A little more about Juno

Apparently, Juno is all controversial. It's unkind to people who were adopted as well as to birth mothers to create a comedy about adoption. There's a lot of discussion about whether Juno is anti-choice.

Shut! Up!

This is where I part ways with many feminists and other activists; where they start criticizing or trying to restrict art based on content. It's not better to object to a movie based on its supposed anti-choice values than it is to object to a movie based on its supposed liberal values. It all feels like Social Realism thinking to me. I get that a birth mother might not want to see Juno, and might find it painful. And I sympathize. But that doesn't mean that the subject matter should be off-limits. There are definitely things I never want to see in movies, and movies I avoid as a result. Comedies that everyone loves that I've never seen because they feel like they would trigger some serious pain for me.

But that doesn't mean those comedies shouldn't be made, nor that they are "not funny" by some objective standard. There is no objectivity with humor.

The more touchy the subject, the harder to do it right. One of my problems with Waitress, which was basically very charming, was the attempt to have a humorous abusive husband. This wasn't triggering for me; I've never been the victim of domestic violence, but it made me uncomfortable.

I didn't come away from that movie thinking this subject should never be addressed in a comedy. I came away thinking that maybe it can't be done well, and this movie definitely didn't do it well. But who knows? If beautifully written and acted, maybe it could illuminate the characters without feeling way out of line. Maybe.

If so, some people will choose to skip that movie anyway, because it hurts too much, and it's not funny for them. I get that. I just don't feel like it should be censored in advance, and I don't feel that people who do find it funny should be accused of being less enlightened or feminist or socially responsible than thou.

(Cross-post Realism)

If You Don't Like Abortion, You Have to Support Choice

[I swear to god this is my last Melinda Henneberger post. For a while, anyway.]

It's easy to dismiss Melinda Henneberger as a typical wingnut--especially when she says stupid things about Terri Schiavo, and when her example of a pardon-worthy death row inmate is Paul Hill.

It's easy, but it's not quite right. She appears to be genuinely liberal on economic issues, for example. Even on reproductive rights, she doesn't have it completely wrong; here, for example, she gets it at least partly right:

It is tricky business, speculating about other people's motivations. Which never stopped me before, heaven knows. And here I am, tempted again today, when I see the news that President Bush has just appointed a man who seems not to believe in birth control to run the government's family planning programs....

We'll never know for sure what drove his decision, of course. But the effect of his choice is not at all difficult to decipher: Less access to birth control means more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, and many more happy years of fighting over the issue....

For all her Democratic Party-bashing, I don't think she's on the other side as such; I think she wants to remake it in her own image, to reconcile her own political contradictions.

None of which is in any way exculpatory. Quite the opposite: it makes her silly column that much worse, because she should know better.

See, here's the thing: say you think abortion is bad and wrong and icky; say you would like it outlawed but, knowing that won't happen, would like to see less of it. The way to accomplish that is by embracing choice--reproductive choice (contraceptives available and affordable to everyone, comprehensive education about reproductive choices) and economic choice (better economic options than pregnancy, a wider and more comprehensive safety net for women who do choose to bear children). Anyone who claims to oppose abortion and also opposes any of these simply has nothing constructive to contribute. That would include, of course, the institutional Catholic church and various authoritarian evangelical Protestant denominations.

Based on the quote above, though, I'm pretty sure Melinda Henneberger would be on board for these things.

Now, here's where it stands: one party is actively promoting the programs whose practical effect is to reduce abortion; the other party is actively obstructing them. The party that embraces choice is trying to make abortion less necessary. The party that claims to oppose abortion is making it more appealing.

Which is why it's so maddening that Henneberger attacks the Democrats. She could do some real good explaining all of the above to her anti-choice compatriots. When she falsely portrays the Democrats as intolerant of people like her, she is directly aiding and abetting the party whose cynical exploitation of the issue effectively mandates more abortion.

All Henneberger, All the Time

Melinda Henneberger's column is such a target-rich environment that there's just too much there for one post...so here are a few more random thoughts on it:

• Various folks have pointed out that her timing is off in a half dozen ways. Just to illustrate how far off it is, here's a poll from earlier this month finding that "Abortion is not a top-tier issue among either Democratic or Republican voters." (Scroll down for the key issues results.) But of course abortion is really the key to everything, because she supposedly talked to women who supposedly said so.


