I suck lately

I have not been blogging here and it's totally lame.

But I did blog here.

It's about men who work as clinic escorts.

So there's that

*I know, it's still uncool*

Post Secret is so great

If you don't go check it out, you should. It's updated every Sunday

Anti-choicers LIE while claiming moral high ground-- annoying

Yesterday the Fargo Forum newspaper had this letter to the editor:

I couldn’t get to sleep the other night. Earlier in the day, I was told that by 9:30 a.m., there were already 18 women in the abortion chamber preparing to end their child’s life.

This happening in our community is terrible. The unborn child is the most innocent of all, and here we are doing the same thing as the Nazis, taking innocent life. The pro-choicers say they only want to help the pregnant woman. Why then in South Dakota did they close their clinic after a new law concerning abortions went into effect?

This law requires the physician to tell the patient the following information:

• The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.

• The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the U.S. Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota.

• That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional right with regards to that relationship will be terminated.

• A description of all known medical risks of the procedure, including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide.

Planned Parenthood in South Dakota apparently does not believe that knowledge is good. They closed their doors for good rather than abide by the new law. The president of the regional Planned Parenthood office said “the law is one more terrible, terrible barrier.” Why are they against giving patients accurate information on abortion? I think North Dakota should follow South Dakota’s lead and get rid of the killing mill here in our midst.

I am sending a shorter letter back, but here's what I would say to McCormick if I could say it in full:

Thomas McCormick's letter to the editor (August 21st "ND should follow SD on abortion") was full of misinformation. First, the clinic in South Dakota did not close.

Second, McCormick said that abortion leads to increased risk of suicide. This is false. Just this month, the American Psychological Association released a report examining the relationship between women's mental health and abortion. It evaluated all empirical studies published in English-language peer-reviewed journals since 1989. The data revealed that choosing abortion in the first trimester was no riskier than carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. Basically, unplanned pregnancies are stressful regardless of the outcome.

No little girl grows up saying, "I can't wait to have my first abortion." It isn't a choice anyone wants to make. But it can be a necessary one.
There are thousands of reasons why women choose abortion, and it's not chosen lightly. It's an expensive medical procedure and it carries a social stigma.

Women don't need biased rhetoric recited to them about "terminating a life." They are adults who can be trusted with complex, moral decisions. Besides, is there really any doubt that women don't comprehend what pregnancy means? Are women delivering babies and acting shocked? "I had no idea THAT was gonna happen, doctor. I wish someone told me 9 months ago that I had a baby growing inside me—I had no idea!"

Pregnancy also carries significant risk. Every year hundreds of thousands of women are diagnosed with post partum depression (who knows how many more are not diagnosed). Knowing that, do we wring our hands and write legislation forcing doctors to warn pregnant women about the psychological risk of carrying to term? Of course not!

Autonomy over one's body is a basic human right. No one could force McCormick to donate a kidney, even if someone's life hung in the balance. We do not make laws like that. Your body is not the property of the state or anyone else. If we want to reduce abortions, we must offer affordable contraceptives, sex education, and more financial options for single mothers or struggling families.

This means supporting places like Planned Parenthood and working against abstinence only education, voting down laws that have no regard to the heath and well being of women, and most importantly, voting against people like Bush. Even now, in his 11th hour in the White house, Bush has proposed that we redefine birth control as abortion, making it harder for women to access basic medical care that REDUCES the need for abortion!

Criminalizing women and pushing them back into alleyways to die alone is not the answer.

Jennifer Baumgardner speaks on Abortion and Life

I mentioned before how excited I was for Jennifer Baumgardner to arrive in Fargo.

Her event was fabulous and the book, "Abortion and Life" (which I was able to buy even though it hasn't had its 'big release' yet) is wonderful so far.

I did a piece on the event for Planned Parenthood's blog and I even took some videos. So if you're pro-choice, feminist or just a fan of Fargo native, Jennifer Baumgardner, go take a look.

