PBS on “Democrats and the New Politics of Abortion”

PBS has a great video up where they pose the question, Has the Democratic Party abandoned support of reproductive rights?

To gain their historic control of Congress, Democrats fielded moderate candidates who didn’t always follow the party line, especially when it came to abortion. Now that the Democratic Party has the legislative upper hand, are they willing to negotiate away reproductive rights for other political gains?

This week, NOW goes to Allentown, Pennsylvania to ask: Are abortion rights now in jeopardy at the very hands of the party that has historically protected them? Among those interviewed are pro-life Democratic U.S. Representative Bart Stupak and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

“If there was a bill on the floor to reverse Roe vs Wade, and says ‘life begins at conception,’ I would vote for it.” Congressman Stupak tells NOW. Jen Boulanger, director of the often-protested Allentown Women’s Center, says, “I would expect more from the Democratic Party, to stick to their ideals, not just throw us to the curb.”

Has the Democratic Party traded principles for power?

Turkish Girl Buried Alive For Talking To Boys

This is surely chilling.  The 16-year-old girl’s body was discovered buried under a chicken pen and it is reported by police that she was “buried alive by relatives in an ‘honor’ killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.”

Turkish police discovered the body after acting on an anonymous tip. The tipster told police that the girl was killed after a family council meeting, and had been buried under a chicken pen. Police say that the girl had complained two months earlier that her grandfather beat her for talking to boys.

The girl, identified by police only by her initials M.M., was said to have a large amount of soil in her stomach and lungs, indicating she had been buried alive.

An honor killing is the murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonor upon the family, clan, or community. This perceived dishonor is normally the result of (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to the family (b) wanting out of an arranged marriage or choosing to marry by own choice or (c) engaging in certain sexual acts. These killings result from the perception that defense of honor justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonors their clan or family.

“Official figures indicate that more than 200 ‘honor’ killings take place each year – almost half of all murders in Turkey.“

$7,000 dollar “sexy robot.” Cue sexist “off button” jokes.

Now isn’t this guy just a piece of work?  A $7,000 dollar “sexy robot” named Roxxxy who already has many pre order requests.

To some men, she might seem like the perfect woman: She’s a willowy 5 feet 7 and 120 pounds. She’ll chat with you endlessly about your interests. And she’ll have sex whenever you please — as long as her battery doesn’t run out.Meet Roxxxy, who may be the world’s most sophisticated talking female sex robot. For $7,000, she’s all yours.

“She doesn’t vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else,” said her inventor, Douglas Hines, who unveiled Roxxxy last month at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada.

In a recent monologue, Jay Leno expressed amazement that a sex robot could carry on lifelike conversations and express realistic emotions.”Luckily, guys,” he joked, “there’s a button that turns that off.”

Free Nazia Quazi

A truly disturbing and upsetting story regarding the structure of power over women’s every action, tells the story of 24-year-old Nazia Quazi who is unable to leave Saudi Arabia.

Nazi, an IT specialist who graduated from the University of Ottawa (she holds duel Candian-Indian citizenship) has been trying to leave Riyadh to go back home to Canada.

Her troubles began on November 23, 2007, when she entered Saudi Arabia with her parents on a visitor’s visa. In Saudi Arabia, foreign visitors must have a sponsor, a local man who handles their paperwork. Nazia’s sponsor is her father, Quazi Malik Abdul Gaffar, an Indian citizen who has worked in Saudi Arabia for many years. At some point Nazia’s father clandestinely switched her visitor’s visa to a more permanent visa–one that requires that he, as her sponsor, approve her exit visa. This he refuses to do. No exit visa, no departure. Worse, Nazia says he has confiscated both her Indian and Canadian passports and all her identity documents–driver’s license, health card, credit cards and so on–and refuses to return them. She is trapped.Nazia’s father is not only her sponsor; he is also her mahram, or guardian, the male relative who in the Saudi system controls nearly every moment of a woman’s life. As detailed in a 2008 Human Rights Watch report, under this system a woman must seek her mahram’s permission to go to school, travel abroad, marry, open a bank account, hold a job, rent an apartment or even have elective surgery. (In June the Saudi government told the UN Human Rights Council that the guardianship system no longer exists, but HRW and the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan confirm that it does.) In effect, it makes women children for life–there are middle-aged Saudi women who are under the legal control of their own sons. Nazia’s father thus has not only been able to force his daughter, through the sponsorship system, to remain in Riyadh; as her mahram he has total control of her life while she is there–even though neither Nazia nor her father is a Saudi citizen.

