Prolonged Eye Contact

Announcement:

Sun, 13 May 2012 15:20:22 -0400

I just want to let everyone know that this blog is not finished, dead, or abandoned by any means. I apologize for disappearing without a trace, but I just recently got a new job after a couple years of unemployment and it has been terrifying and exhausting. Between that and my health problems I just haven’t wanted to deal with the daily struggles of reading and posting bad news and fighting with antis. I’m not really sure what my timeline is for coming back but when I do I think my focus will shift more towards original content, education, and resources and less about daily political events. It’s just too much of a strain to do everyday.

I’ll see everyone soon :)

Not that we needed further proof radscum are racist and stuck in the 60's...

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:05:42 -0400

lucypaw:

prolongedeyecontact:

[TW for discussion of forced sterilization and racism]

So someone on Feministing (I think) finally made the connection that trans* rights and reproductive rights/abortion are both fundamentally about bodily integrity and autonomy and therefore have many intersections, and proponents of both should be working together (something I’ve been saying since day one, along with many other trans* people before me).

Well radical feminists aren’t having it. Apparently the fact eludes them that forced sterilization and forced birth are two sides of the same antichoice coin. Which brings me to my main point. This so-called “conflict of interest” has happened before (maybe more than once?). During the second wave the interests and reproductive rights of wealthy, white feminists and WoC were going in opposite directions. White women were demanding access to abortion and to voluntary sterilization without restrictions from paternalistic doctors and simultaneously WoC were struggling to: be allowed to have children, not be demonized for having children, not be forcibly sterilized (often without their knowledge or consent), and not be tested on for development of contraception or other medications. Guess who was prioritized. Exactly. There’s a history here and a lot of tension and mistrust (rightfully) still remains because rich, white women made “reproductive rights” synonymous with what they needed access to and completely avoided the fact that the right to have children is as much of a reproductive rights issue as the right to abort/not have children.

My point is we know these radical feminists hate intersectionality because they think sex-based oppression is the only thing that matters (this is racist all on its own) and we know they hate trans* people. The fact that they don’t see how important forced sterilization is now anymore than they did back then has some serious implications considering the intersection of race and trans* status. Forced sterilization affects us all but TWoC are disproportionately the victims of violence and often have an even more precarious and tenuous relationship to the medical establishment, opening them up to all kinds of violations, particularly in regards to reproductive rights. That once again forced sterilization isn’t a priority for radical feminists and reproductive rights activists is further proof of their racism and the fact that White Feminism™ is alive and well, in case you doubted it for a split second.

I would point out it’s not just radscum. Sure, radscum are the most obvious and most extreme but mainstream/liberal feminism still doesn’t really give a shit about reproductive rights as anything but abortion and voluntary sterilisation. Oh, wait, I take it back, they will sometimes mention fistulas and women in the developing countries but it’s still self-centred and paternalistic to other people. White Feminism™ lives in the mainstream as well as the backwater sludge that is the radscum.

Oh, definitely, definitely! I was just a little hyper-focused on them because this was a direct response to some stuff I saw on radical feminist blogs, but you’re absolutely right and I do usually go after mainstream/liberal feminists just as hard on this issue as well. They’re certainly not much better.

Not that we needed further proof radscum are racist and stuck in the 60's...

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:49:24 -0400

[TW for discussion of forced sterilization and racism]

So someone on Feministing (I think) finally made the connection that trans* rights and reproductive rights/abortion are both fundamentally about bodily integrity and autonomy and therefore have many intersections, and proponents of both should be working together (something I’ve been saying since day one, along with many other trans* people before me).

Well radical feminists aren’t having it. Apparently the fact eludes them that forced sterilization and forced birth are two sides of the same antichoice coin. Which brings me to my main point. This so-called “conflict of interest” has happened before (maybe more than once?). During the second wave the interests and reproductive rights of wealthy, white feminists and WoC were going in opposite directions. White women were demanding access to abortion and to voluntary sterilization without restrictions from paternalistic doctors and simultaneously WoC were struggling to: be allowed to have children, not be demonized for having children, not be forcibly sterilized (often without their knowledge or consent), and not be tested on for development of contraception or other medications. Guess who was prioritized. Exactly. There’s a history here and a lot of tension and mistrust (rightfully) still remains because rich, white women made “reproductive rights” synonymous with what they needed access to and completely avoided the fact that the right to have children is as much of a reproductive rights issue as the right to abort/not have children.

My point is we know these radical feminists hate intersectionality because they think sex-based oppression is the only thing that matters (this is racist all on its own) and we know they hate trans* people. The fact that they don’t see how important forced sterilization is now anymore than they did back then has some serious implications considering the intersection of race and trans* status. Forced sterilization affects us all but TWoC are disproportionately the victims of violence and often have an even more precarious and tenuous relationship to the medical establishment, opening them up to all kinds of violations, particularly in regards to reproductive rights. That once again forced sterilization isn’t a priority for radical feminists and reproductive rights activists is further proof of their racism and the fact that White Feminism™ is alive and well, in case you doubted it for a split second.

