A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.More on this later in the day....
The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.
Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.
The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.
Showing posts with label reproductive rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
North Dakota's Challenge to Roe v Wade
Caught this on Yahoo this morning as I head out.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Minnesota Family Council: Last minute robo calling
Early this morning, at 8:59 according to my caller ID actually, I received a phone call from 712-872-3171. It was a robo call from the Minnesota Family Council urging us to call Governor Pawlenty and support him vetoing "Comprehensive Sex Education" and that it's against our strong Minnesota Family Values.
Why am I getting robo calls from Iowa for legislation in Minnesota? I tried calling the number back but was met with a message stating "this phone number does not accept calls from your area".
Gotta love a group espousing "Minnesota Values" that outsourced its phone calling to Iowa.
Why am I getting robo calls from Iowa for legislation in Minnesota? I tried calling the number back but was met with a message stating "this phone number does not accept calls from your area".
Gotta love a group espousing "Minnesota Values" that outsourced its phone calling to Iowa.
Monday, April 09, 2007
KQRS U of M rape case chat
Listening to the morning shows today, 92.5 KQRS had some interesting chatter about the U of M rape case. Tom Barnard, the resident xenophobe of Twin Cities radio, opined on the case. He wondered why any parent would allow their child to go to a major university, where a culture of rape exists.
It's a great question.
We all know that the KQ crew is staunchly supportive of the quagmire in Iraq. Their xenophobic skits display this on a regular basis.
This culture of rape and sexual assault exists in our military as well.
And the 450 women that came forward after the first Gulf War sharing the crimes committed against them.
Think about that. 696,000 deployed to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia. Over a 6 month period of time, more than 450 soldiers were raped.
If 450 women were raped in Minneapolis over a 6 month period of time, we would be talking of serial rapists. It would lead every major media outlet newscast.
And for many, 17 years later, this is the first time you have seen that figure.
So my question is, would Barnard and the KQRS crew let their daughters join the military, where they have an even greater chance of being sexually assaulted?
It's a great question.
We all know that the KQ crew is staunchly supportive of the quagmire in Iraq. Their xenophobic skits display this on a regular basis.
This culture of rape and sexual assault exists in our military as well.
Rape, sexual assault and harassment are nothing new to the military. They were a
serious problem for the Women's Army Corps in Vietnam, and the rapes and sexual
hounding of Navy women at Tailhook in 1991 and of Army women at Aberdeen in 1996 became national news. A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all the wars since, who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. And in a third study, conducted in 1992-93 with female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier
wars, 90 percent said they had been sexually harassed in the military, which
means anything from being pressured for sex to being relentlessly teased and
stared at.
And the 450 women that came forward after the first Gulf War sharing the crimes committed against them.
Think about that. 696,000 deployed to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia. Over a 6 month period of time, more than 450 soldiers were raped.
If 450 women were raped in Minneapolis over a 6 month period of time, we would be talking of serial rapists. It would lead every major media outlet newscast.
And for many, 17 years later, this is the first time you have seen that figure.
So my question is, would Barnard and the KQRS crew let their daughters join the military, where they have an even greater chance of being sexually assaulted?
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Seifert's devil's dictionary
The more Marty Seifert open's his mouth, letting ridiculous rhetoric spew out, the less respect I have for the man.
A Seifertism from the Strib's "short cuts".
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1090911.html
Prochoice: A virtue applying only to abortion that should not be extended to schools, medical care, retirement, union membership, tobacco use or employee wages.
As opposed to the GOP verison of Pro-Life?
Pro-life until one is outside of the womb. Once born, a Minnesotan, under GOP rule, is subjected to substandard health care plans, sky rocketing higher tuition for our college students, filthy lakes for our fishing and recreation, higher property taxes for senior citizens, taxes passed off as fees, and wars that put our loved ones in harms way.
How can you be pro-war and pro-life?
Pro death penalty and pro-life?
Oh Marty...I feel sorry for you...
A Seifertism from the Strib's "short cuts".
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1090911.html
Prochoice: A virtue applying only to abortion that should not be extended to schools, medical care, retirement, union membership, tobacco use or employee wages.
As opposed to the GOP verison of Pro-Life?
Pro-life until one is outside of the womb. Once born, a Minnesotan, under GOP rule, is subjected to substandard health care plans, sky rocketing higher tuition for our college students, filthy lakes for our fishing and recreation, higher property taxes for senior citizens, taxes passed off as fees, and wars that put our loved ones in harms way.
How can you be pro-war and pro-life?
Pro death penalty and pro-life?
Oh Marty...I feel sorry for you...
Sunday, March 25, 2007
More soldier rape in Iraq
Another story out there on the increase in rape amongst soldiers in Iraq.
“It was out of control,” Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October, according to the Truthout report. Although there was a toll-free number women could use to report sexual assaults, no one had a phone, and no one answered the U.S. number when it was called. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording.
Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message, Karpinski told Cohn.
Recall a few days ago that there was a 24% increase in sexual assaults across the military in 2006.
Where was General Pace on this issue? Why did he not get on his high horse and call this sharp increase immoral?
“It was out of control,” Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October, according to the Truthout report. Although there was a toll-free number women could use to report sexual assaults, no one had a phone, and no one answered the U.S. number when it was called. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording.
Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message, Karpinski told Cohn.
Recall a few days ago that there was a 24% increase in sexual assaults across the military in 2006.
Where was General Pace on this issue? Why did he not get on his high horse and call this sharp increase immoral?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Blog for Choice Day
This will be my only post of the day.
34 years ago today, Roe v. Wade was decided, thus ending a period of time where women had to resort to desperate and dangerous measures when they were faced with the prospects of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
As many of you know, this was a lessor hot button issue on the campaign trail this year. Although, until you have been called a baby killer, which happened in Winsted and Howard Lake, you truly have not campaigned. I remember when Nolan was called this in Winsted one afternoon.
"Now I know what it felt like to be my dad, we have more in common now!" uttered Nolan, whose dad is a Vietnam Veteran.
For several years, during my full time college days, I did a lot of speaking on Veterans issues at colleges and schools throughout the state. I spoke of the de-humanization tactics used during training, the racism and sexism used to exacerbate the process. I spoke of the vast history behind our government mistreating our veterans. I spoke of stories shared with me of rape and sexual assault.
One powerful story weighs heavily on me, and reaffirms my pro-choice stance.
I was speaking to a Sociology class at St Cloud State. Having done this a couple of hundred times, I can get a feel for the audience. I can feel what they get and what they reject. I hit a point in my presentation where I began to talk about the increased rape figures for soldiers having served in the first Gulf War as compared to society (fully understanding that actual rape figures are vastly under-reported). I noted the look in the eyes of a young woman in the back and tempered the comments. Something I just said had hit her like a ton of bricks.
After class, I hung out and talked to many students. The young woman hovered in the back for little while and bailed out before I could talk to her.
A few days later I got an email from her. She wanted to sit down and talk to someone about her experiences in Iraq, during the most recent Gulf War.
We had coffee in Atwood and she told me of a situation that occurred in Kuwait, while her unit was getting ready to come back to the US.