• In a previous choice-is-killing-the-Democrats column (this one from 2004), Henneberger applauds the (right-wing) 'values' voters:

  I find it wonderful that there are Tom Amplemans out there for whom voting is not only an economic calculation—a what’s-in-it-for-me? decision—but a moral exercise, a matter of trying to do the right thing.

  But of course what she's doing in her New York Times column is arguing that the Democrats should abandon a moral position (choice) for the sake of political expediency. In other words, my moral values have to be respected and yours have to be sacrificed to politics.


• Henneberger is probably partly right about the impact of abortion in the 2004 election; Kerry did lose a lot of the Catholic vote (compared to Gore), and abortion was almost certainly the reason. Kerry lost those votes not because his stand or the party's had changed at all since 2000, but because certain reactionaries in the church made a point of attacking Democrats on the issue. If Henneberger really wants to help the Democrats, she could always try condemning partisan hacks like Archbishop Chaput instead of defending them. Just a thought.

More on the Anti-Abortion Concern Troll

Yesterday's Wanker of the Day, Melinda Henneberger, has already been well and suitably chastised by other bloggers for being hopelessly wrong about Democrats and abortion. I won't repeat what they said. Instead, I'll focus on a passage that raised a red flag for me:

Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.¹

When columnists talk about public opinion based on people they talked to, it's nearly always bullshit...but there's also something missing here, something missing from the whole piece: what Melinda Henneberger thinks.

So I looked around.

Her bio gives a clue: undergrad at Notre Dame, graduate study at a Catholic university in Belgium. Still, lots of people go to Catholic schools who don't buy the whole ideology.

There's another clue in a 2005 column in which she expresses support for a fictional candidate because he "stands up to the NARAL purity patrol" (and isn't 'purity' a curious word to use, one more commonly used (without irony) by the hardcore anti-choicers).

A pre-election piece from 2004 shows she was singing the same tune back then:

The Democrats are likely to lose the Catholic vote in November—and John Kerry could well lose the election as a result. It’s about abortion, stupid. And “choice,” make no mistake, is killing the Democratic Party.

But still nothing about how she feels about abortion.

Finally, back in the good old days of Terri Schiavo, we get the answer:

If it is above our pay grade to opt to terminate life in the womb—and, for the record, I think it is—then it is also wrong to decide when inconveniently comatose spouses or brutal murderers should be “terminated.’’ Either life and death is up to us or it is not. [emphasis added]

So it turns out that the columnist who thinks the Democrats' pro-choice position is hurting the party, who presents this as objective advice based on empirical observation, who does not mention her own position on the issue, is in fact anti-choice. And the column is doubly wankerrific: it's hopelessly wrong and dishonest.

Color me shocked.

This, of course, is how it's done in the exciting fast-paced world of professional columnizing. David Broder goes out among the Common Folk and finds a deep yearning for bipartisan compromise. Tom Friedman takes a taxi and learns that globalization is a force for good. And Melinda Henneberger talks--no, 'listens'--to women and discovers, amazingly, that they agree with her on abortion. They go out with an agenda and 'hear' whatever confirms it.

And even though the self-serving nature of their 'observations' is laughably transparent, they all maintain the fiction that they are doing no more than reporting the facts. That's what makes them wankers. Anybody can be wrong (and yeah, it takes a lot to be as wrong as often as Broder...but still); being wrong and dishonest, though, is the province of the completely useless tool.



¹Note the carefully limited sampling there: 'first-time defectors'. Interview female 'first-time defectors' from the Republican party, and the odds are pretty good that they'll mention the party's stand against abortion as the motivating force.

Update: Welcome, Digby readers, and thanks for dropping by! While you're here, take a moment to look around; our other contributors have posted a lot of great stuff here as well. And come back anytime.

Other Update: Fixed a couple of missing links; big thank you to Matt Weiner for pointing them out.

The Value of Choice

Deborah's eloquent post doesn't leave a lot unsaid, but I do want to follow up on a point she touched on: choice is about more than just abortion; choice is about choice. I'm pro-choice because I see choice as a positive value in the broadest sense.

Choice means raising girls to believe in their intrinsic value and their ability to make their own decisions, independent of male approval. Choice means making sure they have real opportunities, survival strategies beyond simply having babies. Choice means equipping them to make informed decisions about their sexual behavior. Choice means making contraceptives available to everyone. And yes, choice means making it possible to choose abortion.