Trans* Repro Justice: Submission: My two cents that didn't fit in the ask.

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:53:45 -0400

Trans* Repro Justice: Submission: My two cents that didn't fit in the ask.:

smashesthep:

prolongedeyecontact:

fuckyeahchoice:

Submission:

I’d be wary about labelling people bigots solely because they say “women” instead of “people” in abortion debates. Fact remains that anti-choice activism is rooted in misogyny. By leaping at people’s throats because of a word and an issue they might never have even thought about does nothing to advance our cause. On the contrary, “men can get pregnant, too” IS TRUE, but it being used as an argument for pro-choice has, to me, a whiff of reinforcing patriarchy (“Look, nevermind about women, but what about the MEN?!”).

The primary targets of anti-choicers are cis women, full stop. I use inclusive language as much as I can, but trans* rights are not the main point of the abortion debate.

________________________________________________

Fuckyeahchoice (answer): No. Please. Stop.

First and foremost, if someone is new to this debate or this topic or this scene or whatever you want to call it, I’m not going to jump down their throat. I will explain the topic as I have multiple times in the best way that I can and hope they’re not too much of an asshole to not be able to say ‘people’.

Second, it is not a ‘what about the men’. That makes me think you don’t fully understand this issue at all. It’s not just women and men who can get pregnant. It’s also intersex people. Non-binaries and a plethora of other identities as well that you’re ‘trying to use inclusive language for’. Poor you.

You don’t think bigotry against trans* individual has a taste of misogyny? And they’re targeting cis women because they are ALSO excluding trans* people in their debates but their shitty laws are FULLY affecting them, just as they affect cis women.

This isn’t a matter of ‘trans* rights trumps abortion rights’, it’s a matter of being a decent fucking human being. It’s treating people as they should be treated within a discussion that is just as much theirs. Why battle for the rights of some? Why should only one group of people be recognized? Is it really a victory if it is at the cost of our allies?

Basically, in summary, if you can’t be bothered to say ‘people’ instead of ‘women’ or recognize that this is not a cis woman issue then I highly doubt you could be contributing anything useful to the abortion debate.

“By leaping at people’s throats because of a word…”

It’s not just a word, it’s the violent erasure that occurs when they insist on using women, despite knowing that excluding us leads to discrimination towards and deaths of trans* people.

And as FYChoice alluded to, inclusivity is not “men vs women”, it’s “trans* people vs cis people”. The power dynamics are totally reversed, and I have no respect for people that disingenuously cry that this is a “what about the men?!” argument when we’re asking for inclusivity.

“Basically, in summary, if you can’t be bothered to say ‘people’ instead of ‘women’ or recognize that this is not a cis woman issue then I highly doubt you could be contributing anything useful to the abortion debate.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is how to be an ally.

Hi there.

You say, “it’s the violent erasure that occurs when they insist on using women, despite knowing that excluding us leads to discrimination towards and deaths of trans* people.”

That is a wild exaggeration. Words are not violent. Your hyperbole is harmful to respectful debate— furthermore, you set your position up as a strawman for those who disagree with you to easily knock down.

Radical feminists and trans-critical individuals do not wish harm to trans people— really. We really don’t. We instead wish to stand up for females and against gender stereotypes.

Unwanted pregnancy is a uniquely female issue. Neither access to SRS nor a SRS requirement for legal recognition are equivalent to that issue. It is not helpful to conflate the issues— it is confusing and does not help your cause.

Please stand up for female access to contraception/abortion. Be an ally- not all the issues are about you.

Thank you.

Words absolutely can be violent (so can erasure) it’s astonishing you’re ignorant of that fact. And, no, it’s not hyperbole when feminist/prochoice rhetoric that excludes trans* people leads to medical discrimination and [TW] people self aborting with paint thinner post-Roe. This isn’t a debate, it’s my life and health. I don’t debate my rights, especially not with bigots.

Radscum don’t wish [TW] harm to trans* people? Really? Could have fooled me.

Who said a single word about SRS other than you? Both are issues of bodily integrity which is what the core of reproductive rights, including abortion, is about, but that’s not what this post was about. It’s about trans* people affected by antichoice legislation being included in discussions about our rights and our bodies. Not a hard concept, so who’s making straw men now?

And unwanted pregnancy is not an issue just for cis women or “females.” You think abortion restrictions make it hard for you, a cis woman, to obtain safe, legal care? Try being a trans* person whose pregnancy would out them and potentially make them vulnerable to being murdered. Or being a trans* person who is triggered by how medical pamphlets and doctors frame the issue—that can make accessing care near to impossible (like in the story I linked). Or how about the common intersections of being trans*, a person of color, in poverty, and without insurance, a job, or a home? Unwanted pregnancy and antichoice legislation affects us all (some more than others, some differently than others) and refusing to acknowledge that fact is an act of violence.

