LINDSEY'S BAN: THE SHOCKING ELECTION CAMPAIGN TWIST THAT SURPRISES NO-ONE AND WHY

 Sen. Lindsey Graham just cxouldn't help himself, could he?

As August gave way and September began he decided to get some publicity for himself by announcing he was sponsoring an abortion ban on the Federal level.  While he claimed it would outlaw the procedure after 15 weeks everyone knows this is a back door way to get abortion outlawed on the national level.  

Almost immediately the mainstream media pretended to be shocked by Graham's announcement, claiming that it took the Coupublicans by surprise as they head towards the midterm elections in November.  In a normal climate this may have been something the GOP would shout from the rooftops but they learned after the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade back at the end of June caused so much blow back and anger that trying to regulate what people who can get pregnant can do with their bodies might not be the big election gold star they thought.  As such  conservative insiders are trying to get politicians to backpedal on their pro forced childbirth policies and support in hopes of fooling enough moderates to vote for them in a couple of months.  What Graham's statement did was take an issue that was already motivating and angering Democrats and independents and put it up front for them to capitalize on.  

We won't go over the ban itself (though it appears Graham and his ilk might not propose it until after the election (probably next term, depending on the election results since the 50-50 split in the Senate  means it's unlikely to gain 60 votes and almost definitely won't be made exempt from the filibuster).  But ther are a couple questions that I want to briefly discuss.

First, was this really a surprise?  The media framing is trying to paint this like Graham just sprung this out of nowhere in hopes that Dems would run scared. This is a possibility.  However, I'm leaning a little more to what YouTuber Beau of the Fifth Column brought up - that this could be intentional as an attempt to show the ban as a compromise in order to fool moderates and independents who may otherwise vote for the GOP.  The reason I lean that way is that nothing in the American right wing seems to happen by chance so odds are good that someone high up in the GOP approved this, got LIndsey Graham on board and is pretending to be shocked in hopes this will own the libs.

Liberals, of course,  aren't shocked by this.  IN fact they've expected something like this ever since the leaked opinion back in May suggested that SCOTUS might be wanting to take away rights and liberties for some people.  The only unexpected part was the gift of this going down so close to the midterms.

Which leads us to the next question: should Democrats jump on this and point out every Coupublican politicians' pro forced childbirth stance (as well as more recent efforts to hide them)?  OF COURSE.  The Dobbs ruling a couple months back allowed Dems to shine a light on the other side and their hypocrisy.  If they're smart they should keep on this point like a dog with a nice meaty bone and make sure nobody is uncertain of where the GOP lies on this.  

I know some people are thinking that the rush to ban abortion will automatically motivate women to the polls and help to bring about a blue tidal wave that makes the Coupuiblicans a small minority.  While I hope they're right I also know that the right wing loves to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want - especially in elections since many are still pretending to be outraged over 2020,  As such we have to remember that there will likely be attempts to suppress the vote as well as higher output.  Add to this the white conservative women who are pro forced childbirth and will thorw the rights of their own under the bus to keep thier side in power and we can't be too careful when it comes to how this will play out.

Because of that people who want to make sure abortion access is protected (along with other issues of reproductive freedom and reproductive justice) need to make sure they can vote and that their vote is accepted.  The Coupublicans will do whatever they can to try and stop the other side from winning so voting and fighting back politically against their noise is important now, in November, and afterwards.

There's a lot in the air right now but Graham's little press conference should be seen as a door for those who aren't Coupublicans to drive home what the GOP is now and make sure people realize it before the election goes down.