A young military policewoman, she was assigned to convoy operations and had seen her share of IED's and other insurgent weapons, and survived. Her unit was in Kuwait, spending some time winding down before heading back the the US. A new unit for the US had arrived to move into Iraq to begin it's year long excursion into the civil war.
Her friend had left their home away from home in Kuwait to take a shower, it was pretty late as she recalled. Some time had passed before she realized that her friend had been gone for quite some time, which was odd. So, she grabbed her stuff and headed towards the showers.
She found her friend on the floor of the shower, crying and bleeding, having been raped in the shower by soldier(s).
Being a military policewoman, she got her superiors involved.
Military justice was slow and flawed. It appeared to her as though the chain of command did little or nothing on this matter. In fact, she told me that the commanders thought the young woman was lying about the matter. To the best of her knowledge, no one was ever charged with this crime.
Why am I pro-choice? Crimes against women are rampant in society today. In the military, it's even worse.
Think about that, 66%. The use of military facilities for an abortion is strictly prohibited, nor can a military doctor perform the procedure.
I am told that the young woman got an abortion shortly after she returned to Minnesota.
I will never forget the look in the eyes of this young woman as she shared this story. Until we can rid our society of it's rampant abuse of women, abortions will be a necessary evil.
My only choice is to support women in situations similar to this, or dis-similar for that matter.
34 years ago today, Roe v. Wade was decided, thus ending a period of time where women had to resort to desperate and dangerous measures when they were faced with the prospects of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
As many of you know, this was a lessor hot button issue on the campaign trail this year. Although, until you have been called a baby killer, which happened in Winsted and Howard Lake, you truly have not campaigned. I remember when Nolan was called this in Winsted one afternoon.
"Now I know what it felt like to be my dad, we have more in common now!" uttered Nolan, whose dad is a Vietnam Veteran.
For several years, during my full time college days, I did a lot of speaking on Veterans issues at colleges and schools throughout the state. I spoke of the de-humanization tactics used during training, the racism and sexism used to exacerbate the process. I spoke of the vast history behind our government mistreating our veterans. I spoke of stories shared with me of rape and sexual assault.
One powerful story weighs heavily on me, and reaffirms my pro-choice stance.
I was speaking to a Sociology class at St Cloud State. Having done this a couple of hundred times, I can get a feel for the audience. I can feel what they get and what they reject. I hit a point in my presentation where I began to talk about the increased rape figures for soldiers having served in the first Gulf War as compared to society (fully understanding that actual rape figures are vastly under-reported). I noted the look in the eyes of a young woman in the back and tempered the comments. Something I just said had hit her like a ton of bricks.
After class, I hung out and talked to many students. The young woman hovered in the back for little while and bailed out before I could talk to her.
A few days later I got an email from her. She wanted to sit down and talk to someone about her experiences in Iraq, during the most recent Gulf War.
We had coffee in Atwood and she told me of a situation that occurred in Kuwait, while her unit was getting ready to come back to the US.
A young military policewoman, she was assigned to convoy operations and had seen her share of IED's and other insurgent weapons, and survived. Her unit was in Kuwait, spending some time winding down before heading back the the US. A new unit for the US had arrived to move into Iraq to begin it's year long excursion into the civil war.
Her friend had left their home away from home in Kuwait to take a shower, it was pretty late as she recalled. Some time had passed before she realized that her friend had been gone for quite some time, which was odd. So, she grabbed her stuff and headed towards the showers.
She found her friend on the floor of the shower, crying and bleeding, having been raped in the shower by soldier(s).
Being a military policewoman, she got her superiors involved.
Military justice was slow and flawed. It appeared to her as though the chain of command did little or nothing on this matter. In fact, she told me that the commanders thought the young woman was lying about the matter. To the best of her knowledge, no one was ever charged with this crime.
Why am I pro-choice? Crimes against women are rampant in society today. In the military, it's even worse.
It is estimated that two-thirds of female service members experience
unwanted, uninvited sexual behavior in the military.
Think about that, 66%. The use of military facilities for an abortion is strictly prohibited, nor can a military doctor perform the procedure.
I am told that the young woman got an abortion shortly after she returned to Minnesota.
I will never forget the look in the eyes of this young woman as she shared this story. Until we can rid our society of it's rampant abuse of women, abortions will be a necessary evil.
My only choice is to support women in situations similar to this, or dis-similar for that matter.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Anti Choice LTE in SC Times
Wanna bet she voted for Bachmann?
Where's the data supporting your argument? Please show us...
How many hundreds of thousands of embryo's would be destroyed without being used in research on diabetes and other illnesses and diseases?
The LTE also makes references to slavery and freeing of the slaves and attempts to connect it with reporductive rights. Wow, it's nice that every time the religious right decides to make a point, it now includes references to slavery at every junction.
Story chat has some gems though...
And there is more. I do think it brings forth the great question. If these specific repoductive rights are so important to the GOP platform, then why did they not act for all the years they were in power?
It's a wedge issue. An issue meant to get their voters to the polls and create divide amongst the electorate.
More women harmed by abortion are speaking out against it. Evidence of the
harmful effects is increasing.
Where's the data supporting your argument? Please show us...
Stem-cell research that cannibalizes human embryos — little persons by
nature, though not yet by function — has ethical and much more successful
alternatives, such as the use of adult stem cells and those from the fluid that
surrounds the embryo.
How many hundreds of thousands of embryo's would be destroyed without being used in research on diabetes and other illnesses and diseases?
The LTE also makes references to slavery and freeing of the slaves and attempts to connect it with reporductive rights. Wow, it's nice that every time the religious right decides to make a point, it now includes references to slavery at every junction.
Story chat has some gems though...
Al from Sartell
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse
legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000With a majority in the House and the Senate, and control of the White House, why
didn't anything happen? Why the empty promise?
Dr. Bad from MN!
what were the results of that vote in south dakota
Forget about SD. How did that republican majority in congress with a republican president for the past 6 years work out for the pro-life crowd ?
GBGirl from St. Cloud
I, personally, would not have an abortion. This letter is very good at the use of selective words to demonize those that are in support of pro-choice as opposed to TRULY addressing the issues. It is a simplistic mindset to say "no abortion...abortion kills". For some, they aren't aware of how to prevent unwanted pregnancies or of other options. Instead of just stomping moralistic feet, maybe try to encourage and support education on sexual education and responsibility....be an advocate and speak out for alternatives to abortion....support systems that support women who may be alone and scared in going through this very personal experience.
It is my experience that those that stomp their feet and yell "Murder"....are also those to cast the first moralistic judgements towards those who get pregnant young and/or out of wedlock. Those that yell "murder"...are also those that are against education on responsible sex. Those that yell "murder"....are those that frown and ridicule government support ("hand outs"....etc). So for those that fit into these descriptions...let me ask you this....How are you an advocate for life, truly? You judge those that become pregnant unwantingly....you demeen those that would maybe need government assistance, as lazy, irresponsible, etc.....you are against prevention through education....why would someone come to you for help, or have any faith in what you have to say?
beebee from SCSU
AMCK: since constitutional rights are reserved for all persons born,
fetuses do not have individual liberties.