“Please stand up for female access to contraception/abortion. Be an ally- not all the issues are about you.”

This last part is truly adorable. Allies are outsiders who are not directly (or at all) affected by an issue who are in solidarity with those they have privilege over on a particular axis. Do tell how or why I should be an “ally” to access to contraception or abortion when it directly affects me? As in, I USE it and I NEED it just the same as you. I don’t need to be an “ally” to you or your scummy friends on an issue that’s about me. Contrary to your cissexist beliefs abortion is about me. Contraception is about me. Reproductive rights are about me. Antichoice legislation is my business. Refusing to include me and other trans* people in this discussion isn’t just cissexist, it has devastating consequences. Of course, we’ve already established people like you don’t care.

This is my movement and I don’t find silencing tactics all that radical, in fact they’re downright patriarchal.

You’re welcome.

UPDATE: Violence-inciting comments disappear from LifeSiteNews

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:51:19 -0400

clinicdefense:

I was a bit amazed yesterday at how quickly word spread of the comments on a LifeSiteNews article on the firebomb left at a Wisconsin Planned Parenthood.

Obviously, as word spread in the pro-choice community, the anti-choice folks caught wind. Some of the comments, essentially the most openly criminal, have disappeared from the site. Either lifesite took luke-warm action (many comments still exist, included below) or the worst of the commenters, Isaiah541, decided to to try and cover up his/her attempts to incite violence in the anti-choice community.

Below is various screen shots of remaining comments (not nearly as inflamitory as the deleted comments) as well as screen captures showing the official comment count of the story at “29” and the actual comment count in the comment section at “21” indicating that comments have been removed or deleted.

Keep in mind LifeSite has any pro-choice comments deleted within hours of their appearance on the site. LifeSite heavily moderates their comments and they knowingly let the now deleted comments stay posted on their site, visibile to the several people who viewed the page. The story was shared on facebook over 360 times, imagine if each of those shares had a minimum of 50 friends? Easily over 18000 people could have read comments that encouraged violence against abortion care facilities and providers.

I fear for escorts, volunteers, patients, staff, and physicians at facilities around the country (and now more and more abroad in countries where abortion was previously not contested) if the current culture of violence against abortion care goes unchecked and unnoticed.

To see original post: Disturbing Trend…

Below is image showing the official comment count associated with this article.

Now, look at the actual count of comments that are visible. Comments have been either removed from the site or deleted by the author. The count is 21.

Now, a sample of the remaining posts. While they are in no way as incriminating as the original posts, they still suggest that it might be OK to use violence to prevent women from obtaining abortion care.

This last one upsets me, especially when you read the responses One of the commenters shared a story of a female family member who had an abortion under coercion (an unwanted, forced pregnancy choice is a tragedy. Coercion in any form is a tragedy). How is it I, an evil pro-choicer, can feel more sympathy and empathy for than woman than a “loving” anti-choicer?

AGAIN: If you ever witness any sort of comment or discussion where violence against clinics and clinic staff is being encouraged, please take a screen shot and submit an FBI tip. Print a copy of your screen shot or submit it to our blog for a permanent record.

HOW TO TAKE A SCREEN SHOT {} FBI TIP LINE

Disturbing Trend of Recruitment for Anti-Choice Violence at LifeSiteNews.com

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:36:20 -0400

prolifehypocrisy:

clinicdefense:

I originally started working on a blog post about the presence of anti-choice sentiments in support of clinic terrorism and had the misfortune of opening up a LifeSiteNews.com article about the bombing. What I discovered in the comments section of the article is deeply troubling.

Of course, I was expecting to see plenty of comments along the lines of “What he did was wrong but, THEY KILL BABIES.” I did NOT expect to see individuals encouraging others to engage in violent acts.

Original Link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-accused-of-trying-to-set-planned-parenthood-clinic-on-fire-appears-in-c/

Tip has been submitted to the FBI. This appears to be early attempts at recruitment and organizing. If you ever see this sort of talk going on in public, take a screen shot and submit report to FBI. Save screen shots if needed later.(Or submit to our blog)

How to take a Screen Shot

FBI Tip Line

Thank you so much for reporting this!

This is terrifying but not surprising in the least. People like this really believe they’re engaged in some sort of holy war. I see people like this on twitter all the time. They’re not “brave” or “noble Christians doing god’s work”, they’re terrorists plain and simple. But when it comes time to be punished for their actions they’re more than happy to go the ableist route and claim it’s an “isolated incident” committed by a “nutjob.”

GYT for Peace of Mind

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:13:25 -0400

fuckyeahsexeducation:

thesexuneducated:

myplannedparenthood:

Did you know? April is STD Awareness Month and Planned Parenthoods around the country are holding free testing specials (including us). We’re sharing a few reasons why you might want to get tested - after all, peace of mind is just one of them.