'Choice' has become effectively synonymous with the last of these things (because that's the choice that is most actively threatened), but it's really the whole spectrum.

And here's the thing: by and large, the same people who oppose choice on abortion also oppose choice in all its other manifestations. Every single one of them. They embrace a faith that defines women as inferior; they tell girls they have no function but motherhood; they fight to keep kids ignorant about sexuality; they actively attempt to limit the availibility of contraception. And of course, they work tirelessly to make abortion illegal, even as everything they do serves to make it inevitable.

The sound and fury are all about abortion, but every aspect of choice is under attack to some degree...and every aspect of choice is worth defending.

[That's all, folks]

Blog for Choice: Why I'm Pro-Choice

I had some good ideas about what I would write today, and then I saw this: This year's topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice.

Which at first I wasn't going to do, because it is such a simple topic. And then I thought about the anti-choice forces in the world, and I thought, yes, it's worth saying.

I am pro-choice because women own our own bodies.

See how simple?

When I was doing the preliminary calling* for Call for Change, I got a woman who asked if the candidate I named (Jim Webb) was pro-choice. She was anti-choice, she said, because "If a woman spreads her legs, she should pay the price."

(More below the fold)
Slut-shaming, as Amanda says. And remarkably, this is the new talking point for the anti-choice crowd. Just a few short years ago it was "the life of the unborn." Whoever thought that would be a fond memory? As the Radical Religious Right has become more powerful and aggressive, they increasingly mobilize their base with hatred. While the notion of "saving the unborn" has a compassionate basis, slut-shaming is based in the hatred of women, and hatred is what they want. And don't be fooled—hating sluts is fundamentally hating all women; all women are potential sluts, all women have Teh Scary Vagina.

If anti-choice was really "pro-life," they would be concerned about the lives of women, not just cute cuddly microscopic fetuses (feti?). And over and over again, they prove they are not. By fighting pregnancy prevention almost as vigorously as they fight abortion. By fighting to make sure that women who have Teh Sex can get cancer. In a thousand different ways.

But all of this is why I'm pissed off at the anti-choice crowd. Why am I pro-choice?

Because I own my own body.

I can use my body to have sex if I want to, or I can use it to abstain. I own it.

I can have many sexual partners or few. I can have sex only when I love or sex whenever I lust. I own my body and I can make that choice.

I might, as a result of my choices, end up pregnant.** I will then have to pay a consequence for how I use my own body. That consequence could be pregnancy. That consequence could be abortion. Both are consequences. Because I own my body, I get to choose which consequence I prefer.

If choose to smoke with my body, I might, as a result of my choice, end up with cancer. I can then choose treatment which may include radiation, chemo, and/or surgery, or I can choose to die. I own my body, so that's my choice. I get to choose which consequence I prefer.

There are forces in this world so hateful that they would decide for me which choice I should live with—as punishment. Set aside the fact that childbirth-as-punishment doesn't give the subsequent child much of a life. I assert that no one can decide what punishments to inflict upon my body for how I have used it because I, and I alone, own it. You cannot inflict childbirth on me, you cannot inflict death-by-cancer on me.***

If you need a kidney transplant, if you will die without one, you cannot force me to give you my kidney. Because I own my internal organs, and even if that ownership affects the life of another, my organs are my own. My kidneys. My liver. My fucking uterus.


*Preliminary of calling was to identify Democrats so they could be called back for "get out the vote" calling. So in that first round, there were a lot of Republicans, some of them hostile.
**Okay, I personally can't, but stay with me.
***The State has some (limited) rights over criminals' bodies. Rightfully, when they have violated others, but, I'd assert, wrongfully when they are being punished only for how they've used their own bodies.

(My body. My choice. My cross-post.)

Anti-Choice, Anti-Woman

How do anti-choice fanatics reconcile their belief that abortion is murder with their opposition to penalties for the woman who has one? Scott Lemieux has the answer: by defining women as passive vessels with no moral agency. That's not an exaggeration. Read the whole thing.

[That's all, folks]

'Conscience' and the Washington Post, Part II

Yesterday I slammed the Washington Post for an article about 'conscience' and healthcare professionals that failed to include a single quote from anyone who had been denied service. I take that back, partly; Jesurglisac points me to a companion story that is entirely from the point of view of the victims of 'conscience'.