And there is more. I do think it brings forth the great question. If these specific repoductive rights are so important to the GOP platform, then why did they not act for all the years they were in power?
It's a wedge issue. An issue meant to get their voters to the polls and create divide amongst the electorate.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Crazy SC Times letter
The SC Times had a crazy letter about reproductive rights that has spurred the typical craziness in the SC Times Chat boards.
This may be my favorite comment though...
Joan from Oak Park
Number of Posts: 63
Comment Posted: 1/2/2007 2:21:16 AM
The number of abortions could already have at least been limited if the US Congress would go along with what the Supreme Court has said by including the simple exclusion in their bills to allow abortions in the case of the potential loss of life or health of the mother. Because the republicans in congress refuse to add those terms to any bills, any laws that get passed by congress get struck down by the supreme court. It is not so much the actions of so called "activist judges" that these things get struck down as it is that the congress people continue to write unconstitutional legislation knowing that it will not stand up in court because of it's unconstitutional language.
It's pretty feisty in Story Chat today
This may be my favorite comment though...
Joan from Oak Park
Number of Posts: 63
Comment Posted: 1/2/2007 2:21:16 AM
The number of abortions could already have at least been limited if the US Congress would go along with what the Supreme Court has said by including the simple exclusion in their bills to allow abortions in the case of the potential loss of life or health of the mother. Because the republicans in congress refuse to add those terms to any bills, any laws that get passed by congress get struck down by the supreme court. It is not so much the actions of so called "activist judges" that these things get struck down as it is that the congress people continue to write unconstitutional legislation knowing that it will not stand up in court because of it's unconstitutional language.
It's pretty feisty in Story Chat today
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Worst Politcal Persons in the State, 2006
From MnpACT!
#9 -- Tim Pawlenty: This is the GOP governor who said at his endorsing convention, "Now I know I may not be in some of your wildest dreams but I can tell you what your worst nightmare is," Pawlenty told delegates at his party's state convention. "It's one of the big spendin', tax raisin', abortion promotin', gay marriage embracin', more-welfare-without-accountability lovin', school-reform resistin', illegal-immigration supportin' Democrats for governor who think Hillary Clinton should be president of the United States." After all that chest thumpin' talk, the "new, I almost got beat" Pawlenty takes abortion and gay marriage off the table.... tax pledges are out; new budget priorities are in; health care spending is also in; education spending overrides reform; and illegal immigration measures will be shoved to the side to keep McCain happy. The only thing left on that diatribe that still operates is that he won't endorse Hillary Clinton for President......and that's only because he thinks he'll be on the GOP ticket against her. This guy takes 47% opportunism to new heights....
TPaw the moderate, pushing for the VP position in 08?
#7 -- Rep. Mark Olson: The only reason he isn't higher on the list is that we have no conviction...(yet)...on his domestic assault charge. The logical thing that would have made the most sense in this bizarre circumstance, would be for him to offer a resignation or, at the very least, take a leave of absence while all this shakes out. Rep. Olson apparently thinks he can weather the storm even when his Republican cohorts give him a no confidence vote. What will he call his caucus of one? The Lonely Guy Caucus?
I'd have rated him higher, conviction or not...but not ahead of...
#6 -- Michele Bachmann: Where do we begin? I know it is hard to believe that someone who has God's stamp of approval can be on this list, but I'm doing it anyway. Don't pity this "fool" for Christ. She is an armed and dangerous Christian soldier. She has devoted herself to be the last line of defense against "gay marriage" and for the 3 day Congressional work week. Michele plans to take the 110th Congress by storm. Anyone taking bets on how long it will take her to say something truly assinine? Anyone?
#6? I get it, but...only #6? I'd have had her in my top 2!
#4 -- Mary Kiffmeyer: Her quest for welding the Constitution and the Ten Commandments together has been temporarily derailed. Her defeat at the hands of Mark Ritchie was no fault of her own, of course, and the partisanship she always displayed was simply all in how you look at it. As she rants about how badly she has been treated, both by her predecessor and successor, you have to wonder how she will ever get a fair shake. But she is certainly looking ahead, as she has Michael Brodkorb tagging along to snakebite anybody who dares cross her. Maybe she should have been one of those tabloid journalists -- they take hyberbole like hers seriously.
She'd be in the lower top 10...but we post this, hoping she runs to replace Mark Olson.
#1 -- Michael Brodkorb: My 2006 worst person in Minnesota has redefined the Minnesota blog-o-sphere. Blogs used to be a genuine discussion of events and positions; they admittedly have slanted points of view, but that's usually not hidden from the reader-- they editorialize but don't pretend to be giving "hard" news....however, thanks to Brodkorb, blogs are rapidly becoming just another arm of political campaigns; operated by former campaign staffers and political hacks and working to influence or manipulate the mainstream media in any manner they can. It has gotten so out of hand, that Mary Kiffmeyer invites Brodkorb to a transition meeting with newly elected Mark Ritchie....for purposes only apparent to Kiffmeyer herself.... but we know Brodkorb's agenda is to simply "hatchet" another Democrat. To be fair, Brodkorb isn't the only one that has lowered the bar for political discourse. There are plenty on the left that are all too willing to take up the gauntlet. But Brodkorb envisions himself as some kind of "investigative" reporter.... with little or no regard for both sides of the issue and even less for factual content. He only looks for the negative... and only items that expose political "opponents". His news flashes are one-sided and distorted as much as possible. But given all that, Brodkorb might be simply ranting in obscurity if not for the local media's willing obsession to pick up the "negative" story, at the expense of examining issue content. Politics has been reduced to the lowest common denominator....thanks, partially, to Michael Brodkorb--- Minnesota's Worst Person in the State!
Since I am now in Vikings draft mode, MDE at #1 is a bust. His selection as Number 1 is a draft bust of Tony Mandarich proportions, Packer fans...you know what I mean!
My Top 10?
LOL, here we go!
10. Patty Wetterling. Ran a horrible campaign. Outraised her opponent significantly and could not carry a swing district in a strong Democratic year. I was so disappointed.
9. Matt Entenza. Sorry I had to put another DFLer up here, but his problems, which should have been fully vetted as a candidate, put the party at risk early in the election cycle. Then, lobbying with Conservative PAC's against DFLers for Law Enforcement? Come on Matt...
9. Mary Kiffmeyer...nuff said.
8. Michael Barrett. Had no plan, purely ran on immigration issues. His signs were outrageous. "Stop the Invasion!" Collin whiped him!
7. Bachmann supporters. Those that put Bachmann stickers on Wetterling and other DFL signs, as well as marched through the DFL contingent at some parades. Oh I wish they had tried to do that to me...
6. GOP Bloggers (MDE and his colleagues). The National Enquirer has more integrity.
5. Governor Pawlenty. Has never won a Statewide election with more than 50% 0f the vote. Has now become a moderate, advocating for many of the areas he gouged in 2003.
4. MCCL: Continuing your practice of flyering cars in Church parking lots the weekend prior to the election...stay classy MCCL.
