ebonlock: (Brock pissed)
The next person who says "Oh the Supreme Court ruling isn't a big deal, I mean it's just for that one icky procedure after all, don't get your panties in a twist", gets kicked right in the nads:

Elated and emboldened, anti-abortion activists in state after state are planning to push for stringent new limits on second- and third-trimester abortions in the hopes of building on their victory Wednesday at the Supreme Court.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld a federal ban on a procedure critics call "partial-birth abortion," which involves partially delivering the fetus, then crushing its skull. The ruling included strong language asserting the state's "legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."

Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate predicted the ruling would spur a flood of legislation.

"We're moving beyond putting roadblocks in front of abortions to actually prohibiting them," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a national anti-abortion group based in Wichita, Kan. "This swings the door wide open."

He and other strategists said they hope to introduce legislation in a number of states that would:

-- Ban all abortion of viable fetuses, unless the mother's life is endangered.

-- Ban mid- and late-term abortion for fetal abnormality, such as Down syndrome or a malformed brain.

-- Require doctors to tell patients in explicit detail what the abortion will involve, show them ultrasound images of the fetus and warn them that they might become suicidal after the procedure.

-- Lengthen waiting periods so women must reflect on such counseling for several days before obtaining the abortion.


Scott at Lawyers, Guns, and Money adds this:

# Don't take assertions by the Court about whether they're overturning precedents or not at face value. What matters is the substance of the ruling, not how the Court characterizes past precedents. (The Court went out of its way to avoid saying that they were overturning Plessy in Brown, and then applied it as if it meant exactly that.) Moreover, the Roberts/Alito strategy of quietly gutting precedents--epitomized in this case--is much worse for those who oppose their legal goals than the Thomas/Scalia willingness to overturn precedents directly and honestly. The result of this type of case is a sharp restriction in the reproductive freedom of women without the political benefits of an outright reversal.

# Making it much harder to successfully strike an abortion statute on facial grounds, as the Court has just done, may seem like a mere technicality but is a big deal. I explain why here. Not only will this change in the standard applied by Casey make litigation to protect a woman's reproductive freedom much more expensive and difficult, but it will have the perverse effect of making the fact that abortion regulations almost invariably have much more impact on poor, rural women an argument in their favor.

# The next time someone claims that overturning Roe would "send the issue back to the states," make sure to point out that they don't have any idea what the hell they're talking about.

# And finally, let's also remember the underlying gender assumptions of those who support the power of the states and the federal government. Ann has already noted this powerful passage in Justice Ginsburg's brilliant dissent: "Revealing in this regard, the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence: Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from '[s]evere depression and loss of esteem.' Because of women's fragile emotional state and because of the bond of love the mother has for her child,' the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure. The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately, of the different procedures and their attendant risks. Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution ideas that have long since been discredited." Given Alito's assumption that the state has the same interest in regulating married adult women as it has in regulating children, that he would vote to uphold this ban isn't exactly shocking.
ebonlock: (wtf kara)
Louisiana, the rape and incest state!

Gov. Kathleen Blanco said Thursday that she'll sign a near-total ban on abortion - without exceptions for rape or incest victims - that is nearing final legislative passage.

The Louisiana House and Senate have approved the measure by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, but it awaits one final approval from the Senate of House changes before it reaches Blanco's desk. It only would allow abortion in cases where the woman's life is in danger or when childbirth would permanently harm her health.

The bill could only go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is overturned.

"I anticipate signing that bill. It's got a safety measure for extreme situations for the life of the mother and some other health issues," Blanco said in an interview with The Associated Press.

She said she believed an exception for rape and incest victims to get an abortion, a proposal rejected by both the House and Senate, would have "been reasonable," but she said she wouldn't reject the bill for that reason....


In honor of this I believe we should have a new state motto competition, please add yours in the comments.

Lousiana: Get your rape on!

Lousiana: All your wombs are belong to us

Lousiana: Barefoot and pregnant, it's the law
ebonlock: (activism)
Amanda's got some great reproductive rights links up that I highly recommend taking a look at:

In Ohio, there’s a bill pending that not only makes forced pregnancy mandatory, it also deprives a woman of her freedom of movement by banning women from traveling to states where they can exercise their rights.

"Ohio house bill 228 introduced by Tim Brinkman, R-Mount Lookout, in April would make it a felony for a woman to seek to terminate her pregnancy and holds the same penalty if she chooses to leave the state for the medical procedure."

I wonder if Congress will pass something like the Fugitive Slave Act, to assist Ohio in tracking down its female property and returning them to their rightful owners after they escaped mandatory pregnancy. Which also makes me wonder if Ohio legislators realize that the official owners of said property generally support the abortion as well. Enforcement of these laws is going to be a nightmare–mandatory pregnancy tests at borders? Border patrols guards with gynocological examination rooms to check suspicious women coming in?