Here's a screenshot just to entice you

Headline Heartache of the day

Groups fight abortion for 11-year-old Romanian
Girl, who was raped by her uncle, seeks to travel to U.K. for procedure

Pro Choice does NOT equal Pro-Abortion

Or: The Idiocy of Polar Politics
by Guest Blogger Adrienne


Reader beware: I am not the kind of writer who uses a lot of statistics to jazz up my articles. Partially because statistics can be skewed any way you need them to be, but mainly because when you're talking about something as emotional and personal as abortion, I don't want to sit down and look at a page of numbers to tell you what my gut says. When you go searching for statistics, I'd wager that you are really just looking for the ones that will support the claim that you all ready know is 'right'.

Recently, someone very close to me found out she was pregnant. I was shocked when she told me, and after the preliminary congratulations, I asked her how it happened. Obviously I know how babies are made, but it turns out that she was just as shocked as me. She quoted a Friends episode and said, "Sometimes everyone can wear everything that they're supposed to, and it still just happens."

The other day I was watching True Life on MTV, and a 17 year old girl was saying that her boyfriend told her that because he smoked marijuana he had a low sperm count and couldn't get her pregnant. As she was talking, she rested her long fingers on her round belly, a crib in the background. "I don't understand it," She said. "We had been having sex for like, a year and half, and I didn't get pregnant. Why this time?"

I was educated in America (like both of those women and their lovers). One day in ninth grade we were told to read Chapter 11 in our Health book and that there would be a quiz later. The chapter was about ten pages long, briefly discussed the parts of the male and female genitalia and how they are used in baby-making (because that's all sex really is, right?) and then went on to discuss what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy and how birth happens. There was no quiz, there was no class discussion, no question and answer period, no note-taking, etc.

I still remember when I was a sophomore in high school one of my friends (who was a college freshman) asked me if you could get pregnant if he ejaculated on her stomach. Another guy friend who was my age asked me once if he could get a girl pregnant from 69. I remember reading an article once that said that a girl got pregnant from swimming in a pond where a boy had masturbated.

And of course, I went through the discussion that every girl in her adolescence has with at least one of her friends: you know, the 'did we, or didn't we?' talk, the 'am I still a virgin?' talk, the 'just the tip, just for a second' talk. It's pretty clear, to me at least, that abstinence only, or the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on sex education is not working.

What does that have to do with abortion? Oh, only everything. If these kids aren't clear on how they can get pregnant, and aren't clear on what ACTUAL ways they can avoid pregnancy if they are being sexually active (or if they will become sexually active), then how could that be deemed 'CHOICE'?

When children (you know, like Jaime Lynn Spears) are bombarded with sexual messages on every commercial, billboard, tv show, etc, are pressured by their friends, are not given guidance from their parents except 'don't do it,' aren't receiving any education from their schools, and are trying to control their own raging hormones and curiosity, how can that be deemed 'CHOICE'?

To be pro-life and to rally for making contraceptives even more difficult to obtain is a conflict of interest. The sad truth is that young people are having sex at alarming rates—it's true. A hundred years ago, we would have all been married by age 16 anyway, so its no surprise that puberty is when most children get curious about sex—and that was before we had sex being sold to us at every turn.

Adoption is a beautiful option. I wish that every woman who was experiencing an unplanned pregnancy felt that adoption was the right choice—but it just isn't so. There are MILLIONS of women who for very practical reasons can't see how adoption would work for them. Women that have AIDS, women that have cancer, women that have MS or some other debilitating disease; women in abusive relationships, women with Down's syndrome, women who are victims of incest or spousal rape, women who are eleven, just to name a few.

And okay, fine, yes. There are probably a handful of women that have abortions because they had sex, they got pregnant, they don't want a baby. Some of them may not use contraceptive for no other reason than that they are careless. Some of them may have had three, or fourteen, abortions (although I don't think that is likely). And keeping abortion legal means enabling these women to continue to have abortions, whether or not the American public think that it is right. There are always going to be people who take advantage. And the BEST thing we can do to combat that is to empower them with the education on how to NOT get pregnant, and empower them with knowledge on why they are getting pregnant in the first place (for example: are they looking for love in all the wrong places? Do they have a sex addiction? Etc)

And guess what? If all you pro-lifers are right and these women are going to burn in hell for what they've done, that's going to happen whether or not you tell them so, isn't it? Telling doctors to stop playing God by performing abortions is hypocritical—YOU should stop playing God by judging people. Just be smug, smile, and rest confidently on your knowledge that they are going to be worm food someday and you will be a harpist (and let God judge you by what you're thinking, rather than letting people like me judge you for what you are saying).