THE DEATH OF RBG, RIGHTS IN THE CROSSHAIRS, AND A FEW THOUGHTS ON THER STRUGGLE AHEAD

 Last night I came home from a rough night at the paying job and, after cleaning up, looked on a certain social media site that doesn't need my help for publicity to learn about the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from pancreatic cancer at the age of 87. While we all knew she was struggling healthwise (that form of cancer is notorious for killing most of the people diagnosed with it) it still came as a shock for multiple reasons from timing (just a little over  a month before the 2020 Presidential election) to what's on the line (the new appointee from the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago could, if approved push back nearly 100 years of progress for women and various marginalized peoples as well as on various environmental and other issues).  In fact Ginsburg herself had reportedly stated to her granddaughter a few days before her death that she didn't want her replacement chosen under the current President.  The fact she apparently had to say that even on her last day is saddening enough but what';s at stake ranging form the reprodutvie rights of those people who can get pregnant to LGBTQIA rights. We also know that the new choice, if forced through,k could give the Mad Fuhrer license to turn this country full on to a authoritarian extreme right wing state more in line with apartheid era South Africa or Brazil under Bulsonaro than even what this country was like 20 years ago.

Now most of us know what's at stake here so I'll leave other people who have more details to share of that tell them. However, before I suggest or support any next steps I feel I have ot discuss a few things briefly. Yes, I'm aware that I'm not alone in saying these things but they need to be said.
First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have never been positioned as the one person who's passing could endanger the rights of millions of people. That it ended up that way due to several stolen elections (2000 and 2016) as well as an increasing lust for power from the Repubs (to the point where when Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in 2016 Repubs denied Garland a hearing claiming it was against the rules for the President to nominate someone in an election year (though Addison the Turtle relishes the though of pushing through a justice for his side now). A system is broken when too much power is in the hands of too few people. And anyone who has actually laid attention can attest to - the system has been broken for a long long time.

In addition, Obama's mistake in not, when the Repubs refused to give Garland a hearing, putting Garland in as a recess appointment was a misfire. Granted conventional wisdom thought that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election and this wouldn't be an issue. However, we got electoral vote winner Donny which lead to SCOTUS justices like Neil Gorsuch and Bretty Brett Kavanaugh. Garland's nomination itself was an attempt to triangulate with a candidate both Dems and Repubs said was worthy to be a justice. However, when Obama tried this he learned yet again that even when he tried to satisfy the Repubs theGOP moved the goalposts and continued their quest to do everything possible to make sure he got as little as possible done (and why suggestions that if Biden wins the Repubs will suddenly come to their senses and work with them is naive at best).

Meanwhile both Senate Majority Leader Addison the Turtle and the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago seem hell-bent on pushing through a candidate with a little over a moth before the election and, if electoral vote winner Donny loses (and more importantly, if the asshiole concedes in the aftermath) a lame duck session. While some have suggested that there are a few Repubs that might not vote for a new justice in these circumstances we have to remember that Repubs in government often voice mild concerns but tend to vote in goosestep with the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago so we should be skeptical of this.
So what should be done. In the bigger picture - VOTE!!!! Yeah, I know it's not a great choice and there's enough misinformation designed to try and keep people home and away from the polls (or mailing in their vote, depending on location et al) but it's a step that has to be taken. While I won't outright tell you whom to vote for I do agree with Beau of the Fifth Column that Biden represents breathing room in the path of trying to change the way things are now. Yes, we'll have to protest him as well but the breathing room is necessary after the overwhelming shit sandwich that the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago has made the last four years.

Also, I know some people are going in for vote shaming and I understand that. However, it might not be the best way to get potential allies to your side on an electoral basis down the road. In addition I've heard anecdote that some people on the far left are nto voting or claiming that four more years of Donny will disgust people enough to choose a truly progressive candidate. However, Donny's had one term and the DNC still found a way to make the majority in its ranks vote for Biden (even if some will do so than throw up as soon as they find a nearby trash can) - so that isn't an accurate path either.

It's going to take the diversity of tactics or, to paraphrase Jello Biafra, rebellion both in the voting booth and on the streets. Yes, voting is an important step but, unlike what those in power tell you, it's not the only thing that can be done. People are going to have to do everything from contacting their elected officials to voice that a new justice appointment shouldn't happen until after the election to even taking up the First Amendment right to protest (i.e.: what is meant by people have to petition their government for a redress of grievances). Yes, this means Repubs but also pressuring the Democratic party establishment who seems more interested in making money than in creating solid substantial policy (the latter of which ould offend wealthy donors).  