The article has some genuinely heartbreaking stories; I thought this one was the worst:

But some patients agreed to be interviewed, including Deb, who was turned away by pharmacist Gene Herr at a drugstore in Denton, Tex., in 2004, when she tried to get the morning-after pill after being raped on a date. She discussed her experience with a reporter for the first time on the condition that her last name not be used.

"It almost felt like I was being raped again," said Deb, who had already tried two other pharmacies. "I couldn't believe someone could do something violent and then I couldn't have a choice about what to do about it. The horror of what I went through was almost as bad as the first assault. It was like twisting a knife in a wound."....

Deb, who describes herself as "more pro-life than pro-choice," finally got the prescription. She did not get pregnant, but she remains shaken.

"I didn't feel like I had to be burdened by being possibly pregnant after being violently attacked," she said. "I don't think it should be a pharmacist's choice to make the decision about who should receive the medication and when."

The only redeeming feature of this horrible story is that the pharmacist was fired.

So...the Washington Post piece--not as bad as I originally thought. Still, as Jesurglisac observes in comments, this illustrates the flaws in presenting two one-sided articles as 'balance'. For one thing, rather than presenting a whole picture it effectively creates two separate propaganda pieces. You can bet that the anti-choice lobby is going to use the one article, and I'd be surprised if the good guys didn't use the other; most readers will mostly agree with one, and reject the other. How does that advance understanding?

The more important objection, though, is the implicit assumption that patients requiring services and healthcare providers refusing to do their jobs are somehow parallel interests. The former is about individual need, and the latter is about the desire to change the behavior of others; the one is presented as a counterpoint to the other. The framing creates a false sense of moral equivalence, and that leads to shoddy reporting on the 'conscience' side.

A lot of people have already observed that the author failed to ask some important questions about Stephanie Adamson, the EMT who refused to transport a woman for an 'elective abortion'. In that case, it turns out, the patient was suffering from severe abdominal pain, and Adamson's delay meant the patient had to go to emergency rather than the clinic. The reporter failed to ask some basic, essential questions, and as a result the story was (at best) misleading.

The whole story suffers from this lack of perspective. Their stories are never questioned; nor is the basis for their exercise of 'conscience'. There are no medical ethicists commenting on how this fits (or doesn't) with the oaths they took. There is no exploration of the contradiction between their desire to exercise their 'consciences', and their attempts to limit the ability of other people to exercise theirs. (On that point, I would love to know how many of these people have tried to force abortion clinics out of business.)

What it comes down to is this: opposing skewed perspectives do not add up to a comprehensive truth, especially when those perspectives do not have equal validity. The two articles together are not as bad as the one I thought was a solo piece; but they still don't add up to good journalism.

[Cross-posted at Property of a Lady]

[That's all, folks]

'Conscience' and the Washington Post

Via Mahablog comes the story of an anti-choice EMT fired because she refused to transport a patient who was supposed to get an abortion.

Naturally, she's suing. First reaction: WATB doesn't even begin to describe this pathetic excuse for humanity.

But as Barbara points out, her story doesn't add up:

...who calls an ambulance just for an elective abortion? There’s got to be more to this story that Adamson isn’t admitting. Such as, what sort of medical emergency required the patient to go to a hospital by ambulance to terminate her pregnancy?

Washington Post reporter Rob Stein must’ve been asleep when he wrote this. Alarm bells should have gone off in his head that he’d better call the ambulance company and get its side of the story. Is Anderson lying when she says the patient’s chart said elective abortion? Did the chart in fact say therapeutic abortion, and Anderson either misread it or doesn’t know the difference between elective and therapeutic? Did the person who initiated the chart write the word elective by mistake? Had the patient already undergone an elective abortion but was having complications that required emergency medical treatment? If in fact the young woman was having no medical problems and simply wanted an elective abortion, who did the ambulance company expect to bill for the ambulance ride, since no insurance company I’ve ever heard of would have paid such a bill? And why didn’t she just take a cab?

I suspect Adamson just saw the word abortion on the chart and refused to transport the patient, no matter what the patient’s emergency was. In which case the ambulance company was correct to fire her.

I'm very wary of assuming facts based on what 'must' be the case, but it sure looks like Adamson is either lying or not telling the whole story...and the reporter fell for it.