Of all the pro-choicers I know, I have never met a single one who wants abortion to increase. In all our pro-choice discussions (you know, after we get done burning our bras and drinking bat blood), no one has ever said to me, "Did you hear abortion rates are up in South Carolina! Whoo hoo! Pass me the placenta chips!"

Likewise, the general consensus of every discussion I've had with a pro-lifer is that they want abortion rates to go down, or stop all together. And, USUALLY, they don't REALLY want the pregnant women to be stoned to death. (I have heard the 'she should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences' rhetoric, to which I always wonder how a baby that is born as a 'consequence' will fare down the road, but that's neither here nor there).

I think, at the core of the issue, most people on either side just want abortion to stop (or to be a LAST LAST LAST case resort). So then why isn't there more outreach from both camps to figure out some kind of happy medium that can accomplish that goal? Why isn't there legislation trying to give everyone a little of what they want—requiring that pharmacists must fill birth control prescriptions and requiring that abortions have a longer waiting period? Or something? Why has no one from either side of the issue tried to extend an olive branch to find some way to meet in the middle?

Abortion, like the death penalty, war, and religion, is a polarizing issue. It's true. It is one of those things that almost everyone has a dead-set opinion on that they just can't budge on; which, by the way, is the definition of narrow-mindedness (shame on us all).

As a pro-choicer, I don't like the idea of a girl in high school or junior high needing parental permission to get contraceptives. I know that at that age I would have NEVER gone to my parents to ask for contraceptive. But it's a bargaining chip I am willing to toss up if it means that we can have REAL sex education classes in our schools (which, btw, might lessen the need for these young girls to have contraceptives in the first place AND make them more likely to talk to their parents about it). I don't want to see legislation that mandates there to be a 48 hour waiting period before any abortion, but I'm willing to trade that for legalized abortions in every state, for all women, in all circumstances.

I believe, fully, that this world and this nation NEED extremists. We need the people all the way on the left that are anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and we need the people all the way on the right that are pro-life, pro-tax cuts, pro-war, pro-religion in our schools. We need those people because without them, the people in the middle would just look at each other and shrug.

But what we ALSO need is for those people in the middle to start stepping up and saying what THEY want to see happen. The vast majority of this country agrees on so many issues— none of us want to see religious extremists becoming suicide bombers. No one wants to see senior citizens going without their prescriptions. No one wants to see more soldiers dying in Iraq, or anywhere else. NO ONE wants to see abortion numbers sky rocket. No one, no matter what their voter registration card says, or what terms they use to describe themselves, really wants to see their neighbors suffer.

So stop putting comments under our pro-choice articles that call us selfish and disgusting. Stop calling me a slut. Stop hiding behind Biblical rhetoric (being an atheist is not illegal), and stop telling us to keep our legs crossed and our heads down. In return, we'll stop calling you outdated and bigoted. We'll stop telling you to get bent and that we can't believe you have sex at all. You can't fight fire with fire.

Throw yourself a pity party tonight, eat some ice cream, call us all sluts and cunts one more time, and when you wake up tomorrow morning, be ready to come to work. Actually THINK about what you want to see happen, and think about what you're willing to do to get it. ASK a pro-choicer what they want, too. Build bridges. Find the road that separates you and walk down it together.

You can still call me a hippie. That's allowed.

What I've been up to lately

I've been having an interesting debate in the comment field of my college newspaper.

It all started when a friend of mine wrote an article commemorating the Roe v Wade anniversary. Then a guy named Chad decided to comment that "Abortion is the ultimate disgustingly selfish decision a person can make. Taking a life to make it easier on yours." He also claimed that "birth control is like $2 a month the last time I checked with my girlfriend."

When was the last time Chad had sex with his girlfriend?!?! TWO DOLLARS? Are you freakin' kidding me?

I've enjoyed being part of the discussion over there and am pleased to see that other commenters are pointing out how complicated access to contraception is--- for an example--- and beause I'm lazy, I'll just copy and paste one of my responses:

"Anon" suggested a compromise that pro-life people work with pro-choice people to "give women and girls easy and cheap access to birth control."

Absolutely brilliant idea! This is something pro-choice people have been asking of the "pro-life" community for years. But we never get anywhere on this issue because pro-lifers have no interest in life (example? – how about co-opting AIDS relief by demanding America not send condoms to Africa....)