Take advantage of this opportunity!

This is good news! Apparently my PP isn’t doing this but check out yours to see if it is!

PETITION: Stop new reporting requirements for abortions in TX

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:05:00 -0400

PETITION: Stop new reporting requirements for abortions in TX:

keepyourboehneroutofmyuterus:

This is a petition I have started in reaction to the TX Department of State Health Services trying to do backdoor, roundabout changes to requirements that abortion providers must give to state about the patient and their procedure.

Rep. Zedler has tried to pass these requirements through the TX legislature and even the super conservative TX legislature won’t do it. So why is DSHS? More from Andrea Grimes at RH Reality Check.

Please SIGNAL BOOST!

[NB: Unfortunately, on change.org, the only space that exists to categorize this type of petition correctly is under “women’s rights.” This isn’t just an issue of cis women’s rights, though. More people than just cis women are affected by these changes in reporting requirements.]

kindymaling: no sorry santorum you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:01:09 -0400

kindymaling:

no sorry santorum you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term

"Just because allies are thin on the ground doesn’t mean we have to accept any old self-identified..."

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:22:28 -0400

“Just because allies are thin on the ground doesn’t mean we have to accept any old self-identified feminist that comes along. As someone who believes strongly that trans folks, queer folks, clinic staff and their allies and supporters deserve to be safe every day, I strongly and unequivocally condemn any “joke” or statement from any person – feminist-identified or otherwise – that uses violence or the threat of violence against anyone as a punchline or something that can be treated lightly. My feminism is not just implicitly intersectional; it is explicitly anti-transphobia and anti-violence. Haters need not apply.”

- From Peggy at Abortion Gang.

This whole piece is kick ass. This ending is phenomenal.
(via keepyourboehneroutofmyuterus)

stfuprolife: sanityscraps: masserrect: zaeedsonlyfan: Guess...

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:52:54 -0400

stfuprolife:

sanityscraps:

masserrect:

zaeedsonlyfan:

Guess 90% of the people I follow are pregnant then.

So now I can pretend Kaidan is the bby daddy? Is that how this works? :U

Lolsure. Can I move to Arizona and say I’m pregnant with the second coming of Christ for money please?

Oh, anti-choicers. :/

Oh, pro-choicers. Every time you reblog this I die a little inside :/

Lawmakers Playing Doctor:

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 01:13:40 -0400

Two posts by Dr. Jen Gunter (pregnant people, not just cis women):

Georgia passes an abortion bill filled with bad medicine and a 1st year med student mistake

The Georgia legislature passed a new abortion bill (HB 954). Yet another law (it’s only a matter of time before it’s signed) governing the practice of medicine based on nothing resembling science.

The issues:

Fetal pain. The law will make Georgia the seventh state to enact a gestational age limit based on the false belief that a “20 week” fetus can feel pain. The lack of cortical connections as well as the absence of connections between the thalamus and the subplate before 23 weeks means that a 20 week fetus does not have the neural ability to feel pain.

No rape or mental health exception. Abortions are only allowed after 20 weeks for a congenital or chromosomal anomaly incompatible with life and to preserve the life/prevent irreversible physical impairment of the mother).

Any abortions after 20 weeks must be done so the fetus has “the best opportunity…to survive” There are 2 ways to perform a 20+ week abortion: a dilation and evacuation (D&E), which is a surgical procedure where the cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed in parts, and an induction of labor, whichcan take several days in the hospital. What this law means is if a woman has an abortion for genetic reasons she must have her labor induced. The life of the mother clause does allow doctors to offer a D and E in specific situations. A fetus can’t survive before viability, so this “best opportunity” seems moot and just another way to make the experience more challenging and expensive, although if you read further it is clearly a set up for…

“Any baby born alive that is capable of sustained life must get medical aid.” Meaning if you have an induction at 22 weeks for a severe congenital anomaly, a pro-life doctor or nurse can swoop in and resuscitate your baby against your wishes. Of course, nowhere does it say the government will pay for this medical care. This medical aid against the parents’ wishes could also be applied to situations where parents have made the difficult decision not to resuscitate their premature baby.

And finally the mistake? Well, I’m not going to disclose it until after it’s signed into law. I had to read the bill multiple times to make sure I was reading, well, what I was reading. This error makes it crystal clear that no one with any basic medical knowledge read the bill.

But hey, it’s only women’s health care we’re talking about.

Pro-choice is pro-facts: the error in the Georgia anti-abortion bill

The Georgia abortion bill HB 954 has been widely promoted in the press as another “20 week” bill, but it isn’t (and this is the mistake in the bill’s wording that I was referring to in yesterday’s post). I think it wants to be a 20 week bill given it’s aimed at “fetal pain”, but if you read the exact wording it appears as if the lawmakers passed a bill that legalizes abortion (outside of life/health of mother issues) up to 22 weeks gestational age.