As I said earlier these are merely a few brief thoughts, many in line with what other people are saying but is my take on them. While people may be in mourning last night and today the fight got a lot more real and has to be taken up tomorrow. We have less than 45 days until election day and shit got a lot more scary - and a lot more real.

Blog For Choice Post 2013

Today marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that ruled that state laws outlawing a woman's right to an abortion were unconstitutional. While the past four decades have seen the ruling under attack on cultural, religious, and political grounds, the ruling remains the law of the land even as access to the procedure becomes even more of a target than ever. In honor of this day participants have been asked to tell why they are pro choice.

The basic reason is that I believe that any decision regarding a pregnancy is up to the woman and her doctor. There are a number of reasons which can impact whether a woman feels ready to have a child or not. Whether it's for a medical reason (a sudden illness, the possibility the pregnancy can kill the woman carrying the fetus) or someone surviving an abusive situation or rape or whether one isn't ready financially or emotionally to have a family, the reasons can be as varied as the individual.

Because of this, expecting a one size fits all approach towards whether a woman should carry a child to term is myopic at best and dangerous at worst. Whether its telling a rape victim that her pregnancy is a gift from God or attacking a woman's reasoning in making her decision, there are many variables that factor into whether a woman wants to and can afford to bring a child into this world. To automatically assume that all will be good if she doesn't get an abortion is shortsighted at best and often reeks of an arrogance that doesn't take the other person's situation into account.

I also support a woman's right to reproductive freedom and reproductive justice because of the issue of when life begins. Many people who consider themselves "pro life" have recently moved from claiming that life begins at conception to claiming that a frozen embryo is an actual person. While it is true that a fetus is DNA, the anti choice movement claims that both a fetus and a frozen embryo is a complete human being. People forget that Roe was actually a compromise ruling of sorts that applied before the point of viability rather than actually legalizing abortion on demand. Add to this the current attempts to claim contraception is the same as abortion that the pro forced childbirth contingent is currently pushing to confuse the issue and its apparent that its less about concern for either when life begins or quality of life but as a matter to control women's lives.

Finally I want to bring up an issue that people in the anti choice movement have been trying to frame as common lately. About a year or so ago I was on my way to try and catch the end of a rally to support Planned Parenthood. As I was trying to find a good time to cross the street and get a sign, I saw that one of the anti choice protesters picketing in front of the clinic was holding a sign that said "Women Regret Abortion" on it. Almost immediately (and ever since) when the pro forced childbirth crowd tries to spin the abortion leads to regret angle the following song quote pops in my head...

      "You're taking one thing that one girl does/And you're making it represent all of us." - "Do You Like Me Like That" by Bratmobile off their 2000 album Ladies, Women and Girls.

Those two lines that I couldn't get out of my head that hot Saturday afternoon perfectly nails this use of this angle for people claiming to be "pro life" to the wall. While some women may have some regret over their decision, trying to spin it as every woman who has an abortion will be racked with regret paints women as one mass group who all think and act alike rather than individuals. By ignoring this simple fact, the anti choice movement talks down to women and overlooks the mix of education, experience, and circumstances that informs each person's life overall. The refusal to realize that is one of the main facets of the anti choice/pro forced childbirth movement that I find distasteful.

I realize that the decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term isn't a simple decision. However, it is because of what's involved in making the decision that I feel it's best to respect a woman's decision whether it's to give birth or get an abortion. Each person has their own reasons and understanding about what they're going through and it is important that a personal decision such as be between a woman and her doctor. If she chooses to let other people know about her choice, that's her right but if she doesn't there's probably a damn good reason for it. In a situation like this respecting said decision is the most prudent thing to do if one wishes to see women as people with agency over their own bodies and their own decisions.

While I feel this barely touches the surface, these are amongst the main reasons why I consider myself pro choice on this issue.