3. Mark Olson. Search my blog if you have any questions.
2. Ron Carey. GOP Chair. His daily press releases coming after DFLer's for anything and everything really got old. Plus, he screwed the GOP over, had no plan
1. Michele Bachmann. She was divisive and to steal a Boschwitz line, "Embarassingly Conservative". Wonkette has high expectations for her...
There is my Top 10. Just like Fox, "Fair and Balanced"
#9 -- Tim Pawlenty: This is the GOP governor who said at his endorsing convention, "Now I know I may not be in some of your wildest dreams but I can tell you what your worst nightmare is," Pawlenty told delegates at his party's state convention. "It's one of the big spendin', tax raisin', abortion promotin', gay marriage embracin', more-welfare-without-accountability lovin', school-reform resistin', illegal-immigration supportin' Democrats for governor who think Hillary Clinton should be president of the United States." After all that chest thumpin' talk, the "new, I almost got beat" Pawlenty takes abortion and gay marriage off the table.... tax pledges are out; new budget priorities are in; health care spending is also in; education spending overrides reform; and illegal immigration measures will be shoved to the side to keep McCain happy. The only thing left on that diatribe that still operates is that he won't endorse Hillary Clinton for President......and that's only because he thinks he'll be on the GOP ticket against her. This guy takes 47% opportunism to new heights....
TPaw the moderate, pushing for the VP position in 08?
#7 -- Rep. Mark Olson: The only reason he isn't higher on the list is that we have no conviction...(yet)...on his domestic assault charge. The logical thing that would have made the most sense in this bizarre circumstance, would be for him to offer a resignation or, at the very least, take a leave of absence while all this shakes out. Rep. Olson apparently thinks he can weather the storm even when his Republican cohorts give him a no confidence vote. What will he call his caucus of one? The Lonely Guy Caucus?
I'd have rated him higher, conviction or not...but not ahead of...
#6 -- Michele Bachmann: Where do we begin? I know it is hard to believe that someone who has God's stamp of approval can be on this list, but I'm doing it anyway. Don't pity this "fool" for Christ. She is an armed and dangerous Christian soldier. She has devoted herself to be the last line of defense against "gay marriage" and for the 3 day Congressional work week. Michele plans to take the 110th Congress by storm. Anyone taking bets on how long it will take her to say something truly assinine? Anyone?
#6? I get it, but...only #6? I'd have had her in my top 2!
#4 -- Mary Kiffmeyer: Her quest for welding the Constitution and the Ten Commandments together has been temporarily derailed. Her defeat at the hands of Mark Ritchie was no fault of her own, of course, and the partisanship she always displayed was simply all in how you look at it. As she rants about how badly she has been treated, both by her predecessor and successor, you have to wonder how she will ever get a fair shake. But she is certainly looking ahead, as she has Michael Brodkorb tagging along to snakebite anybody who dares cross her. Maybe she should have been one of those tabloid journalists -- they take hyberbole like hers seriously.
She'd be in the lower top 10...but we post this, hoping she runs to replace Mark Olson.
#1 -- Michael Brodkorb: My 2006 worst person in Minnesota has redefined the Minnesota blog-o-sphere. Blogs used to be a genuine discussion of events and positions; they admittedly have slanted points of view, but that's usually not hidden from the reader-- they editorialize but don't pretend to be giving "hard" news....however, thanks to Brodkorb, blogs are rapidly becoming just another arm of political campaigns; operated by former campaign staffers and political hacks and working to influence or manipulate the mainstream media in any manner they can. It has gotten so out of hand, that Mary Kiffmeyer invites Brodkorb to a transition meeting with newly elected Mark Ritchie....for purposes only apparent to Kiffmeyer herself.... but we know Brodkorb's agenda is to simply "hatchet" another Democrat. To be fair, Brodkorb isn't the only one that has lowered the bar for political discourse. There are plenty on the left that are all too willing to take up the gauntlet. But Brodkorb envisions himself as some kind of "investigative" reporter.... with little or no regard for both sides of the issue and even less for factual content. He only looks for the negative... and only items that expose political "opponents". His news flashes are one-sided and distorted as much as possible. But given all that, Brodkorb might be simply ranting in obscurity if not for the local media's willing obsession to pick up the "negative" story, at the expense of examining issue content. Politics has been reduced to the lowest common denominator....thanks, partially, to Michael Brodkorb--- Minnesota's Worst Person in the State!
Since I am now in Vikings draft mode, MDE at #1 is a bust. His selection as Number 1 is a draft bust of Tony Mandarich proportions, Packer fans...you know what I mean!
My Top 10?
LOL, here we go!
10. Patty Wetterling. Ran a horrible campaign. Outraised her opponent significantly and could not carry a swing district in a strong Democratic year. I was so disappointed.
9. Matt Entenza. Sorry I had to put another DFLer up here, but his problems, which should have been fully vetted as a candidate, put the party at risk early in the election cycle. Then, lobbying with Conservative PAC's against DFLers for Law Enforcement? Come on Matt...
9. Mary Kiffmeyer...nuff said.
8. Michael Barrett. Had no plan, purely ran on immigration issues. His signs were outrageous. "Stop the Invasion!" Collin whiped him!
7. Bachmann supporters. Those that put Bachmann stickers on Wetterling and other DFL signs, as well as marched through the DFL contingent at some parades. Oh I wish they had tried to do that to me...
6. GOP Bloggers (MDE and his colleagues). The National Enquirer has more integrity.
5. Governor Pawlenty. Has never won a Statewide election with more than 50% 0f the vote. Has now become a moderate, advocating for many of the areas he gouged in 2003.
4. MCCL: Continuing your practice of flyering cars in Church parking lots the weekend prior to the election...stay classy MCCL.
3. Mark Olson. Search my blog if you have any questions.
2. Ron Carey. GOP Chair. His daily press releases coming after DFLer's for anything and everything really got old. Plus, he screwed the GOP over, had no plan
1. Michele Bachmann. She was divisive and to steal a Boschwitz line, "Embarassingly Conservative". Wonkette has high expectations for her...
There is my Top 10. Just like Fox, "Fair and Balanced"
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Question
If the fetus you save is gay, would you still fight for its rights?
Found here http://wehavefailed.blogspot.com/
Good question!
Found here http://wehavefailed.blogspot.com/
Good question!
Thursday, November 30, 2006
SC Times Letter to the Editor (Choice related!)
Oh how I miss my time at SCSU. The daily reading of the SC Times chatroom and the crazy comments that inundate it on a daily basis. I actually saved some of the post Homecoming stuff where people were wishing ill will upon me during that time.
It was awesome!
I digress. Here is the letter. I think it is a solid letter. The issue is perhaps the most delicate issue in modern politics. I witnessed it firsthand while campaigning. I completely respect perspectives that I do not possess, I respect one's right to stand up and fight for what you believe in, even if it is in complete contradiction to what I believe in. As a matter of fact, I respect those that educate themselves on the issues and can engage in a dignified discussion of the matter at hand.