The Georgia lawmakers go to great lengths to describe how at 20 weeks post fertilization they think a fetus can feel pain (it can’t, BTW). In fact, the definition of a 20 week fetus in Georgia HB 954 is 20 weeks post fertilization, which is inaccurate medical terminology (and why I wrote yesterday that it was clear no doctor read the bill). At 20 weeks after fertilization a fetus is actually 22 weeks gestational age in medical terms.

This is the exact wording from the bill:

“At least by 20 weeks after fertilization” (in reference to fetal pain). This phrase appears 4 times in the 1st section.

“Probable gestational age is an estimate made to assume the closest time to which the fertilization of a human ovum occurred…” also in the 1st section.

And then specifically in Code Section 31-9B-1 gestational age is defined as follows: “the postfertilization age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be performed or induced, as dated from the time of fertilization of the human ovum.”

Let’s be very clear. Pregnancy is dated from the 1st day of the last menstrual period (LMP) not from fertilization. Even when an ultrasound is performed, the additional 2 weeks pre-conception (if you will) are built into the dating. It’s even on a pregnancy calendar I downloaded and on every single prenatal wheel that OBs use to date pregnancies.

Think of gestational age dated from the LMP/by ultrasound as metric and correct, and think of the post fertilization age in the Georgia bill as an out of date Imperial system that has no scientific meaning (you sure won’t find it in any medical textbook).

Other states, such as Arizona, actually use the correct medical terminology of LMP/ultrasound in their laws. So, in Arizona when HB 2036 reads “Gestational age means the age of the unborn child as calculated first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” it means what doctors everywhere call 20 weeks. As much as I disagree with the bill, at least they have their terminology correct.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which I assume uses the correct medical terminology (i.e. 20 weeks = 20 weeks by LMP/ultrasound), as of April 1, 2012 there are 7 states with a 20 week gestational age limit: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Arizona will be the 8th. Despite reports to the contrary, it is clear that Arizona is not imposing the most restrictive gestational age and given the wording in Georgia the Peach State will not be joining Arizona among the 20-week fetal elite.

Imposing gestational age limits is wrong. There are unfortunate circumstances where lethal or very severe anomalies are not detected until the 3rd trimester. I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to tell a woman who is pregnant with a baby who has no brain and a single eye like a cyclops that she has to go to term. I heard one woman in such a devastating situation say, “It was as if a little bit of me died inside every time some stranger asked when I was due to deliver.” Women don’t ever have late-term abortions out of convenience or on some kind of whim, they have them because of horrible, terrible, genetic calamities. Fortunately, with modern prenatal testing these later diagnosis are becoming rare, but they still happen.

I personally think the lawmakers in Georgia were aiming for a “real” 20 week bill, but were so deer-in-the-headlights about fetal pain!and 20 weeks! and life at fertilization! that they forgot to do any basic research. And that’s exactly who you want writing bills, not scholarly lawmakers who have thoughtfully researched a subject and consulted the experts, but douchebags competing to pass the most misogynistic, evidence-baseless legislation in a bizarre game of one-upmanship. It’s even more concerning because lawmakers are encroaching in the practice of medicine with this misinformation.

With states like Georgia using inaccurate terminology discussions can get confusing. But it is essential to make sure we are using the accurate medical terminology so we can all compare apples with apples, because for me pro-choice is pro facts.

[TW lack of healthcare due to poverty] Cancer v. the Constitution

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:40:26 -0400

[TW lack of healthcare due to poverty] Cancer v. the Constitution:

I don’t have words to describe my disgust with this country. There is nothing that can justify what this woman went through. If this isn’t a good enough reason to implement universal healthcare right this second I don’t know what is…

What happens when there is no abortion law…

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:25:34 -0400

What happens when there is no abortion law…:

There is no abortion law in Canada. It is neither legal nor illegal, it is simply a medical procedure and covered by universal health care. Universally, abortions performed at hospitals are free. Whether abortions at free-standing clinics are covered varies by province/territory. Some provinces and territories with limited providers pay travel costs when women have to go to a different province for the procedure. There are no mandatory ultrasound laws and no 24 hour waiting periods.

Abortion became legal in Canada in 1969 as part of a massive reform to “get the government out of the bedrooms of the nation.” While abortion was decriminalized, it could only be performed in cases to preserve “life and health.” Women had to prostrate themselves in front of a committee of three doctors and plead their case. Many doctors told me they rubber stamped these requests. “To see these poor women pouring out stories of misery, it just broke my heart,” one told me. However, other providers could be less understanding.

In 1988, The Supreme Court of Canada deemed this pleading for abortion to be unconstitutional and the law was struck down. A bill was introduced in 1989 to once again ban abortions unless the life and/or health of the mother were in jeopardy. While the bill was passed by the House of Commons (elected Members of Parliament), it was defeated by the Senate who are all, interestingly enough, political appointees. No political party has introduced any abortion legislation since, and so there is no abortion law.