There lack of interest in decreasing abortions was proved AGAIN- most recently in the South Dakota legislature on Friday February 8th.

South Dakota Senate Bill 164 read:

"It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities..." ...

The bill would have prevented pharmacists from refusing to dispense birth control. Planned Parenthood in S.D. has several documented instances where pharmacists have refused to do their job and fill prescription birth control for women.

This bill was voted down by the "pro-life" people who claim that they want abortion to end!??!?

So now we know--- pro-life is a misnomer. These people are the sex police. They have no interest in helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy. They want to tell people how to live their lives. No condoms, no pill, no abortion.

And then when you're an unwed teenage mother, they'll call you a SLUT. No really.

Colorado Spring Republican Rep. Larry Liston said (during a recent GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver):

"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, and they were called what they are. There was at least a sense of shame. There's no sense of shame today, society condones it. ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."

Yes because we know how often MEN were sent away in shame for pregnancy. And we know how often MEN are called sluts with any derogatory meaning behind it.

Time to face facts, folks. "Pro-life" people have no intention of reducing the need for abortion. Their gripe is that women can't be shamed and called out for their "slutty ways" anymore. There is no interest in making it easier on single mothers.

-- If you want women to have options
-- If you think people need real sex education
-- If people need access to contraception
-- IF you want abortions to decrease

...then you would best serve your purpose on the pro-choice side.

So yeah, that was fun.

It just makes me absolutely nuts when "pro-life" people come out and claim to care about the welfare of children (in fetus form only of course). They want women to continue every single pregnancy possible... no matter what. Cause it's so "easy" to do?

There was a great article on MSNBC that talked about the child care crisis and how day care costs have outpaced what the average family spends on food. The majority of families rely on two-income households to keep going and that means the kiddies have to go somewhere. But when daycare costs more than food--- how are people supposed to stay on top of it?

According to the article:

Child-care costs are rising at twice the rate of inflation. After paying the mortgage, health insurance premiums, transportation costs and child-care fees, today's two-income families have less money left over than the one-income family did a generation ago.

"In order to go back to one income, families would have to make significant changes, possibly losing health insurance and their home."

So even the good old fashioned nuclear family might have some serious concerns about an unplanned pregnancy. But surprise surprise it was the democratic, pro-choice canidate, John Edwards who talked about more significant tax breaks for people with children in day care.... not the anti-choiceres... seems to me they don't give one lick about making it easier to afford and adequately care for children.

And as for $2 birth control... PULEAZE

Story of Edna Lavilla

Audio story of a woman searching for her grandmother's history, a woman who died from a back-alley abortion

Keep kleenex near by.

New study shows Medical Abortion is safe

Hooray for this article

It actually has some medical fact in there!

While previous research has shown surgical abortions don’t increase the risk of problems in later pregnancies, little research had been done into the impact of medical abortions.

And good news according to a study on more than 12,000 Danish women:

Women who use abortion pills rather than the more common surgical method seem to face no greater risk of tubal pregnancy or miscarriage in later pregnancies, according to a new study.

The article also gives interesting history of medication abortion -- how it became legal in France in 1988 but by '89 the Bush administration had made it illegal in the U.S.

Medical abortions appeal to women because they can do it in the privacy of their home, can seem less intimidating than surgical abortion and just about any doctor can prescribe the pills.

Problem is that most doctors won't prescribe this pills-- not because they're worried about safety but because they're worried about violence from anti-choicers.

YES!

I want to marry this woman. For shiz.
What We Deserve

Add to My Profile | More Videos

One woman's mistake

Okay. Watch this news story and tell me how you feel...

I feel extremely sorry for this woman but part of me feels like-- where is your anger with your doctor who should have been aware of this condition and helped you? Instead of turning you away and saying "Oh, you're just pregnant."

At no point does she seem outwardly anti-choice to me. Just a woman who had a very much wanted child who felt she had no other choice but to abort... and yet I feel that this story could have been handled a little better to focus on this woman rather than put abortion in such a (seemingly) negative light.

Thoughts?

An update/Rant

Yes, I apologize for not updating in a while. I wish I could say there's been nothing to write about but sadly, women's issues are taking a beating wether I acknowledge it or not. My fave site, Feministe has posted on just about everything lately that I have read and been cranky about so I must encourage you to go there. They are the blog I long to be.