But this is just one (major) point in a story that is just as bad overall. Adamson's (dubious) story is just the hook for a whole article about medical providers 'struggling' with their 'consciences'--over abortion, over sterilization, over contraception, even over Viagra. The story is chock full of sob stories like Adamson's, with lengthy quotes from people suffering terrible anguish at the prospect of aiding and abetting someone's 'immoral' behavior. The total number of balancing quotes (from, say, women denied medical services, or health care professionals who put the public welfare above their own shoddy prejudices) is--let's see, nothin' plus nothin', carry the nothin'--zero.

And when specific sob stories aren't enough, the reporter pulls one of the classically dishonest reporter's tricks of throwing in stories with no specifics at all:

Family practitioners and obstetrician-gynecologists describe moving from town to town and being shunned by colleagues because they do not want to dispense birth control or morning-after pills or perform sterilizations or abortions.

Shunned! By colleagues! Moving! From Town! to Town! Because they refused to do their motherfucking job!

How tragic!

Just for perspective, maybe they should talk to the people who have been shunned, harassed, threatened, assaulted, and occasionally killed because they did do their jobs--and because it happened to be a job of which people like Stephanie Adamson disapprove.

These people have no clue about who's really persecuting whom. Neither, unfortunately, does the Washington Post.

[Cross-posted at Property of a Lady]

[That's all, folks]

When There's No Plan B

Common sense dictates that when emergency contraception is unavailable, more people get abortions.

Common sense is right.

The author of the piece is a 42-year-old mother of two who (once) forgot to use her diaphragm. When she tried to get Plan B the next day, she was told her doctor wouldn't prescribe it...and it turns out Virginia law gives doctors the right not to prescribe medication conflicting with their beliefs. Of course, she wouldn't have needed a prescription in the first place if the FDA hadn't overruled its staff recommendation to make Plan B available over the counter.

So, being a) 42 with b) as much family as they could handle and c) on several medications potentially harmful to a fetus, she made the difficult decision to abort.

Getting the abortion was its own special hell, thanks to Virginia's 24-hour waiting period (she would have had to take two full days to get an abortion, so she went to DC instead), security concerns, inadequate supply of providers...and of course the protestors:

I shuffled to the front door through a phalanx of umbrellaed protesters, who chanted loudly about Jesus and chided me not to go into that house of abortion.

All the while, I was thinking that if religion hadn't been allowed to seep into American politics the way it has, I wouldn't even be there. This all could have been stopped way before this baby was conceived if they had just let me have that damn pill.

And in case that wasn't clear enough:

It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

While we have succeeded (so far) in fending off challenges to Roe v. Wade, the anti-choice right has been very effective at erecting barriers to women's right to choose: improperly influencing the FDA to keep Plan B off the market; so-called 'conscience laws' that give a pharmacist's (or doctor's) 'conscience' veto power over everyone else's; waiting period laws; intimidation and harassment of providers that drastically reduces availability of abortion. This means a lot of women have abortions they wouldn't have needed otherwise. As I've said before, groups espousing policies that will result in more women needing abortions don't get to call themselves 'anti-abortion'; the only consistent thread in all of the obstacles they support is reducing choice. They are opposed to women controlling their own bodies, and 'life' is the fig leaf they use pretend otherwise.

(Hat tip: the ever-vigilant Amanda Marcotte.)

[That's all, folks]

Mapping the American Taliban

Via Shakespeare's Sister, here's a great site that ranks the 50 states on the basis of reproductive and sexual rights, and support for families. It's a great resource for anyone concerned about these issues.

Not surprisingly, South Dakota is number 50.

Fortunately, there's something we can do about that. South Dakota Healthy Families spearheaded a successful petition drive to get an initiative repealing the abortion ban (passed by the SD legislature earlier this year) on the ballot. It looks like the initiative has a good chance of passing, and donations from outside South Dakota (on both sides) may well make the difference.

They also have a list of South Dakota legislators and how they voted on the abortion ban, in case anyone feels moved to donate to the good ones or to those challenging the bad ones.

If the South Dakota Taliban can be defeated, that would be a huge victory for the forces of good...and it would make the wingnuts in other states think twice about restricting abortion rights.

[That's all, folks]

Reason for Optimism

I've been thinking about Tom's Hofstadter posts, and I've decided they represent cause for optimism. After all, Hofstadter wrote fortysome years ago, and we got out of it that time.