Letter: Positive Alternatives Act was anti-choice, woman
Alice Cowley, Becker
A very tragic bill was passed during the 2005 state legislative session titled the Positive Alternatives Act. This bill gave approximately $5 million in tax dollars to the anti-birth control, anti-choice, anti-woman clinics throughout our state.
These anti-birth control clinics lure women who may be pregnant to come into their clinics, claiming they will help you. Their brainwashing techniques are that "abortion kills babies" and that "the potential life is more important than her life."
Women who come into their clinics are already sexually active and the only birth control information they give them are "abstinence only" and natural family planning. "Abstinence only" teaches that "good girls" don't get pregnant and when "good girls" do get pregnant, many go into denial until the birth of their babies.
Desperate people do desperate things. Abandoned babies are still being found and few are found alive. Republicans who supported this anti-birth control bill were Sens. Michele Bachmann, Betsy Wergin and Rep. Mark Olson, who campaigned to cut taxes.
Is the state keeping track of the extra cost to taxpayers of the medical and welfare expenses resulting from this compulsory motherhood bill? How much of your federal taxes are paying to promote "abstinence til marriage"? And look at the recent headline — "Abandoned infant found on roadside."
How tragic! When will the anti-choice learn that their brainwashing "abstinence only" doesn't work for everyone!
For centuries the religious moral ethic has been abstinence before marriage, which worked for some, while others ended tragically with broken minds, bodies and even death.
The wise concept of Planned Parenthood needs to be preserved and improved upon — realistic, humanitarian "Prevention not Prohibition."
The comments are interesting.
Ron from Fairhaven
Posted: Nov. 30, at 6:57 AM
Ideally, of course, state-sponsored women's clinics should be ideologically neutral in addressing young pregnant women. Counseling by the various religious groups should also be available if requested. But, in the recent political environment, the fundamentalist base has distorted this approach via the legislature and the more progressive factions have, it seems, allowed this to happen, virtually unchallenged. Hopefully this can be corrected as more progressive legislators take their seats. It is not that the Christian Right is "wrong" or unscrupulous; they have a right to have input into this dilemma. What we must strive for is balance and a sense of legal neutrality here. This is one area where faith-based initiatives could be of help, to provide young women opportunities for counseling in accord with their moral inclinations. A case could still be made for abortion procedures, if that is what is desired, to be funded privately, either by the pregnant parties or interested non-profits. For these procedures to be paid from state revenues seems to violate the rights of taxpayers with strong reproductive convictions.
GBGirl from St. Cloud
Posted: Nov. 30, at 7:50 AM
I do not believe in abortion (for convenience purposes). I would never get an abortion (for convenience purposes). With that being said, I will ask all of these self-righteous persons the question I ALWAYS ask when abortion issues and lack of BC education comes up....are you ready?
Preaching "abstinece" only is irresponsible and arrogant. Can you assure me that 100% of the time, 100% of our youth will listen and do as you say, 100% of the time? If not, then what is your plan to protect the youth?
It is arrogant and irresponsible to think that your son/daughter will hear of birthcontrol or learn of sex on their wedding night. They will hear the word "condom" and "Birth control" LONG before that night....who is it you'd like them to hear it from? Their peers on the playground?
If you don't like abortions, do something proactive...attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
count from countyline
Posted: Nov. 30, at 9:12 AM
VERY GOOD observation, Warning Will Robinson.
It probably is true of some of the posters here also.
Later on today/tonight the "usual " female posters will state that men should not comment as they "have no idea".
I will respond beforehand by stating that female posters who HAD an abortion, but never in their life gave birth to a child should also not post as they have nothing to compare the abortion against.
And,no GBGIRL----EA --IS-- correct in her statement about Alice Cowley. How many of her articles have you read from the --abortion rights advocate--, GBGIRL?
Alice Cowley is in a class of FEW!
GBGirl from St. Cloud
Posted: Nov. 30, at 9:58 AM
Count: Again, don't be so ignorant. People that are in support of a womans right to choose and on prevention of abortions, are NOT pro-abortion.
If you are going to make-up labels to apply negative connotations based on your skewing of their views, then I will say you and EA are "ANTI-CHILDREN". Here is why....
1) don't educate on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies (or STD's etc)....which causes the youth that don't hear your abstinence message (and yes, not everyone views you both to be the all knowing) to become young parents or inflicted with STD's.
2) If you do get pregnant and have the baby, way to go! You didn't have an abortion! What? You are a young mother who is alone? Well we don't support government "handouts" because anyone can make their way unless simply lazy, so sorry...but good luck to you and that kid!
Yes...the "ANTI-CHILDREN" crowd is alive and well today! Some want to protect the child in the mother, others show concern for when the child is also outside of the mother.
Proud Progressive from Your Neighborhood
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:14 AM
I've long hoped that at some point the fetus fetishists would simply get tired and go away. There's no question that many evangelical leaders either applauded Roe when it first came down or simply ignored it. Abortion was not the major concern of conservative Christian churches until Falwell, then the Reagan campaign, made it so in the late 1970s. Since then it has been fueled by money and the growing power of the religious right, certainly, but that does not change the facts that abortion was not a major issue for religious conservatives before the late 1970s (they were much more concerned with things like individual salvation, and yes, even poverty) and that a large majority of Americans prefer to keep abortion legal.
The only reason the anti-abortion crowd still makes headlines is because they have been co-opted by the Republican party, which has intentionally done nothing on their issue in order to keep it alive politically. Officials from the Regan and current Bush administrations have clearly stated as much, showing their disdain for the anti-abortion religious right at the same time they use them to advance their own political programs. It's a sad story for everyone involved. What if all this effort and money had been spent in promoting birth control, or even providing adequate food/housing/education for children?
Lisa from not so much Northside
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:21 AM
When the pro-birth crowd truly becomes pro-life, we will be able to make progress in this country. Until then, it's PREACH PREACH PREACH about birthin' more, and turning a blind eye to the thousands upon thousands of children whose basic needs aren't met. Children without health care, without homes, without food. Where are the advocates for these children? Not on these threads, preaching "pro-life".
Ma Cheri from SR
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:54 AM
Many years ago, I went with a friend of mine while she had abortion. At that time I was roughly 5-6 months pregnant. It was not up to me to judge her, it was up to me as her friend to go with her in a time of need.
After being a the clinic for a few hours, I went outside, and was immediately swarmed by vulgar, angry, hostile “pro-life" protesters. Leading the crusade was a minister of some type. He got in my face with his disgusting, doctored, and mainly inaccurate pictures, begged ME not to go through with this abortion, if I agreed they would take care of me financially during the remainder of my pregnancy and completely pay for all mine and the baby’s medical bills. Well, that got my attention (of course I was not there having this done, but they assumed with my bulging belly, I obviously was, regardless of the fact that it was a woman’s clinic that performed more than abortions.) So I asked if he would guarantee that statement, he said yes, I then agreed to not go through with the procedure, and asked for his name and address so I could have all my medical bills transferred into his name. UUMM, guess what, never got it.