But in state news, ND is coming up againt an abortion ban. Passed the house, now in the senate, I've been writing letters to senators like mad but methinks this ban will go through. This bill irks me for obvious reasons but even more so because it is a COMPLETE waste of the senate's time. The bill is inefective unless Roe is overturned. Why don't you take time and debate things that will immediately go into effect? Grrr.

On the plus side, my conservative state passed a bill (with a unanimous vote no less) that will provide $50,000 for the State Department of Health to educate the public about the HPV virus and the HPV vaccine.

So there is always something to be happy about.

Working at the women's clinic is still wonderful and a great education to me. It's shows why being pro-choice is essential-- nothing will teach you that quite like working in the situation where women need choice the most. I am so grateful for the opportunity to work there. My other job has also been a major eye opener. I've been on call twice now for the crisis line and have been to the E.R. twice, dealing with the aftermath on rape.

I'm uncomfortable going into details of all these things due to confidentiality etc. but I think it's important to share what I'm doing because I think it's affected my blogging (or lack thereof). Sometimes by the end of the day I want to forget about these issues or it's just too real and too hard to talk about these topics ANY MORE.

This week my rant is pretty light-hearted. I have been hearing a phrase a lot lately and it's just made me very sad. I work as a waitress to help pay the bills so I'm around many women my age (college or just-graduated). I'm always amazed when I hear so many of them say things like, "I just don't really like being friends with other women. They annoy me." Or some variation on that phrase, something like, "All my friends are guys and I prefer it that way."

Yes, okay fine. I have a lot of guy friends too. As I write this post, my boyfriend and another friend of ours, Cory are playing Xbox. They are fun and I love 'em both but I don't know what I would do if I didn't have close women friends. And my heart always sinks when I hear women say things like "girls annoy me."

We could go into exhaustive discussion here on what makes men and women different as far as how they handle conflict, romance, common stereotypes *guys like xbox, girls like to shop* but where does this disdain for having girlfriends come from? Did they experience some level of "Mean Girls" behavior in high school? Did they have bad relationships with their mother, sisters... something?

I understand there are women out there who are less than pleasant. Or they are into different hobbies than you. Maybe you're more about sports, wings and beer, not shoes and martinis. That's fine. But just FYI, there are OTHER women like you. You are not the exception. And most women can do both shoes and sports, have a martini and then a beer. Stop writing off your own sex.

It's a self-loathing that I just can't handle or understand. Women, in my opinion form friendships that are invaluable. There's no reason to avoid relationships with women and only look for male friends. This type of attitude baffles me completely and just appears to be another offshoot of a culture that tells women and girls not to value themselves or distrust one another. The idea of "Can't be friends with women, they just gossip and are silly and stupid. They'll steal your man."

It's a pile of crap. There are certainly women I've met that I could NEVER be friends with, but this could equally be said of some men I've met. I can't ever recall hearing a guy friend say, "I just don't like being friends with other guys. They're annoying." So why do women say it? Is it about looking good in front of other men, or proving yourself "better than" or "more than" a woman?

Why do we do this?

Women Know

**Not my wisdom here. I took this off a poster in the abortion clinic where I work...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


We women know when it is or is not the right time to bring a child into this world.

We use our heads and our hearts to see clearly the pros and cons of our three choices: parenting, placing for adoption or having an abortion.

We know better than anyone else what we can and can not handle emotionally, physically, financially, and mentally.

We have wisdom enough to know our own limits and strength enough to admit them.

We know when the choice of abortion can prevent the harsh consequences of bringing a child into this world when we are not ready or able to do our child justice.

We act out of compassion when we wait to have a child until the time when we can give it the kind of life every child deserves.

We act out of love when we consider what we would be taking away from the child or children we already have if we brought another into our family now.

We take care of our mental health by making decisions that limit the strain we place upon ourselves and those we love.

We take care of our physical health by considering our medical history and the risks that come with pregnancy, labor and delivery.

We take care of our spiritual well-being each in our own way, trusting our faith to provide:

Infinite Love
Complete Understanding
Boundless Compassion

We think clearly when we call our abortion decision one of "self care" rather than calling ourselves selfish.