Now contrast the American experience with complicated laws, far greater cost (the average amount paid for a 1rst trimester abortion is $451, with 60% of women paying out-of-pocket for their procedure), indignities (mandatory ultrasound), and inconveniences such as 24 hour delays and uncompensated travel.

So how does lawless Canada stack up against regulated America?

In Canada, the teen birth and abortion rate is 27.0/1,000 women between the ages of 15-19 versus 61.2/1,000 in the United States.

The abortion rate among all women of reproductive age (15-44) in Canada is 14.1/1,000 versus 20/1,000 in the United States.

Put another way, the teen birth and abortion rate is more than 50% higher in the United States versus Canada and the abortion rate is about 25% higher in the Unites States.

Canadian women also have something else. They have access to health care and sex education is widely taught in the schools.

Laws, cost, and indignities don’t reduce abortion, knowledge and contraception do.

As I’ve said before, if you’re serious about reducing the need for abortion your priorities and focus should be on preventing unintended pregnancies with comprehensive sex education and affordable, accessible contraception (like, you know, the ACA mandate). Making burdensome, medically unnecessary, unscientific abortion restrictions does nothing to curb incidence; it just makes it more expensive and less accessible thereby disproportionately affecting low-income people and people of color. Most people getting abortions say they would have liked to get their abortion even earlier and it was abortion restrictions and cost that were standing in their way. Perhaps if antis actually took the time to understand why people need abortions they’d understand that the solution would be tackling the problem of unintended pregnancies. But valid, helpful solutions have never been their aim, it’s always been about punishment, sex shaming, and embryo worship, which is why they are utterly ineffective.

Arizona Legislators Trying To Declare Pregnancy Two Weeks Prior To Conception

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:07:30 -0400

Arizona Legislators Trying To Declare Pregnancy Two Weeks Prior To Conception:

racetothestoneage:

sexedhorrorstories:

supersoygrrrl:

greaterthanlapsed:

This is not a headline from The Onion.

Legislators have had so much success smuggling in ulterior motives with 20-week bans that they’re now looking for ways to expand the amount of hard right anti-choice nonsense they can attach to those bills. The most recent—-and extreme—-example is Arizona. There, lawmakers are writing a 20-week abortion ban that starts counting off at the first day of a woman’s period. Yes, they’re arguing that you’re “pregnant” while you’re actually getting your period. In fact, as Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones explains, they’re really trying to steal as many weeks as possible away from women seeking abortion:

Most women ovulate about 14 or 15 days after their period starts, and women can usually get pregnant from sexual intercourse that occured anywhere between five days before ovulation and a day after it. Arizona’s law would start the clock at a woman’s last period—which means, in practice, that the law prohibits abortion later than 18 weeks after a woman actually becomes pregnant.

That’s bad in and of itself, but taking a step back and looking at the big picture makes this law look even more sinister. Medically speaking, pregnancy starts when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. Anti-choicers have attempted to define it earlier with their failed attempts to pass “personhood” law that would define not just pregnancy, but “personhood” as beginning at conception. Now in Arizona, they’re trying to argue that you’re pregnant a couple of weeks before you even had the sex that resulted in your pregnancy.

Think about the implications down the road. If a woman is “pregnant” two weeks before she becomes pregnant, than any fertile woman—-including those currently menstruating!—-should really be considered pregnant. After all, we don’t know the future. We don’t know that any non-pregnant woman couldn’t be pregnant two weeks from now, making her retroactively pregnant now. Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now. Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.

Arizona, what the hell is wrong with you???

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Turns out this is part of the current 20-week abortion ban bill that’s already passed Arizona’s Senate, too. (Already gave points for that.) I am, however, gonna give this +3 extra embarrassment points for this detail. I mean, holy shit.

*Pregnant people, not just cis women.

This is kinda embarrassing…

People need to stop reblogging this immediately. Amanda Marcotte and Kate Sheppard both fucked up majorly (or they’re intentionally trying to be misleading, who knows). This bill is massively fucked up, full stop. But they are not saying that pregnancy starts two weeks before you even have sex. They’re saying gestational age of the fetus will be calculated from the person’s last menstrual period and, as I’ve said many times on this blog, that’s always how doctors calculate the length of pregnancy! LMP is standard, people! There’s a difference between when pregnancy starts (implantation) and how the length of pregnancy is determined. Don’t believe me, perhaps? Here’s a blog post from Dr. Jen Gunter, whose writing I’ve blogged on here before:

Mother Jones gets facts mixed up in latest abortion article and why it matters:

Arizona is advancing the front line of the war on women. Every week, or so it seems, there are increasingly dystopian bills floated around the state House and Senate. Senate Bill 1359, which hopes to protect doctors from wrongful birth suits, the narrowly defeated no-sex-please-we’re-from-Arizona bill, which would allow employers to ask if their employees getting contraception are using it for “medical” or “sexual” reasons, and finally, as Mother Jones is reporting, House BIll 2036 which would be an anti-abortion bill to out-do everyone. Except, Mother Jones has a very important fact wrong (click here for the link to the Mother Jones Article).

