welfare of the woman:

…Situations in which the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother are extremely rare. Late-term abortions are never medically necessary. Emergency C-sections are often the medically appropriate response to save both mother and child. !

…, there are issues related to mental health. While pregnancy can be a stressful experience and sometimes bring on or exacerbate depression, psychological stress should not be “treated” by abortion. Psychiatrists and psychologists need to treat mental health issues directly.

FFL also opposes women seeking abortions due to rape and incest. In the same section under “what if she just doesn’t want it” Serrin Foster puts FFL position on abortion rather bluntly:

We oppose abortion in all cases because violence is a violation of basic feminist principles.

You simply cannot be “pro-choice” when it comes to reproductive issues and simultaneously oppose the choice to terminate a pregnancy. End of discussion.

Possibly Related Posts

What’s another word for decision?

Karen — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:14:46 +0000

Jon Stewart, who recently had some fun with Karl Rove, scores another goal by having Samantha Bee interview fans of Sarah Palin about Bristol’s “decision” to continue her pregnancy:

The best part starts at 2:23. Samantha’s interviewing a young woman who can’t bring herself to say that naughty word “choice”.