Nazia has also spoken that her family, especially her father, have been both physically and verbally abusive to her.  She told a friend about an incident where her father threatened her with a knife and said he would kill her if she tried to leave.

“Not only her father but also her mother and her two brothers, both students in Canadian universities, are opposed to giving Nazia her freedom,” says Katha Pollitt reporting on the story on The Nation where she also poses the question, “How far have women come if a democratic, secular country like Canada permits a father to imprison his adult daughter in the cage of Saudi laws?”

Trust Women.

Don’t let them tell you you’re nothing
Don’t let them break your hearts too

The TV is blaring and angry
As if you don’t know why you’re here
Those who walk without sin are so hungry
Don’t let the wolves in, pretty girls

Your hearts are so tried and so innocent
Wind your flimsy blue gowns tight around you
Around curves so comely and sinister
They blame it on you pretty girls

But there’s millions to count you and keep you
And lovers that don’t understand
Don’t let them tell you you’re nothing
‘Cause you’ll change the world pretty girls

Pretty Girls- Neko Case

As I reflect today on the meaning of the great Dr. Tiller’s pin “Trust Women,” on this 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade the answer seems all too easy.  Trust women is to trust women.  To trust women in areas of decisions of what we do or to not do to our bodies, how we express our sexuality, how we navigate this world that is so stacked against us.  To trust women is to give us the choice to make our decisions for ourselves.

In a world where women are trusted the choice to abortion would not be seen as an immoral or moral decisions, it would be seen as a safe legal procedure that that women chose because it was the right decision.  There would be no enemy picket lines outside abortion clinics telling them they’re wrong wrong wrong.  We could celebrate every single life, because every time a new person came into this world it would be because the mother harboring that life wanted that new person there and could help provide a safe loving existence for that new member of the world. There would be love.

In a world that trusted women, there wouldn’t be the harsh policing of sexuality that there is today.  The words “slut” and “whore” wouldn’t exist anymore, because we would understand that sexuality is healthy and liberating and nothing to fear or hate.  We would celebrate sexuality instead of shame it, get pleasure from it instead of just endure it.  Partners would respect each other, not see each other as “dirty” or less than pure.  Pure would mean never harming another human being, and wouldn’t focus on opressing women’s sexuality.

In a world that trusted women, poverty would exist in far less circumstances.  Communities would thrive, and young girls could feel good about themselves.

In a world that trusted women, women would grow healthy and strong.  Politicians and groups wouldn’t speak out against Plan B, vaccines for HPV, or contraceptives in fear of inciting the ability to be “promiscuous.”  In this new world, the health of women would be put first, not the fear of women’s sexual desire and appetite.  Protecting women would mean giving them the necessary means to guard against disease, not guarding them from experiencing the world.

In a world that trust women, we would be liberated.  Trust women.

Anti choice group buys Superbowl add

Focus on the Family is buying a 30 second add in the upcoming Superbowl.

Focus on the Family spokeswoman Lisa Anderson would not reveal how much her organization paid for the ad or provide further details about it. But she told CNNMoney.com that the funds were donated specifically for this purpose by unnamed individuals. She said the money did not come from the group’s general fund.

CBS, broadcaster of the 2010 Super Bowl game, is charging about $3 million for 30-second spots, according to spokesman Dana McClintock. But CBS would not reveal how much it charged Focus on the Family for their ad.

Now that’s a big chunk of change, wonder how much these anti choicers paid though.  Hmmm…

Additional note:  I don’t mean to be covering strictly abortion issues lately, I guess it’s just what’s been on my mind a lot.  I promise more diverse posting to come!

January 22 celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade

The 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is coming up and one way you can participate is Blog for Choice Day! What is Blog for Choice Day?