The Mother Jones article claims the bill would impose the most restrictive gestational age limit, but Mother Jones is wrong because the proposed Arizona limit in the bill is 20 weeks, currently the gestational age limit in six states. (The current Arizona law allows abortion up to viability). Bill 2036 spells out how gestational age is calculated, from the last menstrual period, and that is apparently where Mother Jones got confused. See the excerpt below:

Not to go all middle-school health on you, but that’s not exactly the same as the actual date the egg and the sperm hooked up. Figuring out that exact point one became pregnant can be tricky. Most women ovulate about 14 or 15 days after their period starts, and women can usually get pregnant from sexual intercourse that occured [sic] anywhere between five days before ovulation and a day after it. Arizona’s law would start the clock at a woman’s last period—which means, in practice, that the law prohibits abortion later than 18 weeks after a woman actually becomes pregnant.

No, it doesn’t mean that the law prohibits abortion at 18 weeks. It means 20 weeks. Pregnancy has ALWAYS been calculated from the 1rst day of the last menstrual period. Always, always, always. When we do an ultrasound, we still use that convention. Perhaps it seems odd to non-obstetrical folks, however, since the last day of the period can be inaccurate (do you use flow? spotting? one spot of blood?), as can date of ejaculation (what if you have sex 3 days in a row?), and date of ovulation (how would you know that?), and the fact that fertilization takes 24-48 hours, the 1rst date of the last menstrual period is the only accurate date. Every other state law uses the last menstrual period (as does every obstetrical textbook) because that is the way we calculate gestational age.

There are many things wrong with the bill and to focus on an erroneous gestational age detracts from the real issues. The 20 week bills being introduced around the country are a response to the erroneous claims that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks. Basing legislation on anything but facts is wrong.

In addition, 20 weeks is overly restrictive as many fetal anomalies are not diagnosed correctly until around the 20 week mark, leaving a mad scramble to get services in state or worse, have to pay to fly out of state. It happens more than you think.).

The bill also mandates an ultrasound, not a transvaginal probe (although mandating any ultrasound is wrong). It should be a medical decision. Mandating that a doctor ask if the patient wants see the image is also in the bill, but I disagree with the reporter on why that is an issue. The bill only says the doctor has to offer, and studies tell us that the majority of women want to see the image when asked. My issue with that part of the bill is simply the intrusion of the state into the practice of medicine.

And finally, at the end of the bill this statement appears:

The legislature finds that abortion can cause serious both short-term and long-term physical and psychological complications for women…

Which is wrong. The complication rate with an abortion is lower than with a pregnancy that goes to term and there is no credible evidence based medicine that supports any psychological harm from a legal, safe abortion (worthy of a post in itself at a later date).

So there are many reason to take issue with House Bill 2036 from Arizona, but an 18 week gestational age limit is not one of them. Let’s make sure we focus on the facts.

There you go. Can we stop this now?

inflateablefilth: the-spiderling: Talk about interesting! It...

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:26:07 -0400

inflateablefilth:

the-spiderling:

Talk about interesting! It does get you thinking.

Scarily, I have come across several who save the embryo jar.

What’s really scary is this has played out in real life. During Hurricane Katrina the coast guard was called in to save frozen embryos from a fertility clinic before helping people in some of the poorer neighborhoods [read: PoC]. Humankind took this test and we fucking failed.

KANSAS SPENDS HALF A MILLION DOLLARS DEFENDING ANTI-ABORTION LAWS | The Kansas attorney general has...

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:08:04 -0400

KANSAS SPENDS HALF A MILLION DOLLARS DEFENDING ANTI-ABORTION LAWS | The Kansas attorney general has dolled out more than half a million dollars to private law firms for defending anti-abortion laws the state enacted last year, the Associated Press reports. The attorney general’s office paid $317,000 to a private firm for “helping defend a budget provision denying federal family planning dollars for non-abortion services to Planned Parenthood,” spent almost $177,000 on a law imposing new restrictions on abortion providers and expensed $104,000 in tax payer dollars to defend “against a law restricting private insurance coverage for elective abortions.” Kansas faced a $493 million budget shortfall last year and to close the deficit, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) proposed $50 million in cuts to education programs.

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST OKLAHOMA PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE | The Center...

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:05:16 -0400

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST OKLAHOMA PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE | The Center for Reproductive Rights is suing over Oklahoma’s ballot initiative for an amendment that would grant “personhood” and legal rights to fertilized eggs at the moment of conception. “This proposed amendment violates the federal constitution and seriously threatens the rights, life, and health of all Oklahoma women,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. A similar version of the personhood bill recently passed 10-1 in a state House committee, and now heads to the House floor where it will likely gain approval. Though, advocates for women’s reproductive rights were able to score a victory of their own when an Oklahoma district judge struck down a mandatory ultrasound law Wednesday. — Fatima Najiy

*Pregnant people, not just cis women.