The moral of this story is, pro-lifers only care about saving a fetus, they do not care about the ones that are born, once they take their first breath, they wipe their hands clean and leave em on their own. (Pretty sure it was Warning Will that was in the cloth with his nasty arse pictures)
I could continue, but you get the picture. Oftentimes, it's a very spirited debate in the SC Times chatrooms. I do not partake anymore...only so many hours in a day!
<$Choice$> <$St Cloud$> <$Bachmann$>
It was awesome!
I digress. Here is the letter. I think it is a solid letter. The issue is perhaps the most delicate issue in modern politics. I witnessed it firsthand while campaigning. I completely respect perspectives that I do not possess, I respect one's right to stand up and fight for what you believe in, even if it is in complete contradiction to what I believe in. As a matter of fact, I respect those that educate themselves on the issues and can engage in a dignified discussion of the matter at hand.
Letter: Positive Alternatives Act was anti-choice, woman
Alice Cowley, Becker
A very tragic bill was passed during the 2005 state legislative session titled the Positive Alternatives Act. This bill gave approximately $5 million in tax dollars to the anti-birth control, anti-choice, anti-woman clinics throughout our state.
These anti-birth control clinics lure women who may be pregnant to come into their clinics, claiming they will help you. Their brainwashing techniques are that "abortion kills babies" and that "the potential life is more important than her life."
Women who come into their clinics are already sexually active and the only birth control information they give them are "abstinence only" and natural family planning. "Abstinence only" teaches that "good girls" don't get pregnant and when "good girls" do get pregnant, many go into denial until the birth of their babies.
Desperate people do desperate things. Abandoned babies are still being found and few are found alive. Republicans who supported this anti-birth control bill were Sens. Michele Bachmann, Betsy Wergin and Rep. Mark Olson, who campaigned to cut taxes.
Is the state keeping track of the extra cost to taxpayers of the medical and welfare expenses resulting from this compulsory motherhood bill? How much of your federal taxes are paying to promote "abstinence til marriage"? And look at the recent headline — "Abandoned infant found on roadside."
How tragic! When will the anti-choice learn that their brainwashing "abstinence only" doesn't work for everyone!
For centuries the religious moral ethic has been abstinence before marriage, which worked for some, while others ended tragically with broken minds, bodies and even death.
The wise concept of Planned Parenthood needs to be preserved and improved upon — realistic, humanitarian "Prevention not Prohibition."
The comments are interesting.
Ron from Fairhaven
Posted: Nov. 30, at 6:57 AM
Ideally, of course, state-sponsored women's clinics should be ideologically neutral in addressing young pregnant women. Counseling by the various religious groups should also be available if requested. But, in the recent political environment, the fundamentalist base has distorted this approach via the legislature and the more progressive factions have, it seems, allowed this to happen, virtually unchallenged. Hopefully this can be corrected as more progressive legislators take their seats. It is not that the Christian Right is "wrong" or unscrupulous; they have a right to have input into this dilemma. What we must strive for is balance and a sense of legal neutrality here. This is one area where faith-based initiatives could be of help, to provide young women opportunities for counseling in accord with their moral inclinations. A case could still be made for abortion procedures, if that is what is desired, to be funded privately, either by the pregnant parties or interested non-profits. For these procedures to be paid from state revenues seems to violate the rights of taxpayers with strong reproductive convictions.
GBGirl from St. Cloud
Posted: Nov. 30, at 7:50 AM
I do not believe in abortion (for convenience purposes). I would never get an abortion (for convenience purposes). With that being said, I will ask all of these self-righteous persons the question I ALWAYS ask when abortion issues and lack of BC education comes up....are you ready?
Preaching "abstinece" only is irresponsible and arrogant. Can you assure me that 100% of the time, 100% of our youth will listen and do as you say, 100% of the time? If not, then what is your plan to protect the youth?
It is arrogant and irresponsible to think that your son/daughter will hear of birthcontrol or learn of sex on their wedding night. They will hear the word "condom" and "Birth control" LONG before that night....who is it you'd like them to hear it from? Their peers on the playground?
If you don't like abortions, do something proactive...attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
count from countyline
Posted: Nov. 30, at 9:12 AM
VERY GOOD observation, Warning Will Robinson.
It probably is true of some of the posters here also.
Later on today/tonight the "usual " female posters will state that men should not comment as they "have no idea".
I will respond beforehand by stating that female posters who HAD an abortion, but never in their life gave birth to a child should also not post as they have nothing to compare the abortion against.
And,no GBGIRL----EA --IS-- correct in her statement about Alice Cowley. How many of her articles have you read from the --abortion rights advocate--, GBGIRL?
Alice Cowley is in a class of FEW!
GBGirl from St. Cloud
Posted: Nov. 30, at 9:58 AM
Count: Again, don't be so ignorant. People that are in support of a womans right to choose and on prevention of abortions, are NOT pro-abortion.
If you are going to make-up labels to apply negative connotations based on your skewing of their views, then I will say you and EA are "ANTI-CHILDREN". Here is why....
1) don't educate on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies (or STD's etc)....which causes the youth that don't hear your abstinence message (and yes, not everyone views you both to be the all knowing) to become young parents or inflicted with STD's.
2) If you do get pregnant and have the baby, way to go! You didn't have an abortion! What? You are a young mother who is alone? Well we don't support government "handouts" because anyone can make their way unless simply lazy, so sorry...but good luck to you and that kid!
Yes...the "ANTI-CHILDREN" crowd is alive and well today! Some want to protect the child in the mother, others show concern for when the child is also outside of the mother.
Proud Progressive from Your Neighborhood
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:14 AM
I've long hoped that at some point the fetus fetishists would simply get tired and go away. There's no question that many evangelical leaders either applauded Roe when it first came down or simply ignored it. Abortion was not the major concern of conservative Christian churches until Falwell, then the Reagan campaign, made it so in the late 1970s. Since then it has been fueled by money and the growing power of the religious right, certainly, but that does not change the facts that abortion was not a major issue for religious conservatives before the late 1970s (they were much more concerned with things like individual salvation, and yes, even poverty) and that a large majority of Americans prefer to keep abortion legal.
The only reason the anti-abortion crowd still makes headlines is because they have been co-opted by the Republican party, which has intentionally done nothing on their issue in order to keep it alive politically. Officials from the Regan and current Bush administrations have clearly stated as much, showing their disdain for the anti-abortion religious right at the same time they use them to advance their own political programs. It's a sad story for everyone involved. What if all this effort and money had been spent in promoting birth control, or even providing adequate food/housing/education for children?
Lisa from not so much Northside
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:21 AM
When the pro-birth crowd truly becomes pro-life, we will be able to make progress in this country. Until then, it's PREACH PREACH PREACH about birthin' more, and turning a blind eye to the thousands upon thousands of children whose basic needs aren't met. Children without health care, without homes, without food. Where are the advocates for these children? Not on these threads, preaching "pro-life".
Ma Cheri from SR
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:54 AM
Many years ago, I went with a friend of mine while she had abortion. At that time I was roughly 5-6 months pregnant. It was not up to me to judge her, it was up to me as her friend to go with her in a time of need.