We must care for ourselves before we care for another human being.

We see clearly beyond a well-wisher’s words
"I'll help you out if you have the baby..."

We know that the responsibility for raising the child will fall squarely on our shoulders.

We have foresight enough to know that "having a baby" doesn’t stop with infancy. It means raising a child who will need our financial support, time, and attention for as long as it takes that child to become an independent adult.

Women throughout all time and throughout the world have made the decision to have an abortion, whether or not abortion was safe and legal.

Women have risked their own lives to avoid bearing a child they could not adequately care for.

Women in the past drank teas made from plants know to cause abortion. In desperation, some inserted long thin objects into their cervix, and others douched with poisonous liquids to cause an abortion. Some methods cost women their lives. Childbirth, miscarriage and abortion are all part of women's lives.

Women of childbearing age from every generation, occupation, income level race and religion have had abortions, including great grandmothers, grandmothers, mothers, great aunts and aunts, sisters, daughters, best friends, teachers, ministers, doctors, and daycare workers.

And when others use TV commercials, billboards, bumper stickers, speeches and sermons to make us feel guilty about having an abortion…

WE WOMEN KNOW THE TRUTH: that given certain circumstances abortion is the most morally responsible and loving choice we can make.

Celebrating Roe

I have been so inspired today by all the people blogging for choice. So many interesting and thoughtful viewpoints, some I had not even considered like this great post from Bitch Ph D. pointing out that pregnancy is not really a "choice" or this article from Feministe which features a great photo comparison.

It's so hard for me to understand why people cling to the idea that women should have no say over what happens to their body. That there isn't basic privacy as part of our right to be Americans. Especially when we know the consequences.

Without options, women will become desperate and they will be victimized.

Blog for Choice Day

Today is National Blog for Choice day to mark the 34th anniversary of the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. Today remember these women.

Notice in reading that link that some of the women who have died from botched abortions died in the post-Roe years. There is no reason this should happen. Why do we have to keep fighting for basic human rights? The right to control our bodies and the spacing of our children?

Because the anti-choice side won't be satisified until women are left with no options. I know this because my own state is hearing house bills just this morning regarding making performing abortion a felony and also making it illegal to prescribe or give out emergency contraception and possibly even birth control! (Gee- I can only imagine how helfpul that will be in decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies-- give women no birth control)

A statement from NOW President Kim Gandy:

"We have endured more than three decades of challenges and roadblocks from a well-funded opposition, and our rights are more tenuous than ever -- but we are determined to fight, and we will not go back to the days when women had 12, 15, 18 children, often dying in childbirth, their bodies spent. Or they died in back alleys or dirty motel rooms, or were left injured and infertile after botched illegal abortions. Most of our grandmothers had no self-determination when it came to pregnancy and childbearing, and we are determined that our daughters will never suffer that fate,"

Don't forget--

In the next few months, the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding two cases regarding the deceptively-named Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Nine justices will determine the constitutionality of the first federal law ever to ban a medical procedure -- a law virtually identical to the Nebraska ban that was struck down by the Court in 2000 because it didn't have an exception to protect the woman's health.

All eyes will be on the high court's two newest justices -- will they be devoted to precedent as they profess to be, or will they deviate from mainstream opinion and follow their own opposition to abortion? Also under close watch is Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold the Nebraska ban seven years ago, and whose swing vote may determine whether the federal ban, already struck down by three federal courts of appeal, will become law.

"In this time of many challenges to our liberty, preserving women's reproductive freedom calls for constant vigilance and concerted action," said Gandy. "Abortion opponents are attempting to eliminate access to abortion in many states -- by passing TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws to put clinics out of business, passing waiting periods and notice requirements that cut access for rural women, poor women and young women, and by enacting outright abortion bans that would jail doctors and revoke their medical licenses."

As we move forward in our battle of choice we have to fight the Hyde Amendment (enacted 30 years ago) which said Medicaid would not pay for a poor woman's abortion. This was the cause of death for Rosie Jimenez.

First Freedom First said it best:
"You can be personally opposed to abortion yet respect the right of women to make their own life decisions free from government intrusion.

Creating laws that are grounded in religious belief conflicts with the separation of church and state, and compromises our religious liberty."

Fight for rights and fight for the lives of your mothers, daughters, sisters and friends.