Homemade Device Explodes At Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Clinic

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:46:58 -0400

Homemade Device Explodes At Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Clinic:

rhrealitycheck:

by Robin Marty

A small bomb exploded at Planned Parenthood’s Appleton North Health Center in Wisconsin, according to numerous news reports. The Green Bay Press Gazette reports that a “small, homemade explosive device” was placed on a windowsill of the clinic at around 7:30 p.m. Sunday night, causing damage as well as small fire.

The clinic, one of very few in the the state that provides abortions, has been a constant target of anti-choice activists, from Lila Rose attempted “undercover video ‘stings’” to Pro-Life Wisconsin’s “Empty Manger Christmas carols” and other stunts. With the amount of attention being put on the clinic, and the escalating frenzy to try and block a woman’s right to abortion, it was likely only a matter of time before a violent act happened there.

The incident also points to a disturbing and increasing trend of clinic violence. This would be the fourth case of incendiary devices being used as a weapon against clinics and supporters in the last eight months. Last August, a suspect firebombed a clinic in McKinney, Texas. On New Year’s Day, a clinic in Florida was firebombed in the early morning hours by a homeless man believed to be sympathetic to the anti-choice protesters who frequented the health center. And just last month, a Texas state senatorknown for her Planned Parenthood advocacy had her office in Fort Worth firebombed during working hours while the office was full.

And clinic violence just in the state of Wisconsin itself has become a major issue. Ralph Lang has been in jail since May, still awaiting trial for his alleged attempt to kill a Madison abortion doctor.

Bombing clinics is obviously becoming the favorite activity for anti-choice extremists, and for every thwarted plot like North Carolina’s Justin Moose in 2010, we’re now seeing multiple successes.

Paragraphs I Just Read

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:35:00 -0400

rabbleprochoice:

jasencomstock:

buscatalog:

Freshman Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey recently introduced a bill that would ban “the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses.” After a collective brow-raise over such a bizarre proposal, Shortey told the Los Angeles Times he got the idea “while doing some research on the Internet.”

Do you see what legislators would do with their time if it weren’t for groups like ALEC?

You know, I graduated form high school in 2006 and in the fall I went to college. As a freshman in college, I was automatically enrolled in a class called “freshman seminar”. Most freshmen are enrolled in a class similar to this at some point, or their core classes cover the material.

In this class, we were basically taught how to use the library’s resources. So we were taught how to use a card catalogue, an online database like JSTOR, how to find a book, check one out, AND HOW TO IDENTIFY RELIABLE WEBSITES.

I think the entirety of elected officials would benefit from such a course or even just a 17-year-old intern named Jared having a sit-down with them about how to use the internet and social media.

Love,

Rabble

How to do research properly is something all elected officials should be required to know how to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the line “I got the idea for this [asinine] bill while doing a little research online.” Why do I think the Girl Scouts are evil abortionists? Well, I did a little research online. Why do I think abstinence-only sex ed works? Oh, I did a little research online. Why do I think abortion causes breast cancer and there are aborted fetuses in food? Didn’t you hear? I did a little research online. Yeeeaah. More like you took a gander at Life Site News or got a “memo” from a concerned constituent [read: antichoice think tank]. Because I did actual research and in about five minutes I could prove with peer-reviewed sources that you’re full of shit.

Prolonged Eye Contact

Announcement:

Not that we needed further proof radscum are racist and stuck in the 60's...

Not that we needed further proof radscum are racist and stuck in the 60's...

Trans* Repro Justice: Submission: My two cents that didn't fit in the ask.

UPDATE: Violence-inciting comments disappear from LifeSiteNews

Disturbing Trend of Recruitment for Anti-Choice Violence at LifeSiteNews.com

GYT for Peace of Mind

PETITION: Stop new reporting requirements for abortions in TX

kindymaling: no sorry santorum you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term

"Just because allies are thin on the ground doesn’t mean we have to accept any old self-identified..."

stfuprolife: sanityscraps: masserrect: zaeedsonlyfan: Guess...

Lawmakers Playing Doctor:

Georgia passes an abortion bill filled with bad medicine and a 1st year med student mistake

Pro-choice is pro-facts: the error in the Georgia anti-abortion bill

[TW lack of healthcare due to poverty] Cancer v. the Constitution

What happens when there is no abortion law…

Arizona Legislators Trying To Declare Pregnancy Two Weeks Prior To Conception

inflateablefilth: the-spiderling: Talk about interesting! It...

KANSAS SPENDS HALF A MILLION DOLLARS DEFENDING ANTI-ABORTION LAWS | The Kansas attorney general has...

Related Posts

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST OKLAHOMA PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE | The Center...

Homemade Device Explodes At Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Clinic

Paragraphs I Just Read