After being a the clinic for a few hours, I went outside, and was immediately swarmed by vulgar, angry, hostile “pro-life" protesters. Leading the crusade was a minister of some type. He got in my face with his disgusting, doctored, and mainly inaccurate pictures, begged ME not to go through with this abortion, if I agreed they would take care of me financially during the remainder of my pregnancy and completely pay for all mine and the baby’s medical bills. Well, that got my attention (of course I was not there having this done, but they assumed with my bulging belly, I obviously was, regardless of the fact that it was a woman’s clinic that performed more than abortions.) So I asked if he would guarantee that statement, he said yes, I then agreed to not go through with the procedure, and asked for his name and address so I could have all my medical bills transferred into his name. UUMM, guess what, never got it.
The moral of this story is, pro-lifers only care about saving a fetus, they do not care about the ones that are born, once they take their first breath, they wipe their hands clean and leave em on their own. (Pretty sure it was Warning Will that was in the cloth with his nasty arse pictures)
I could continue, but you get the picture. Oftentimes, it's a very spirited debate in the SC Times chatrooms. I do not partake anymore...only so many hours in a day!
<$Choice$> <$St Cloud$> <$Bachmann$>
Friday, November 24, 2006
Great post on the "Choice" issue!
I normally would not post something so controversial...
Who am I kidding, of course I would!
Having watched a bit of Season 7, West Wing, it reminds me of the Abortion discussions of Vinnick and Santos.
Vinnick, the GOPer, was mostly pro-choice. Santos, the Democrat, was mostly pro-life. When Santos' VP candidate found out about it, Santos came back with a discussion of whether one would oppose an abortion for the sole reason of selection of the gender, or IQ and things of that nature. Anyway...I came across this at Pandagon and found it very thought provoking.
Without further adieu...
Funhouse mirror world of anti-choicers
Published by Amanda Marcotte November 21st, 2006 in Reproductive Rights, Feminists For Life
The nice thing about being pro-choice is you have the breathing room that intellectual honesty and consistency affords a person. All your views on the subject of reproductive rights stem from the simple notion that women are fully human. Should a woman get to have sex without “consequences”? Should a woman be free to choose how many children she has? Should a woman who’s been raped be forced to bear her rapist’s child? Should a woman who has a pregnancy with complications be forced to ruin her health or lose her life? The answers are all fairly straightforward and simple when you believe a woman deserves basic human rights.* To be fair, anti-choicers are pretty consistent in their worldview, too—they believe that women are second to men, that women should be punished for having sex, and that pregnancy is god’s way of enforcing women’s second class status. They are extremely consistent in this view. In all but their rhetoric. For some reason, anti-choicers cannot advance an intellectually consistent position, jumping all around the place, casting about for some other reason than the real ones that they have the policy goals that they have.
It’s tough to say why this is, but I suspect the reason might be similiar for the reasons that BushCo claimed, at various times, that we’re in Iraq to advance democracy, stop terrorism, take out some non-existent weapons of mass destruction, or because it makes puppies happy.**
One of the most irritating intellectual inconsistencies of anti-choicers is that they assert that they are anti-choice because of “life” and yet their big project over the past few years is passing and defending a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure called a D&X. This is the sort of ban that will not save a single life but could in fact take many, since the reason D&Xes are used by doctors rather than other procedures is because they feel it’s safer in some circumstances. The policy is effectively anti-life, unless you secretly believe that women don’t count and you don’t care if you get some of them killed in your pursuit to erode women’s rights. Scott Lemieux has an article up at the American Prospect detailing exactly how stupid this ban is and why the Supreme Court will probably approve it anyway, now that it’s headed up by judges who don’t care about niceities like clear, consistent arguments when it comes to hurting women. Highly recommended. Needless to say, the other asinine intellectual inconsistency that will result from all this is that “federalist” legislators and judges—all who claim they want to leave these issues up to the states—are all eagerly signing onto federal anti-woman legislation. But you’ll rarely catch them admitting this.
The downside to siding with the coherent folks is that sometimes you feel a bit sorry for the anti-choicers, with their wildly inconsistent positions. (We’re for life except when it’s a pregnant woman’s! We want women to resort to the coathanger because we just respect them so much!) They get called out on the fact that they’re sleazy liars who won’t be straight about their views on such a regular basis that it’s almost unfair that they don’t get to flip that shit around on their opposition. Not that they don’t try, of course, but such attempts are so dreadfully weak it gives me a pity rush. I got a trackback from a woman defending “Feminists” for Life who wants to tell the world what feminists are really like.*** She’s found us out—we’ve committed the dreadful sin of being just what we say we are, which is supportive of women’s full rights and therefore of the idea that women are a diverse group with diverse desires.
Confronting such intellectual consistency apparently gave Sharon a shock to the system, because she totally mistakes it for the sort of disingenous bullshitting that her side engages in.
I despise what Pandagon calls feminism because it tends to be selfish self-centered BS focused entirely on personal pleasure versus what used to be known as caring about family and society. I think it’s very telling when someone says that they want an abortion (but presumably didn’t mind the process of creating a baby) because they just don’t want kids. It definitely flies in the face of the way NARAL and NOW describe women facing abortion:
While it’s critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.
How, I’m not sure. I read this statement up and down and didn’t see anywhere that NOW or NARAL advocated for the idea that women with unwanted pregnancies should be forced to have the babies as punishment for not being proper women who wants lots of babies. It says something about protecting legal abortion while reducing its necessity by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Unless Sharon thinks that I said that I really enjoy getting pregnant a few times a year because I love nothing better than a painful, expensive abortion, her notion that she’s “caught” me makes no sense. Going back to the intellectual consistency of pro-choicers—we believe women are fully human and deserve a right to control their bodies. This actually means they have a right to prevent unwanted pregnancy as well as terminate it. Interestingly, it’s not the feminists who want to take away the right to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The major organizations that want to increase the abortion rate by increasing unwanted pregnancy through contraceptive deprivation are all the anti-abortion groups. Talk about inconsistent! They say they’re against abortion but want to increase the rate.
The funniest part of this entire rant, for my purposes, is that Sharon claims that feminists both scramble to get abortions left and right while stating at the exact same time that we don’t mind the process of creating a baby. Which is it? To me, the stated eagerness to terminate pregnancies seems to contradict the stated adoration of being pregnant, which is of course the process that creates babies. Do we hate pregnancy or love it? Who knows, but the important part is to know that feminists are all the same and whether that means they love pregnancy or hate it, they are evil, wicked, man-hating beasts. Who are selfish.
Of course, there’s the outside chance that Sharon doesn’t understand biology and in her eagerness to imply that feminists are sluts, she mistakenly said conflated the process of creating a baby with Teh Sex. If so, it’s kind of cute that she can’t bring herself to say that a woman could actually want sex, just that we sluts don’t mind it like good women should. Regardless, this notion that sex and not pregnancy is the process that creates a baby makes me wonder if she’s quite aware of what an abortion even is, since it has to happen during that pregnancy phase, where Sharon seems to think that as soon as you light up that post-coital cigarette a bassinet pops up at the end of your bed and starts emitting baby wails, much like on “The Sims”. And hell, even in “The Sims” you only got a baby once out of every few times you had sex and in the real world, a lot of us manage to go years having Teh Sex without ever even beginning the baby-making process called “pregnancy”. My inclination is to point to this entire misunderstanding of what the process of baby-making is as further evidence that science education in America is sorely wanting. How can they even work up to evolution when so many people don’t know where babies come from?