P.S.:  I realize not everyone will agree with me on this issue.  However, if any comments gets especially hateful, abusive, or ignorant I reserve the right to moderate and even delete if necessary.  Consider this a warning in advance.

A Few Brief Thoughts on the Birth Control Debate

Anybody else out there getting tired of all these men getting uptight over whether contraception should be covered in insurance plans?

Yesterday's House hearings on Obama's compromise that allows religious affiliated employers (hospitals, universities) to not have to cover birth control but then requires insurance companies to offer it directly is a case in point. The majority of panelists were men, all crying a variation of the same crocodile tears over how this small feature violates their conscience. The first panel to speak, in fact, was all male. In fact, one woman who wanted to speak on the medical uses wasn't allowed to address the panel because as Committee Chairman Rep., Darrell Issa (R, CA) said, "this isn't about contraception."

Never mind that many states have basically the same policy towards covering birth control; or that in some cases they were passed by Republicans. In this case, the same conservatives who tend to view Viagra being covered in their plans as a god given right, suddenly feel that their rights are being infringed upon. Some even claim this as proof of a "war on religion" on the part of the Obama administration.

All of this in hopes that an amendment Sen. Roy Blunt (R, MO) will attach to a transportation bill will pass. This amendment allows employers to deny any coverage that they feel goes against their conscience or morals. Not just religious institutions, but any employer can deny any coverage for any reason they can make fit this vague definition of religious or moral conscience. Between this and the way too many to count efforts to defund Planned Parenthood that have gone on since the Republicans took back the House last year, it appears that many politicians in Washington would rather wage a war on women and their health care needs as a way to appease their base than actually do anything concrete in trying to get the economy improved.

So what's ahead? Given that coverage for contraception is popular amongst Americans actions like this hearing seem to be little more than throwing raw meat to the GOP's base, which has twisted an interpretation of religion to justify their own prejudices and sexist attitudes. The odds of it passing the Senate is dubious at best. In addition, it's shocking they'd attempt this given the blow back the Susan G. Komen Foundation received when they defunded Planned Parenthood a few weeks back.

While this may be useful in garnering primary and caucus votes, attacking something a majority of Americans agree with and support in such a blatant manner (especially when similar rules are in effect on a state level for over 20 states without incident) seems destined to come back and haunt them as the year moves on. Regardless, this is a firestorm that is far from over at this point in time.

Statistics on Abortion

I know right now everybody's mind is on the death of Osama Bin Laden and what it may mean to the war on terror. I'm currently trying to work on a piece on it that will most likely be in the next print issue. However, the world doesn't revolve on one topic alone.

I was looking around online and came across this video from the Guttmacher Institute on the topic of abortion in the U.S. Rather than comment on it, I'll let the video make its own case.



I know this is a polarizing topic and, thus, will moderate comments if I feel it is necessary to do so.

Blog For Choice 2011 Post

Recently there has been a bit of concern in some circles regarding the status of choice and reproductive freedom. The recent Republican takeover of the House of Representatives has vastly increased the number of anti choice voices in Congress while a number of state elections and ballot measures have set out to, if not completely overturn Roe v. Wade, then at least severely weaken it and make it so the right to a legal medical procedure de facto doesn’t exist.

I’m concerned about the state of choice as it applied to a woman’s right to reproductive freedom and reproductive justice this year. However, the concern has been ongoing for a long time. From ballot measures designed to define the fetus as a full human being to various state restrictions based on age or marital status, the war on choice has been going on for decades now. While odds are they might not get a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe, they know that if they chip away at the right of a woman to make decisions over her won body, said right might as well not exist.

The end result is the usual mix of rhetoric that seems to favor DNA over actual living human beings. The current attack of note implies that women aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions regarding what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, either by not really knowing they’re getting an abortion or getting one just out of selfishness. This approach, while claiming to favor life, is an insult to the women the pro forced childbirth contingent are supposedly out to “protect” in the first place. From that to the “crisis pregnancy center” that falsely claim to be abortion clinics to the targeting of abortion doctors, there is a lot to be concerned about regarding a woman’s right to choose what to do with a pregnancy whether it be birth or adoption or abortion.