The reactionary 50s brought us the freewheeling 60s and 70s. Then came the backlash. We haven't lost all the ground we gained (although we've lost some previously untouched ground). It's more a spiral than a circle. Despite the Right's efforts, we still have legal abortion (in 49 states), and access to birth control. Women can control their own credit, can seek their own medical care, and maternity leave is a matter of law. Evidence of premarital sex will not get you ostracized in most communities. Blacks and whites have managed to eat at the same lunch counters for quite a few years now without deliterious effect.

My point is, we took more steps forward than we are taking back, and the fact that we , as a culture, overcame intense repression in the 50s and found another way means we can do it again in the 21st century.

(Cross-posted at my place.)

[That's all, folks]

Questions for Anti-Abortion 'Moderates'

Some of you in the Bay Area may remember the ads that appeared a few months ago (in BART, on bus shelters, etc.) with the tagline "Abortion - have we gone too far?" The ads were put out by the Second Look Project, a Catholic Church-sponsored organization designed to give a moderate face to the anti-choice movement. The ads focus on what they portray as the 'extreme' nature of Roe v. Wade; they are designed to give the impression that these people just want 'sensible' limits on abortion, not to outlaw it altogether.

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle carried an op-ed piece by Monika Rodman, who works for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland and coordinates the local Second Look Project. The piece was written to give the same impression--'we're all reasonable people, let's have a conversation and meet in the middle', yadda yadda yadda. After reading it, I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced. I have a few follow-up questions for Ms. Rodman...

Americans' thinking on abortion is beginning to shift. First, new appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court have changed the character of the court and the debate. Then, last month South Dakota's governor signed a ban on all abortions except those few performed to preserve the life of the mother.

In response, Planned Parenthood's national president lamented, "It's a sad day for the women of South Dakota." The governor retorted that "the true test of a civilization" is "how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," citing unborn children among those who need and deserve protection.

Such statements appear only to reinforce the polarization that has governed this debate for four decades: abortion rights supporters talk about the woman; abortion opponents talk about the child.

Question #1: You do not put quotation marks around 'child', which suggests that you endorse that designation. Are you prepared to agree that a fetus is not a child? If not, if you believe a fetus is a child, how does that position reduce polarization on the issue?

Many wonder if the debate has gone anywhere in 40 years; many more feel pulled between their own moral sensibilities and their allegiance to partners, friends and family who have been through abortion.

There is, however, an evolution of sorts underway that could lead to a real conversation in the place of the usual shooting match of mutual denunciations. Consider these two Bay Area developments:

On this year's Roe vs. Wade anniversary, San Francisco's second annual "Walk for Life West Coast" drew a youthful and ethnically diverse crowd of 15,000. The event focused less on law, and more on life.

Question #2: Statements on the Walk for Life website refer to "the value of every human life from conception"; "protection for the unborn"; "our most precious citizens, whose....lives [have been] destroyed"; "the pro-choice side of another great moral issue, the issue of slavery"; and "this holocaust of abortion". In what way do these statements promote 'conversation' on the issue of abortion?

It voiced a message both sides might agree on: Women deserve better than abortion.

Question #3: If women 'deserve better than abortion', in a sense that 'both sides might agree on', does that mean they (and you) are advocating for wider access to contraception (including, for example, Plan B)?

Those gathered were challenged to practice solidarity with women and couples considering abortion. Abortion was treated not as a "right," nor as a sin, but as the act of violence it is against women and children.

Question #4: If abortion is an 'act of violence', there must be a victim; the victim must be the fetus; the fetus must be a human life; and terminating the human life must be murder. Why, then, do you say 'act of violence' when what you really mean is 'murder'?

A diverse platform of speakers was united in a common message: One can be feminist, Democrat, of any race or ethnicity, have gone through one or more abortions and still stand proudly on the side of a nonviolent response to unwanted pregnancies.

Question #5: On what basis do you contend that coercing women into giving birth is 'non-violent'?

Even in the Bay Area, most folks I talk with simply do not support the Roe-Doe status quo.

Question #6: Who are these 'most'? Do you contend that the people you talk with are representative of the Bay Area as a whole? If so, on what basis?

Many concede the need for more humane limits on abortion practice. It is a conversation about such limits that our campaign promotes.