*For the dumbasses who don’t get it, the proper answers are: Yes, yes, no, and no.**This might be why we’re going to invade Iran. I can’t keep the bullshit straight.***Interestingly enough, by slamming the existence of feminism while defending FFL, she inadvertantly admitted that FFL is not feminist.
Who am I kidding, of course I would!
Having watched a bit of Season 7, West Wing, it reminds me of the Abortion discussions of Vinnick and Santos.
Vinnick, the GOPer, was mostly pro-choice. Santos, the Democrat, was mostly pro-life. When Santos' VP candidate found out about it, Santos came back with a discussion of whether one would oppose an abortion for the sole reason of selection of the gender, or IQ and things of that nature. Anyway...I came across this at Pandagon and found it very thought provoking.
Without further adieu...
Funhouse mirror world of anti-choicers
Published by Amanda Marcotte November 21st, 2006 in Reproductive Rights, Feminists For Life
The nice thing about being pro-choice is you have the breathing room that intellectual honesty and consistency affords a person. All your views on the subject of reproductive rights stem from the simple notion that women are fully human. Should a woman get to have sex without “consequences”? Should a woman be free to choose how many children she has? Should a woman who’s been raped be forced to bear her rapist’s child? Should a woman who has a pregnancy with complications be forced to ruin her health or lose her life? The answers are all fairly straightforward and simple when you believe a woman deserves basic human rights.* To be fair, anti-choicers are pretty consistent in their worldview, too—they believe that women are second to men, that women should be punished for having sex, and that pregnancy is god’s way of enforcing women’s second class status. They are extremely consistent in this view. In all but their rhetoric. For some reason, anti-choicers cannot advance an intellectually consistent position, jumping all around the place, casting about for some other reason than the real ones that they have the policy goals that they have.
It’s tough to say why this is, but I suspect the reason might be similiar for the reasons that BushCo claimed, at various times, that we’re in Iraq to advance democracy, stop terrorism, take out some non-existent weapons of mass destruction, or because it makes puppies happy.**
One of the most irritating intellectual inconsistencies of anti-choicers is that they assert that they are anti-choice because of “life” and yet their big project over the past few years is passing and defending a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure called a D&X. This is the sort of ban that will not save a single life but could in fact take many, since the reason D&Xes are used by doctors rather than other procedures is because they feel it’s safer in some circumstances. The policy is effectively anti-life, unless you secretly believe that women don’t count and you don’t care if you get some of them killed in your pursuit to erode women’s rights. Scott Lemieux has an article up at the American Prospect detailing exactly how stupid this ban is and why the Supreme Court will probably approve it anyway, now that it’s headed up by judges who don’t care about niceities like clear, consistent arguments when it comes to hurting women. Highly recommended. Needless to say, the other asinine intellectual inconsistency that will result from all this is that “federalist” legislators and judges—all who claim they want to leave these issues up to the states—are all eagerly signing onto federal anti-woman legislation. But you’ll rarely catch them admitting this.
The downside to siding with the coherent folks is that sometimes you feel a bit sorry for the anti-choicers, with their wildly inconsistent positions. (We’re for life except when it’s a pregnant woman’s! We want women to resort to the coathanger because we just respect them so much!) They get called out on the fact that they’re sleazy liars who won’t be straight about their views on such a regular basis that it’s almost unfair that they don’t get to flip that shit around on their opposition. Not that they don’t try, of course, but such attempts are so dreadfully weak it gives me a pity rush. I got a trackback from a woman defending “Feminists” for Life who wants to tell the world what feminists are really like.*** She’s found us out—we’ve committed the dreadful sin of being just what we say we are, which is supportive of women’s full rights and therefore of the idea that women are a diverse group with diverse desires.
Confronting such intellectual consistency apparently gave Sharon a shock to the system, because she totally mistakes it for the sort of disingenous bullshitting that her side engages in.
I despise what Pandagon calls feminism because it tends to be selfish self-centered BS focused entirely on personal pleasure versus what used to be known as caring about family and society. I think it’s very telling when someone says that they want an abortion (but presumably didn’t mind the process of creating a baby) because they just don’t want kids. It definitely flies in the face of the way NARAL and NOW describe women facing abortion:
While it’s critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.
How, I’m not sure. I read this statement up and down and didn’t see anywhere that NOW or NARAL advocated for the idea that women with unwanted pregnancies should be forced to have the babies as punishment for not being proper women who wants lots of babies. It says something about protecting legal abortion while reducing its necessity by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Unless Sharon thinks that I said that I really enjoy getting pregnant a few times a year because I love nothing better than a painful, expensive abortion, her notion that she’s “caught” me makes no sense. Going back to the intellectual consistency of pro-choicers—we believe women are fully human and deserve a right to control their bodies. This actually means they have a right to prevent unwanted pregnancy as well as terminate it. Interestingly, it’s not the feminists who want to take away the right to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The major organizations that want to increase the abortion rate by increasing unwanted pregnancy through contraceptive deprivation are all the anti-abortion groups. Talk about inconsistent! They say they’re against abortion but want to increase the rate.
The funniest part of this entire rant, for my purposes, is that Sharon claims that feminists both scramble to get abortions left and right while stating at the exact same time that we don’t mind the process of creating a baby. Which is it? To me, the stated eagerness to terminate pregnancies seems to contradict the stated adoration of being pregnant, which is of course the process that creates babies. Do we hate pregnancy or love it? Who knows, but the important part is to know that feminists are all the same and whether that means they love pregnancy or hate it, they are evil, wicked, man-hating beasts. Who are selfish.
Of course, there’s the outside chance that Sharon doesn’t understand biology and in her eagerness to imply that feminists are sluts, she mistakenly said conflated the process of creating a baby with Teh Sex. If so, it’s kind of cute that she can’t bring herself to say that a woman could actually want sex, just that we sluts don’t mind it like good women should. Regardless, this notion that sex and not pregnancy is the process that creates a baby makes me wonder if she’s quite aware of what an abortion even is, since it has to happen during that pregnancy phase, where Sharon seems to think that as soon as you light up that post-coital cigarette a bassinet pops up at the end of your bed and starts emitting baby wails, much like on “The Sims”. And hell, even in “The Sims” you only got a baby once out of every few times you had sex and in the real world, a lot of us manage to go years having Teh Sex without ever even beginning the baby-making process called “pregnancy”. My inclination is to point to this entire misunderstanding of what the process of baby-making is as further evidence that science education in America is sorely wanting. How can they even work up to evolution when so many people don’t know where babies come from?
*For the dumbasses who don’t get it, the proper answers are: Yes, yes, no, and no.**This might be why we’re going to invade Iran. I can’t keep the bullshit straight.***Interestingly enough, by slamming the existence of feminism while defending FFL, she inadvertantly admitted that FFL is not feminist.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)