Pro-lifers hate women

Maybe they don't realize it, but they do. And it's funny because there are plenty of pro-life women out there. I can only assume they are kidding themselves about the reality of abortion. Perhaps they've never had to make the difficult abortion decision or they've never had a girlfriend who was courageous enough to share her story. They clearly have never had to deal with a daughter, sister or friend in a position of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.

This post is about what's going on in South Dakota. I have been visiting the "letter to the editor" sections of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and the Rapid City Journal. This is how I know that pro-life = punishing women.

The letters coming in asking for support of Measure 6 (which would ban abortion in all cases, even rape, incest and health risks to the mother) never talk about women, unless condemning them.

They refuse to acknowledge that women are not built for the sole purpose of incubating a fetus. Hypocrisy practically drips from the pages. One writer, Jaye Grant said that in 1983 the man she was seeing “insisted” on her having an abortion. She now regrets the decision, calling it murder. While she may regret her decision, she still had the opportunity to make one!! Just because she has guilt over her choice does not mean she can make choices for other women. Unfortunately I know several women who have needed abortions *I say unfortunately because while I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion*. None of my girlfriends ever mentioned remorse, merely relief at being relieved of an unwanted burden.

I know my own mother would need an abortion now if she became pregnant. She is in her mid 50s, and suffers from diabetes and heart problems. Pregnancy would be extremely dangerous for her and the fetus! But under South Dakota's law, the government not her physician would make the decision, possibly condemning her to death. In fact, this S.D. law could very well be a death sentence. If a pregnant woman found she had cancer, she could not obtain lifesaving radiation because it would endanger the fetus, AND she would be denied an abortion. Sick.

Women have been getting abortions for thousands of years and for varying reasons. Making this medical procedure illegal will only drive women to dangerous situations. Pregnancy is a private matter and medical procedure between a woman and her doctor, and if she chooses, a faith tradition. Not your faith tradition—hers--- if she has one.

More to the point… A woman is more than a fetus (see above graphic, if you need help with this difficult concept). The fetus has a potential to become human. A woman IS human. What’s next, shall we not save women from ectopic pregnancies since those fertilized eggs could technically be considered life? Don't laugh. This is normal procedure in countries like El Salvador, where abortions have been criminalized. If a woman has a fertilized egg in her fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy) doctors do not remove it. Even though these eggs are not viable (as they can not grow or develop) and will only result in serious medical complications for women.

If you want further evidence that restricting abortion is really about punishing women then look no further than South Dakota’s own statistics. The child poverty rates are high, teacher salaries are low, and state-employed social workers are laid off to save money. If S.D. government cares so much about “life” perhaps they’d work harder at fixing these problems and spend less time telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body.

This is nothing new. The same people who want to repeal Roe and take back choice also want to deny women contraception, block the HPV vaccine and deny sex education for teens.

Why?

Because sluts should be punished. Women with a litter of kids will be too busy for college, education, work outside the home and therefore any progress. Barefoot and pregnant = good. Choice and options are bad.

You want furthe proof?
(click to enlarge this helpful chart. If that doesn't work, you can find it at this blog)


I think it would be great if we lived in a world without abortion. It's a stressful decision for women and I acknowledge that it can be psychologically debilitating. But choice must not be taken away. There are thousands of women's stories that illustrate this point. And I'm not just talking about victims of incest and rape. Of course, if you ask SD State senator, Bill Napoli, a "real rape victim" is pretty rare.

Napoli's infamous quote: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Access to abortions should not be contingent on a third party’s moral judgment. Especially a third party misogynist butthole like Bill Napoli.

Ms. Magazine fights back

An interesting story

Hooray for ND senators

I happily applaud the decision of my state senators to oppose the "Child Protection Custody Act."

This would have made it mandatory for minors to obtain parental permission before seeking an abortion.

If you need a dramatic example of why the Child Custody Act will do more harm than good, look no further than the story of Becky Bell.

Becky was just 17 years old and a junior in high school when she found out she was pregnant. She went to a local women’s clinic but they told her she must have parental consent to obtain her legal abortion. Ashamed and afraid of letting her parents down, Becky turned to a back-alley abortion. She died September 16, 1988.