In a truly just world, this would be a decision made in private between a woman and her doctor. However, we don’t live in a just world but in one where many people who claim to want less government intervention and cry out over a supposed lack of freedom seem to salivate over playing Big Brother on this issue, wanting a government response to this so large and interventionist the society in Orwell’s 1984 practically seems like a progressive utopia in comparison. I’d find it humorous if it wasn’t so scary that people’s lives were at risk as a result of such attacks. Add to this some politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle seeming more than willing to throw a woman’s right to choose under the bus for a few votes and there is much to be concerned about.

So what can be done to make sure a woman’s right to choose is protected? Mainly, those of us who support this issue have to be vigilant against those who want to take away this right either by legal means or by intimidation of some sort. One can’t automatically assume a politician will uphold the right to choose on principle. It will instead take constant putting the pressure on those in power to make sure reproductive freedom and reproductive justice remain safe and legal in this country. It’s far from a new idea and one that will require a lot of effort and work. However, given that the anti choice/pro forced childbirth contingent will continue to do whatever they think is necessary to get their goals across, those who support choice have to keep the pressure up and make sure they get heard.

Roeder Convicted of Murder

On Friday January 29, 2010 Scott Roeder was convicted in a Wichita, KS courtroom of first degree murder for the May 31, 2009 killing of Dr. George Tiller. While the more radical side of the pro forced childbirth movement hoped to make this trial a referendum on abortion (Tiller was one of the few doctors who would perform late term abortion when medically necessary) it ended up only taking 37 minutes for a jury to reach a verdict.

Roeder's attorneys tried to allow the jury to convict Roeder of voluntary manslaughter. While the judge allowed it to be entertained, in the end the jury was barred from considering it.

The main question now lies with the sentencing - whether his life sentence (automatic from what I understand) will be 25 years or 50 years before he's eligible for parole (yes, you read that right - this dickweed will be eligible for parole). Prosecution's pushing for a hard 50 (which means Roeder would be over 100 years old before he could receive parole).

I know some people would want the death penalty instated here. However, even supporters of capital punishment should oppose it in this instance for one reason - it would definitely make Roeder a martyr in the eyes of some extremists in the pro forced childbirth movement - a man who sacrificed himself to allegedly save the present and future unborn. While some of these people will view him as a martyr as it stands now, killing this asshole would simply enshrine him to near sainthood in the eyes of some misguided souls in said movement (not everyone but enough people to make it a problem).

Another issue on the martyr trial is a lesser known fact in the Roeder case: he was also convicted of aggravated assault.

Don't be surprised if you didn't know that. Hell, I only learned about it a couple days ago. When Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller he didn't just wait to be arrested, he pointed a gun at two church ushers and tried to make a getaway. That doesn't help the "misguided self defense" trope Roeder and his attorney tried to make at the trial. Obviously the murder charge is the most important but given the guy's past this puts some things into perspective.

As expected Roeder is appealing the conviction saying the jury wasn't allowed to fully ponder the manslaughter defense (supposed based on the belief that Roeder had an "unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances exited that justified using deadly force."

So while justice has been served in the eyes of all but those who may be considered extremists in the pro forced childbirth movement (at least publicly) we'll most likely hear more about this case in the future. That's the unfortunate part.

Trust Women

Okay, the theme for Blog for Choice Day is Trust Women, a slogan based on a button Dr. Tiller used to wear before he was murdered. The question: what does that mean?

In a truly just world this would be a non issue. In this context it simply means that women, as individuals and in general, know what's best for themselves and their particular situation when they make decisions regarding their own bodies. Whether that means looking at their lives and deciding that an abortion is the best thing to do at the moment or choosing to have a baby, it's still up to the individual woman to look at her life and make that choice.

Seems simple enough, right? It should be relatively obvious that the individual should make the decision over what happens to their bodies, especially in situations like an unwanted pregnancy. However, as we all know, we don’t live in a truly just world.