What is Blog for Choice Day?

Each year, NARAL Pro-Choice America poses a question to pro-choice bloggers before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and then asks them to blog their answer on January 22.

Blog for Choice Day provides us with an opportunity to raise the profile of reproductive rights in the blogosphere, all the while celebrating Roe’s 37th anniversary. Plus, it’s a great way to let your readers and the mainstream media know that a woman’s right to choose is a core progressive value that must be protected and advanced.

Last year more than 500 people participated in this effort. We hope you will join us this year!

If you don’t have a blog, you can still participate! You can post your response in a Note on Facebook, or tweet your response on Twitter and use the hashtag #bfcd.

This year’s topic is, “What does Trust Women mean to you? This is in honor of the great Dr. George Tiller who wore a button that read “Trust Women”

You can sign up on the site to say that you’re participating and your blog link will be posted.  Remember, even if you don’t have a blog, you can still participate via Facebook notes, and raising awareness to others via Twitter and other mediums.

Abortion as a legal procedure is “orwellian”? Where do these people come up with this stuff!?

Just a quick little comment I thought was hilarious (I’m in the process of unpacking and repacking back up for school so I have been quite unsubstantial here as of late) I wrote an OP-ED for my local newspaper here at home in Massachusetts, and the comments on the online site are just so sad. Not to mention, the paper completely butchered my piece and left out parts, making it sound quite awkward in terms of writing style (I think they had a word minimum I went over, but perhaps editors, let me know and I’ll make the revisions next time?)

In my piece I wrote a bit about how we must recognize abortion not as a moral or immoral procedure, but as the legal procedure it is. One commenter responded,

what a frightening/chilling assertion. Orwellian.

Now now, the adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society.  In a free society, you could say to me that you thought my stance on abortion was wrong.  However, in a free society, how could you lawfully restrict my right to not be so enslaved as to remain pregnant when I did not want to?

We’re talking about rights and choices here.  Rights and choices.

Massachusetts! It is essential Martha Coakley win this seat

Some polls seem to say that Martha Coakley and republican Scott Brown are extremely close, which is just NOT okay.  Oh Scott Brown. Repulsive Scott Brown.  The man whom in 2005 sponsored legislation to allow doctors and nurses to turn away rape victims from Massachusetts emergency rooms if they objected to providing rape victims with emergency contraception. He said,

“Through our conversations, I’ve heard, ‘what if somebody has a sincerely held religious conviction about dispensing the emergency contraception medication? What about their rights? How do we address those?’ ’’ Brown said on the Senate floor, according to a State House News Service transcript.
Brown added that a rape victim would be referred to another facility at no additional cost. “It’s not about the victim. The victim is very important in this situation,’’ he said.

The victim is so important huh?  Then how about you treat them right then and there instead of victimizing them all over again, Mr. Brown?

We cannot afford to lose this seat to someone like Scott Brown, and it is extremely important that we all spread the word!  Even if you don’t live in Massachusetts just voicing your approval for Martha Coakley is still helpful.  For those who do live in Massachusetts, make sure that you’re out there voting on January 19th and spreading the word as to how important it is that Coakley takes the seat.

A feminist college homecoming, not separating the personal from the political anymore.

In my Introduction to Women and Gender Studies class, one of my classmates who had been completely new to feminism prior to taking the class brought up a new conundrum she was struggling with now that she had been introduced to feminism.  She told our class about how she can’t quite look at anything the same anymore, now that she had this new “feminist lens” that is quite impossible to take off, she struggled with the issue of when to speak up.

Prior to college, I was a feminist.  I associated myself with feminism, and was beginning to really sink my teeth in and learning and reading and swallowing up as much information as I could.

In my women’s studies classes that I started taking when I got to school, I became fully enveloped.  I realize that there is a feminist lens attached to my eyes at all times and things look much different.  I myself have also thought about the issue of speaking up.  When someone makes a gay joke, or a rape joke, do we say something or keep quiet and let it blow over, all the while blushing and biting our tongues?  From my experience, every time I haven’t spoken up, I’ve felt guilt and remorse.  This is why I think the answer to my classmate’s question is a resounding always.