Tragically some pro-life people have tried to hijack Becky's story, claiming she died of a drug ovedose of from other complications. But it's not true, Becky died as a result of dirty instruments being used during a back-alley abortion. Others claim Becky could have just as easily died having a legal abortion. Also false. Medical abortions, when performed correctly by real doctors, are a less dangerous procedure than childbirth!

I think we could all agree that a young girl would benefit from adult guidance when it comes to difficult decisions like abortion. But we have to acknowledge that her family could be abusive, or it could be that a family member caused the pregnancy. Girls living in extremely rigid homes may even face violent retaliation for having sex before they were married.

Truth be told, a teenage girl who can go to her parents and talk to them about abortion, probably will. She will want their support and will need them for monetary assistance, abortions range from $300-$500.

I have several friends who have needed abortions. Some could have gone to their parents and others never in a million years would have done so. Luckily these girls were over 18 but I shudder to think what they might have turned to if they were minors.

Karen Bell, mother of Becky Bell, had an interesting viewpoint which she shared in a 1991 “60-minutes” interview. "Two years ago I would have been totally for the parental consent law, but not now. ... Mothers and fathers have both come up and said, 'Well, we just know that our daughters would come to us, we know it.' And I said, 'And I knew Becky would come to me.' And look where she is."

Clinics that provide abortions also provide counseling and ask several questions prior to the procedure to make sure women are not being coerced into the procedure and it is something that they themselves want. Young girls won’t be alone in their decision to seek an abortion, unless we give them no where else to turn.

South Dakota will decide

It's official. On November 7th South Dakota will decide whether to legally ban all abortions *(even those performed in cases of rape and incest)* --- it will be up to the voters at large. The abortion ban was originally scheduled to take effect July 1, not it's suspended pending the outcome of the public vote. Come November, we will find out just how the state of S.D. really feels.

Even if the ban is voted in, it will immediately be challenged because of its unconstitutionality under Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Still, I have high hopes that South Dakota will defeat the ban on their own. True, many people are opposed to abortion in South Dakota. It's quite clear. I drove through less than a week ago and saw 5 anti-choice billboards ("Abortion stops a beating heart") before I saw ONE speed limit sign! Um, priorities anyone? But I think generally, the population has enough common sense to realize that such harsh restrictions (no abortions even in cases of rape or incest) are too much.

I can't believe we're here again. It wasn't long ago... in fact the generation of women who fought tooth and nail for our rights are still alive! They are alive and kicking. I've talked to so many women who have warned me. They tell me, "We had to raise major hell. We had to take to the street, go nights without sleep. We were spit at and called every name in the book... but by the end of the day woman had autonomy over her body. She could make a decision about her future without the interference of government, religion, or a group of male doctors. Don't forget how hard we fought."

The battle seems monstrous.

On June 17, Louisiana voted to criminalize abortion as well.

"An amended version of SB 33, the abortion ban, passed the Senate unopposed. The ban, which provides only an exception if the woman's life is in danger, would go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Brilliant move Louisiana, I mean, people are still wandering around in your state without homes since Katrina, but lets devote Senate time to abortion!

It makes me want to cry to think we're so close to losing it all.

The fight to ensure women have access to basic health care like contraception, emergency contraception, and abortions. Even the fight to make sure our children are taught real, VALID sex education... why do we always have to fight for common sense?

I urge people to read this story:

There are major problems in the world that need addressing. Issues that involve living, breathing human beings, not a potential human fetus.

If you read this article, stop for a moment and think about the women refugees who are gang raped endlessly, then bear children as a result of this rape. Some are mutilated with guns, knives, whatever is around... and to think, in our country, if that happened to a woman she may not be entitled to emergency contraception or even an abortion.

It makes my blood run cold.

Stand up South Dakota

Today, the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families turned in nearly 38,000 petition signatures to the South Dakota Secretary of State for certification. This was done so that the "abortion ban law" would be placed on the ballot so the public could vote on the issue. It's likely that in general election such a strict law *no abortion even in cases of rape and incest* would pass.

This is a huge victory for South Dakota!! The number of signatures is well over twice the minimum number of signatures required to refer the law to the ballot. Moreover, the signatures were turned in nearly two weeks ahead of time. These signatures were gathered from all 60 South Dakota counties. No paid petitioners were used.

For more great Info: www.StandUpSouthDakota.com