Over the past decade a number of bills have been proposed in various state legislatures aimed at covertly limiting access to abortion. From requiring pregnant women to view ultrasounds of the fetus to waiting periods to counseling sessions to laws requiring parental and/or spousal notification/consent, these bills (some even passed into law in some states) are aimed at making a medical procedure that’s legal more difficult to get, especially for poor women or women who have to travel long distances to get an abortion. While some people claim these measures are to protect the unborn, supporters of these measures also tend to state that they want the women to know what an abortion is before they have the procedure.

Apparently, these legislators and their pro forced birth supporters are under the impression that a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy is unaware that she’s getting an abortion. One of the talking points some in the anti choice/pro forced birth movement like to state regarding abortion is that women get it for selfish reasons such as to not miss a trip to Europe or to fit in a prom dress. Along with the various proposed bills, statements like these have one purpose: to imply that women act on impulse and are incapable of knowing what’s best for them when it comes to medical procedures and their own bodies. This approach not only manages to insult the intelligence and logic of each individual but manages to be the most glaring and obvious sign that they believe women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.

The truth is there is no one reason why a woman would have an abortion or choose not to have one. The reasons are as varied as each individual and take in factors ranging from current circumstances to past abuse to the simple realization that one may not be ready to be a parent at this time. While the anti choice/pro forced birth movement would like to hypothesize women as one monolithic group, it doesn’t work that way with human beings.

That’s where trust comes into the picture. Since we can’t live other people’s lives, we have to understand that it’s up to them to decide what to do in a given situation. Abortion isn’t an issue that just pops into a woman’s mind at the spur of the moment. It’s something that a woman has thought about and discussed. As for things like the consent laws mentioned earlier, most women facing an unplanned pregnancy discuss the issue with their families before making a decision and the women that don’t bring it up to them usually have a legitimate reason not to discuss her choice. To demand the consent of a third party into what should be a personal decision between a woman and her doctor annihilates the issue of trust and turns the status of a woman from human being with agency over her life to nothing more than someone’s property. That is the issue.

Trust requires that we view human beings as individuals who can make their own decisions and deserve accurate information in order to do so. Too often, especially when it comes to issues in the reproductive freedom and reproductive justice movement, the powers that be along with certain people practicing a rigid interpretation of their chosen religion have chosen to mislead and condescend to both men and women interested in this issue rather than do the right thing and realize that individuals can and should make their own decisions regarding these issues whether it’s exercising their right to get an abortion or choosing to give birth in a manner that they don’t feel dehumanized by to even making sure that people have access to contraception and emergency contraception without unnecessary delays or other people using their values to deny someone the right to exercise the decisions they made and wish to stand by in their own lives. Only when a woman can make a choice on these matters in a climate free of intimidation or fear of reprisals and/or violence can a society be said to truly trust women.

It seems so simple when you think about it.

Couldn't Say This Better Myself - Taxes and Health Care Version

I saw this video post over at Pandagon and had to post it here. The Center for Reproductive Rights put out a video on the Hyde Amendment (which since 1976 has banned Federal funds for apying for abortions) and asked a number of people what they don't want their tax dollars going for. A definite worth watching clip.



So simple a concept. Almost jealous I didn't think about this approach.

And They Wonder Why People Think Both Parties Are the Same

In the WTF category, reportedly the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is urging Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan (yes, the guy behind the insidious anti choice amendment in the health care reform bill) to run for re-election out of fear a republican could win his seat.

You know the Democrats have always been kinda wishy washy over the past few decades (thanks a lot for that, Democratic Leadership Council), but at least they used to know where to stand on the reproductive freedom issue. Now, it seems my concern that they'd gladly throw that right under the bus and sell women out for a few extra votes was more right than I ever thought. Sickening on way too damn many levels.

via Feministing.

Not Under The Bus

Via Feministing.

Just found out today was the WOmen's Media Center Not Under the Bus Day of Action to demand women's rights be protected under the current proposed health care bills currently being reconciled in Congress.



For more information on what can be done see this take action page.