Why they could just do what they do South of the Border and get those Vagina Inspectors to check things out...and you know, confiscate the organs as "evidence".

And from the more enlightened side of the debate, more on the Fire Thunder reservation Planned Parenthood in SD:

Let’s get back to brainwashing. Some of the Indian people vehemently opposed to a Planned Parenthood Clinic are devout Catholics or of other religious denominations. When they first took up the mantle of Christianity they stepped outside of the beliefs of their ancestors. They embraced the religious beliefs of the foreigners who came to the shores of this continent determined to convert the Indian people to their own beliefs and to force them to denounce their own cultural and traditional beliefs….

One Lakota wicasa wakan (Holy Man) told me on the condition that I protect his anonymity, that those people attacking Fire Thunder do not know their own cultural history and he used the term I used at the beginning of this column. He said, “They have been so ‘brainwashed’ into thinking like the white man that they can no longer think as an Indian. Traditionally Indian men never interfered with the rights of a woman to do whatever it was she chose to do when it came to having or not having a child. He always assumed that the woman knew what she was doing and didn’t need direction from any man.”


Wow, imagine that, a whole culture that believes women can make up their own minds about what happens to their bodies. It sounds both strange and wonderful, doesn't it?

El Gilead

Apr. 10th, 2006 12:55 pm
ebonlock: (women's rights)
This piece on El Salvador's militant pro-life laws is just horrifying:

"El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal.
[...]
...then the uterus is sent to the Forensic Institute, where the government's doctors analyze it and retain custody of her uterus as evidence against her."


The logical end to the pro-life perspective for all the world to see. The sad thing is there are far too many folks in this country who are probably applauding this article.
ebonlock: (women's rights)
This post on Plan B (full of facts, rather than truthiness), what it really does and why the wingnuts are really upset about it is a must read:

Put two pieces of the story together: a spike in LH levels triggers ovulation and progesterone suppresses LH. Hmmm. This suggests an idea. If you wanted to prevent ovulation, how would you do it?

(Consider this a test. Imagine that Jeopardy jingle playing right now.)

Time's up—I bet everyone came up with the right answer, though. Giving someone a large dose of progesterone would shut down LH production, so there would be no ovulation, so no egg would be released, and any sperm happening to be in the woman's reproductive tract would find nothing to fertilize.

You have just figured out what is called Plan B contraception. It is a form of birth control that tells the woman's ovaries to hold off on releasing any eggs for a short while. It's called emergency contraception, because it is used by a woman who has, for whatever reason (rape, a broken condom, misplaced enthusiasm, second thoughts, anything) had unwanted sperm in her reproductive tract, and she wants to make sure that this isn't the moment her ovaries happen to pop a follicle.

Plan B is not an abortion.


More behind the cut )
ebonlock: (Callisto)
Or her staff member does anyhow, here's what I just got:

Greetings from the Oglala Sioux Tribe. A name has been decided for the clinic; it will be the Sacred Choices Clinic. On an exciting note, it is fast becoming a reality. We thank you and your support is deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Vonnie Bush OST Presidents Exec. Secretary. OST SACRED
CHOICES PRES CECELIA FIRE THUNDER - PO BOX 2070 - PINE RIDGE, SD - 57770

So it looks like it is going to happen! I shall be sending my check off tonight.
And on a related note, another excellent organization on the reservation that could use some help:

Due to the many requests of another organization on the Pine Ridge Reservation re: donations I
have suggested the following non-profit organization re: Sacredness of Women (domestic violence).

Cangleska, Inc.
Karen Artichoker, Director
PO Box 638
Kyle, SD 57752

PHONE: 1-605-455-2244
EMAIL: karen@cangleska.org

Let's hear it for the good guys!
ebonlock: (Jesus Pony)
This is a must read:

I wasn't sure whether to use chorizo or bacon in my paella last weekend, so I called South Dakota state senator Bill Napoli and asked him to make my decision for me.

Stephanie McMillan inspired me to contact Bill -- one of the most vocal [opponents] of the new state ban on virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. McMillan's brilliant cartoon, which has been making the rounds of the blogosphere, lampoons Napoli's conviction that women can't be trusted to make decisions about our own bodies -- and conveniently provides his work and home numbers.

Even if you don't recognize Bill Napoli's name, you've probably heard of him. He's the South Dakota state senator who created a big splash on the PBS NewsHour earlier this month with his detailed -- some might say prurient -- description of an "acceptable rape" that would merit an exemption from the state's abortion ban.

I'll say this for the senator: he returned the message I left on his home machine promptly, which would have been very useful except that he said he'd never heard of paella (or Google, when I suggested that he look up some recipes online). Even my description of the dish's primary ingredients didn't seem to help him with my chorizo/bacon quandry. So we shelved the paella dilemma and moved on to the abortion ban...