Question #7: The position of your employer is that abortion is murder; your own reference to 'violence' above implies that you agree. Are you opposing the position of your employer and your own beliefs in saying abortion should merely be limited? Or are you being dishonest about your true agenda?

Not a single anti-abortion supporter I know proposes that a woman be thrown in prison for seeking abortion.

Question #8: If you believe abortion is murder (see above), why would you oppose criminal penalties for the person ordering the killing?

She is our neighbor and friend; she did not become pregnant alone, nor, in most cases, does she resort to abortion alone. Despite ceaseless repetition of the mantra, "It's a woman's choice," real life abortions frequently are coerced.

Question #9: If, as you claim, abortions are frequently coerced, how does coercing other women into giving birth solve the problem?

Abortion opponents are open to reasoned dialogue on appropriate ways to enforce appropriate laws.

Question #10: If, as you apparently believe, abortion is 'murder', where is there room for 'reasoned dialogue' about 'appropriate laws'? Murder is murder, isn't it?

Numerous studies indicate that abortion can hurt women psychologically and compromise their future childbearing capacity. Infertility, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and premature births are often correlated to internal scarring or a weakened cervix resulting from past abortions.

Question #11: Is it appropriate to coerce women into giving birth in order to save them from the potential physical and psychological complications from abortion?

Question #12: Is it your contention that there are no physical or emotional complications caused by giving birth?

If abortion practice is restricted, both private and publicly funded support to those facing pregnancy in difficult circumstances must continue and expand.

Question #13: Given the current political climate, do you believe that public funding will actually expand to the level necessary to meet the need caused by restrictions on abortion?

We invite our neighbors to join us in conversation about what happens next on this issue of such consequence to individuals, families and our nation.

Question #14: If you believe abortion is murder, what the hell is there to talk about?

[That's all, folks]

An Abortion Wedge

I think this (via Atrios) is excellent politics:

The Prevention First Act is sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), one of few congressional Democrats considered anti-abortion. The bill, which Reid introduced at the start of the Congress, has the support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), presumptive front-runner in the 2008 presidential primary and 21 other Democrats.

The bill would prohibit group health plans from excluding contraceptive drugs, devices and outpatient services if they cover the cost of other prescription drugs and outpatient services. It would also require the secretary of health and human services to disseminate information on emergency contraception to healthcare providers and require hospitals receiving federal money to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.

The bill would also mandate that federally funded programs provide information about contraceptives that is medically accurate and includes data on health benefits and failure rates.

Note that it a) has very broad appeal, even among many voters who oppose abortion (and here the symbolism of having Reid sponsor the bill is important), but b) doesn't compromise on our commitment to choice; is c) substantively a good bill; and d) will be completely unacceptable to the wingnuts who run the Republican party (whose opposition to abortion is belied by their efforts to make it more necessary).

Instant Wedge.

I think this is one of those cases where we don't have to choose between appealing to moderate voters and satisfying the base. I would hope that everyone on the Democratic side agrees that better access to contraceptives (and contraceptive information) is a Good Thing, and the best possible way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I also think that, while I disagree with Reid on abortion rights, this tells me that at least he isn't a hypocrite about it.

[That's all, folks]

Conscience

Shakespeare's Sister links to a great column (by Colin McEnroe) on Lieberman's follies. Included in the litany is Lieberman's solicitude for the tender consciences of hospital administrators:

Lieberman said the Catholic hospitals shouldn't have to hand out the pills and that transportation should instead be provided, for the rape victim, to some other hospital. He said, "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."

....

That's taking better care of the administrator than of the rape victim. And the former is generally having a better day than the latter.

Shakes' response is excellent:

Lieberman’s reducing the trauma of being redirected to a hospital which is willing to provide you the care you need after being raped to “a short ride” is not amusing. He’s yada-yadaing all the things upon which McEnroe deliberately elucidates—the emotional devastation, the fear, the humiliation, the invasiveness, all of which are exacerbated by the implied shamefulness of wanting to prevent a possible pregnancy caused by a sexual assault.

Besides the callousness of the stance, though, the thing that gets to me is the way they use the word 'conscience'....

To me, conscience is an individual thing. Conscience applies to my own actions, not to somebody else's. Nobody can regulate my conscience, and I can't regulate anybody else's.

That doesn't seem to be a universal definition. For Catholic hospitals (and people like Lieberman who support them), for the 'conscience clause' backers, for those who oppose adoption by gay parents, 'conscience' is something you can apply to other people. For all of them, it isn't about whether or not they sin; it's about preventing somebody else from sinning.

So sorry, but my conscience won't let you take Plan B. My conscience won't let you marry the man or woman you love. My conscience won't let you give a needy child a loving home.

If there's one thing I hate more than bigotry, it's abuse of the language. Applying the word 'conscience' to the desire to regulate the behavior of others is a first-degree crime against English. Conscience is too important a word to abandon to the barbarians; we need, above all, to restore it to its true meaning.

We do, in fact, need to protect the right of conscience. We need to protect the rape victim's right to exercise her conscience, to do what she believes is right. We need to protect the right of every individual to exercise his or her conscience in matters of sex and reproduction. We need to protect the right of couples to exercise their consciences, to marry if they believe it is the right thing for them, to raise children if they believe it is right. We need to take back the word 'conscience' and start really protecting it.

And when that happens, then I'll be able to hear the word 'conscience' without gagging.

[That's all, folks]

Objectively Pro-Abortion

I just made up a new rule: groups espousing policies that will result in more women needing abortions don't get to call themselves 'anti-abortion'.

Yes, I'm talking about you and you.

(Via Amanda Marcotte.)

[That's all, folks]

Tracking the South Dakota Taliban

Update: Links fixed; the spreadsheet is now two .pdf files.

Given that a dozen or so states are preparing to follow South Dakota’s lead (Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, and Indiana (among others) all have bills pending; states like Mississippi and Nebraska won’t be far behind), it would sure be nice if we could make an example of some of the South Dakota legislatures to discourage them.

I don’t know exactly how to accomplish this, but here are tables I compiled (warning: Excel file) with information on South Dakota Senate and House members (including vote on the abortion ban, phone and fax numbers, party registration in their districts, and 2004 election results). Maybe someone more politically savvy than I am can put it to good use. At first glance, it doesn’t look promising; the districts tend to vote overwhelmingly one way or the other, and swing districts are few and far between.

Below the fold, I’ve listed Democrats voting in favor of the ban (primary challengers, anyone?), districts where Republicans got less than 60% of the vote¹ (could be vulnerable--who knows?), and Republicans running unopposed (even a token challenge would force them to spend money). For more info, check out the SD Legislature website and the SD Elections website.

House

Democrats Voting for the ban:
Gassman, David District 8
Gillespie, Margaret District 16
Glenski, Mary District 15
Hargens, Dale District 22
Kroger, Michael District 25
Lange, Gerald District 8
Miles, Kathy District 15

Vulnerable (?) Republicans
Boomgarden, Jamie District 17
Deadrick, Thomas District 21
Dykstra, Joel District 16
Haverly, Jeffrey District 35
Heineman, Phyllis District 13
McCoy, Alice District 35
Peters, Deb District 9
Rausch, Val District 4
Schafer, Donna District 17

Republicans Running Unopposed
Brunner, Thomas District 29
Davis, Justin District 23
Hackl, Tom District 23
Hunhoff, Jean District 18
Hunt, Roger District 10
Jerke, Gary District 19
Klaudt, Ted District 28B
Krebs, Shantel District 10
Michels, Matthew District 18
Olson, Ryan District 24
Putnam, J.E. "Jim" District 19
Rhoden, Larry District 29
Rounds, Tim District 24
Wick, Hal District 12

Senate

Democrats Voting for the ban:
Bartling, Julie District 21
Kloucek, Frank District 19
Koetzle, Gil District 15
Moore, Garry District 18
Peterson, Jim District 4
Sutton, Dan District 8

Vulnerable (?) Republicans
Bogue, Eric District 28
Earley, William District 12
Hansen, Tom District 22
Kelly, Dick District 13
Koskan, John District 26
Smidt, Orville District 7

Republicans Running Unopposed
Abdallah, Gene District 10
Apa, Jerry District 31
Broderick, Mike District 16
Duenwald, Jay District 23
Gray, Bob District 24
Schoenbeck, Lee District 5

¹House elections are a little odd. Apparently, each district elects two House members; each party nominates (up to) two candidates, then they all run against each other (i.e., you vote for just one). For the House worksheet, I used the total of both Republican candidates.

[That's all, folks]