Do go read the rest. via Pandagon
ebonlock: (Default)
TBogg points to this piece straight out of that bastion of morality, Utah:

Incest is no exception to a father's right to know what's going on in his daughter's life.
That was the message from Utah lawmakers who refused Monday to make an exception for incest victims in a proposed law that would require parental consent and notification before a girl's abortion.

"There is a life inside of this life. And how that life is taken care of is very important to me," said Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi.

Current Utah law - which was adopted in 1974 - requires doctors to notify a girl's parents before ending her pregnancy. HB85, sponsored by Ogden Republican Rep. Kerry Gibson and Peterson, would change state code to require doctors to get at least one parent's permission 24 hours before the procedure. Doctors could proceed without consent in medical emergencies or to protect the health of the mother.

The bill would allow girls to ask a judge to bypass the parental consent requirement if she fears abuse or is pregnant as a result of incest. At the same time, the legislation still would require a doctor to notify a girl's parents of the abortion, effectively nullifying the judicial bypass.

[...]

Conservative senators said the legislation is a test of their morals.

West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars scoffed at McCoy's suggestion that the legislation might force teens to other states for abortions or into their bathrooms to attempt the procedure on themselves.

"Abortion isn't about women's rights. The rights they had were when they made the decision to have sex," Buttars said. "This is the consequences. The consequence is they should have to talk to their parents."


Yes you read that correctly, flat, straight out, no holds barred pregnancy is a punishment for being a dirty, dirty whore. And there, gentle readers, is the entire crux of the pro-life movement. Even if that sex was forced upon her by her father, the girl still needs to be punished...presumably for tempting the old guy into it with her filthy feminine wiles. Remind me again how these assholes differ from the Taliban?

Oh, speaking of which, check out this charming little story about a merry bunch of thugs calling themselves the Christians Lovingly Advocating Decency [CLAD] (the hypocrisy, it burns!). And check out how they "lovingly" harassed, vandalized and terrorized some women whose only crime was to not consider their own bodies steaming cesspits of sin and depravity.
ebonlock: (Jesus Pony)
This is an excellent idea, it's a message board for women concerned about losing their right to choice, sharing info and resources.

Hat tip to Pandagon.
ebonlock: (Flying Spaghetti Monster)
New Abortion Map )

Amanda at Pandagon muses on what right wing villain archetype is being addressed by this insane need by the GOP to control women's bodies:

But really, if you think about it, women who live independent lives, especially educated urban-dwelling single women, are the perfect right wing villians, because not only does our existence feed into the “latte liberal” stereotype (For the record, I hate lattes. Just saying.), but it also provokes deeper, more historically grounded anxieties about women who live free without being controlled by a man.

And of course, the symbol of that control is pregnancy and who gets to determine when a woman’s body is used to make a baby.

So there it is, in a nutshell–the perfect anxiety-provoking stereotype for the 21st century. Pretty, smart, independent, dare I say sassy women sneering down our pert noses at the brutish undereducated red state men, taking all the high-paying glamorous jobs (I wish) and then, as the icing on the cake, gleefully aborting their babies! Clearly, we need to be punished and George Bush and his new Supreme Court nominee are just the men to bitch slap an entire generation of mostly-mythological women.


No More Mr. Nice Blog chimes in on Alito and what should be the Dem response:

I share Sam Rosenfeld's Alito fatalism -- especially after seeing the results of yesterday's Washington Post poll, which said that a majority of Americans favor the nomination and an even bigger majority believe Alito won't vote to overturn Roe.

This is when I ask: What would Republicans have done in this situation if they were Democrats? Here's what I think they would have done: Particularly after the release of Alito's 1985 letter denying that the Constitution protects abortion, they'd have deployed several members of the party to go out and say, point blank, "Alito, if he's confirmed, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade" -- "will vote to overturn," with no ambiguity. It would have simple, it would have been easily digested by the TV-viewing public -- and it would have been denounced as over the line by Alito's defenders. Thus, it would have been news, and it could have framed the debate, because the public doesn't want Roe overturned.

This would have worked only if the party refused to back down. Alito's supporters would have tried to make the bluntness of the statement into the issue. This is where discipline would have come in: The statement shouldn't have been made by top leaders of the party, but those leaders should have refused to distance themselves from it; they should have defended the honor and integrity of whoever had made the remarks. And, after the first wave of criticism, yet more Democrats should have said the same thing. Alito's own words, plus a list of the groups and individuals praising him, would be enough to make the statement highly plausible.

Do something bold so what you're doing leaps to the top of the nightly newscast; strike first; keep it simple; stand your ground after taking your shot; declare that the opposition is not just wrong, but the enemy of reasonable Americans -- that's what Republicans do. And it works.


Gosh it's been a while since I read the words "bold" and "Democrats" in the same piece. Would that someone in my party would take this advice to heart. *sigh*

Profile

ebonlock: (Default)
ebonlock

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728 293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 04:50 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios