HPV Vaccine is Pro-Life

The governor of Texas (of all governors, of all states!) has written an op-ed extolling the virtues of making the HPV vaccine mandatory for young girls in his state. His take? It's truly a "pro-life" position as it saves girl's & women's lives by helping to prevent cervical cancer. Great idea - why didn't the pro-choicers think of this tack?! Oh, wait, we did. Our minds and bodies are bursting with the inherent knowledge that freedom of access and choice saves lives.

Gov. Rick Perry proclaimed his strong stance against cancer (wow, that's a brave choice!) in this opinion piece in USA Today (sorry, I'm a little grumpy today):

Opposing view: My order protects life
Vaccine mandate will prevent deaths, give parents the final word.

By Rick Perry

As governor of Texas, I will do everything in my power to protect public health. The executive order I signed last Friday will help stop the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV) and prevent cervical cancer in young women.

Some are focused on the cause of this cancer, but I remain focused on the cure. And if I err, I will always err on the side of protecting life.

For the first time in history, a vaccine exists that can prevent a deadly cancer — the second most common form of cancer in women. The HPV vaccine is approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a second vaccine is expected on the market within the next year.

Research shows that the HPV vaccine is highly effective in protecting women against the four leading cancer-causing strains of HPV. Though some might argue that we should wait several years before requiring the vaccine, I believe such a delay unnecessarily risks the lives of young women.

This is not the first vaccine Texas has required for a non-contagious disease. Years ago, Texas required inoculations to prevent the spread of Hepatitis B, spread primarily through sexual contact or shared needles.

Even with this new requirement, parents can still choose to opt out. But we will never eradicate a disease that impacts 20 million Americans with an "opt in" provision because statistics show only one-quarter of the eligible population gets inoculated in such circumstances. The "opt out" provision — standard for all Texas vaccinations —will help us protect three-quarters of our young women.

Parents will still have the final word, and a full debate will take place as our health agency adopts implementation rules before the order takes effect in 19 months. And if Texas legislators want to debate and pass a different vaccine law, there is nothing standing in their way.

If we could stop lung cancer, would some shy away claiming it might encourage tobacco use? This is a rare opportunity to act, and as a pro-life governor, I will always take the side of protecting life.

Rick Perry, a Republican, is governor of Texas.

I praise Governor Perry for coming out in favor of not just providing the vaccine to young girls & women in his state, but making it mandatory, thereby ensuring that all who want it, have access to it. As with any vaccine, a parent of a minor can choose to "opt out" on behalf of their children.

But there is the cynical, maybe just level-headed, part of myself that sees this (and all state policies that have made the HPV vaccine mandatory thus far) as a deal with the devil. It's a handshake between legislators and a powerful drug company lobby. Merck will get the billions, governors & legislators will get the support. Maybe that's just the way politics works. I want the HPV vaccine to be available and, more than that, accessible to any girl or woman who wants it.

And, as the oped states, when you make a vaccine mandatory there is clearly a huge percentage of folks who will get it, who wouldn't otherwise. So, it's a good thing, right?

Girls Gone Wild - NOT!

When my daughter was three years old and not yet reading, I got her a subscription to a magazine. I know it may have been a little presumptuous. But the magazine I subscribed her to, New Moon Magazine ("Bringing Girls Voices To The World"), is one of those tools in my growing toolbox of "Things to combat popular culture/sexism/patriarchy and help my daughter grow into a smart, loving, creative, beautiful, badass woman - like the girl she is now."


I got the monthly email from New Moon Magazine in my mailbox today featuring their concise attempt to dispel the myth that girls are suddenly getting more "wild" these days - that they are more violent now, that the number of incidences of girl-on-girl assault is increasing in our country and that young female celebrities like Paris Hilton are encouraging that "wild" behavior. According to the Girls Study Group, convened by the U.S. Justice Department, the media's attempts to cover the issue has resulted in overblown statistics and conflated conclusions.

In fact, the idea that young female violence is on the upswing is just plain wrong:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/07028/757491.stm

Newsweek's cover story this week proclaims "The Girls Gone Wild Effect" with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears hanging on each other. The authors of the article attempt to make a case that because young celebrity women are out in public more, partying with seemingly no care in the world, young girls are feeling the "negative effects" of these "Girls Gone Wild." I have to say that the premise seems like a rehashing of the idea that women should be good little females and mind their manners in public or girls will actually get the idea that they don't have to maintain strict standards for how they behave (gasp!) when they grow up.

According to statistics, there is no cause and effect relationship between however Paris or Britney choose to spend their time and girls descent into some kind of wanton craziness or brutality.

Thank you, New Moon Magazine, for being my co-conspirator & my support as I attempt to raise a strong, smart and feisty woman in this country that seems to try and foil me at every other turn.

But my love for New Moon Magazine is multi-layered. Their magazine is filled with stories, poems, art and articles written by girls. They also focus on public policy and political action. Their web site has a section called "Letters to Congress" that highlights political and social issues affecting women and girls around the world and what you can do to impact legislative policies.

And they have a blog. And whaddya know?! I checked it out today for the first time and their newest post is about the Global Gag Rule!! If I had had something like this when I was growing up I could have saved thousands on therapy.

When Pregnant Women Attack

You know how sick and tired I am of politicians using precious resources and time to create problems where none exist?! Virginia legislators actually spent time and tax payer money writing legislation that would criminalize pregnant women for causing a miscarriage:

Del. S. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk), the sponsor of the bill, said the legislation is aimed at protecting fetuses that are harmed during the late stages of pregnancy. He cited a Suffolk case in which a woman caused a miscarriage the day before she was scheduled to give birth. "If she would have taken it and abandoned it and it would have died, she would have been charged," Jones said.

Is this “when pregnant women attack”?! Really, are we to assume that this Virginia legislator was inundated with stories from his constituents begging & pleading with him to push a law that would put pregnant women in jail (?!) for bringing on a miscarriage? Del. Jones’ premise for this draconian legislation is so flawed; it’s amazing its being taken seriously. First of all, a miscarriage is defined as “the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks.” So, unless this woman was scheduled to give birth when she was 20 weeks pregnant, he is not talking of a woman who “caused a miscarriage” but rather, induced an abortion Also, according to the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, most miscarriages occur in the first 3 months. Finally, it’s probably significant to note that approximately 10-15% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage – and that’s only known pregnancies. Clearly the number is actually higher. How do we tell which one of these women caused her own miscarriage? You tell me. It’s probably safest to assume that if any harm should come to a growing embryo or fetus, we blame the mother & imprison her. Really, we just don’t want bands of women who have recently miscarried roving the streets unpunished.

I had a miscarriage after the birth of my first child. I was almost 12 weeks pregnant at the time. It was devastating. Only after I revealed to my close friends, co-workers and extended family that I had miscarried did I hear the innumerable stories of women who had also miscarried. Does this Virginia legislator propose to investigate all miscarriages? And how are we going to define “causing” a miscarriage?

Most distressing to me is that this proposed law sets up an expectation that a woman who causes her own miscarriage is guilty of essentially murder. If we are going to criminally penalize women who cause a miscarriage – ending the life of the fetus growing inside her, we must use the legal term, “murder”, to describe the result of the woman’s actions. National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) has been the most vocal and active advocates for pregnant women in the United States working “ to secure the human and civil rights, health and welfare of all women, focusing particularly on pregnant and parenting women, and those who are most vulnerable - low income women, women of color, and drug-using women” and I’m sure they will have a lot to say about this bill.

According to The Washington Post, the Virginia House of Delegates gave “tentative approval” to this bill yesterday, Monday, February 5. They also gave the same approval to a similar bill that would penalize someone, other than the mother, who causes a miscarriage to occur. The other law, the one I like to call “when pregnant women attack”, could result in a woman being imprisoned for up to ten years. So if a woman who is already a mother intentionally causes herself to miscarry, we not only punish the mother but we punish her living, breathing children as well by taking their mother away from them for upwards of ten years.

Once again, we see legislation designed solely to punish a woman for daring to get pregnant when she didn’t mean to or want to. Once again, we punish a woman for the intrinsic power her body can wield.

I’m shocked that this legislation actually made it through the Viriginia House. Final votes on the bill will happen today and if approved the bill will get sent over to the Senate. According to the Washington Post article, however, Republican leaders tried to block it because of its contentious nature (but not because its one more of the most woman-hating, basest pieces of anti-choice legislation that has hit our state governments in recent memory). Also, a 2005 Washington Post poll revealed that most Virginia residents want abortion to remain legal. This inherently anti-choice bill will certainly leave a bad taste in the mouths of most Virginia voters.

I read this article two hours ago and my mouth is still agape. I am truly disgusted. My brother and I have this discussion frequently: how can forced birthers/anti-choicers continue to advocate for the criminalization of abortion without calling for the imprisonment of the one who commits the crime – the woman? Eventually, we knew this was going to happen. I look forward to NAPW’s analysis of this and hope to god we don’t see copycat proposed legislation pop up around the country. Sadly, anti-choice advocates are slowly but surely succeeding at replacing the joy a woman feels, who is happily & willingly pregnant, with fear and terror. If we start prosecuting (and persecuting) pregnant women for “crimes” like miscarriage no pregnant women will be immune.

"Mom, Dad - I'm Pregnant"

Those two words - I'm pregnant - uttered by young women around the country millions of times over; the amount of teen terror as they try and muster up the courage to tell their parents, ocean-sized. And even if a young woman gets up the guts to talk to her parents; even if a young woman feels that her parents would understand, there are still mountains yet to climb. What are the options? How does one access those options? What if the young woman is pregnant as a result of a rape? What are the laws in her state around abortion? Adoption? What if she wants to keep the baby? Are the resources out there to help a teen care for her child?

The Abortion Conversation Project (ACP) has answers. In their new web site, MomDadImPregnant.com , teens and their parents will find "communication advice for family crisis" in the form of resources, referrals, guidance, help and mostly information presented in a loving and compassionate manner, devoid of the political statements or angry judgements that seem to permeate other resources for pregnant teens and parents.

ACP has created a place where teens can access help to communicate with their parents about their pregnancy and where parents can feel gently guided if they are at a loss for what to say or how to support their pregnant teens. As the press release announcing the advent of the new project puts it,

Yesterday, your mother was nagging you about cleaning your room. Today, how do you tell her you’re pregnant? Your daughter has seemed remote but you never suspected she might be pregnant: how do you respond? The “Mom, Dad, I’m Pregnant” Project of the Abortion Conversation Project, Inc. addresses these questions and more on its new website and in companion handouts, “How Can I Tell my Parents?” and “How Do I Respond?” The website, www.MomDadIMpregnant.com offers specific suggestions for both young men and women and for their mothers and fathers who are dealing with a pregnancy crisis.

And this:

The MomDadIMpregnant.com site includes advice for teens on telling parents about a pregnancy, considering options, information in case of a rape, and special advice for young male partners. Advice for parents highlights how to respond and improve relationships with daughters and sons, as well as special advice for moms and dads. There are sections on Minor’s Rights, and what to do if parents may be abusive, as well as spiritual, legal, and additional resources.

Of course, since the Abortion Conversation Project was initially launched as a project to assist in reducing the stigma around abortion by talking truthfully and honestly about abortion, there will be the usual kicking and screaming from the anti-choice activists. But that's a shame. Because ACP has been the harbinger of positive and radical change in the pro-choice movement since its beginnings in 2004.

ACP has ushered in a new discourse around abortion and reproductive rights. ACP offered the initial support and guidance for publications like Our Truths, Nuestras Verdades (for which I was on the first Board of Directors) - a magazine that seeks to give voice to women's and men's abortion experiences through creative nonfiction, commentary, poetry and visual art. ACP offers resources for how to have an open, honest one-to-one conversation about one's abortion experience or the abortion experience of someone close; they also offer information on how to have community conversations about abortion.

The authenticity of the Abortion Conversation Project for me (a former abortion clinic staffer for 6 1/2 years), is that it was started and it continues to be lead by independent abortion providers. The sincerity with which the ACP desires to open the conversation around abortion and allow women's voices to rise to the top of that conversation changes the discourse around abortion dramatically.

While the anti-choicers are now ready to lead with their "new" strategy that focuses on highlighting women who say they have been hurt by their abortions and the tagline that's resulted ("abortion hurts women"), ACP focuses on how to help women who have had an abortion or women who choose to access abortion deal with their abortions without the stigma and silence that surrounds most women's experience pre- and post-abortion.

I'm very excited for this new resource and I hope Planned Parenthood doesn't let their super-powered, corporatist mindset stand in the way of steering young people and parents towards MomDadImPregnant.com. Can you sense my hostility towards PP? They seem to lead the conversation, with NARAL ProChoice America, around abortion even though the majority of abortions are performed by independent abortion providers thus making organizations like ACP - led by independent abortion providers - more "expert" than PP or NARAL.

ACP represents "the little guys" and they are nimble and authentic enough to know what women, families and communities need to move past abortion as a loaded topic into the real world.

Re-posted on Reproductive Health Reality Check.

The World We Want

The ACLU gives me hope with this piece. When I wrote the letter to Aradia Women's Health Center's donors & supporters announcing our closure, I ended with this thought:

Our success is due in large part to you, Aradia’s supporters, who have consistently believed in the power of feminist health care and championed Aradia’s mission. I hope our vision statement continues to inspire you and that you carry it forward: Aradia Women's Health Center envisions a world where each woman's individual choices regarding her reproductive and sexual health are respected so that she may live freely and truly reach her highest potential.

Because that is truly what's important - we must all continue our work towards the creation of the world we want to see, the world we want to live in, and the world we want our children to inherit. The dissolution of Aradia is depressing on many levels - but ultimately we need to ensure that we are ever vigilantly carrying forward a vision of a future where all women live in justice and equality.


The World We Want: 34 Years after Roe v. Wade

By Louise Melling, Director, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

Thirty-four years ago this month the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, significantly expanding the ability of women across the country to decide when and whether to become a parent. The decision, while immensely important, was only one step in this country’s journey to true reproductive freedom. The world we want includes access to safe and legal abortion care, secures our right to have children when we are ready, and supports programs that foster healthy families and healthy lives for all.

The decision when and whether to become a parent is one of the most private a person can make and one that has a profound affect on all aspects of our lives. To participate fully in society, we must be free to answer for ourselves whether we are ready and capable of being parents. To achieve this world, we must continue to strive for reproductive freedom for everyone.

Supporting the right to have children: In the world we want, women, men, and families have the support they need to maintain healthy lives, healthy pregnancies, and healthy families. Reproductive health care is basic health care. All parents are equipped with the means to care for and educate their children and provide for their families.

Ensuring the right not to have children: In the world we want, all women have meaningful access to contraception and abortion, and both are considered part of basic health care. Unfortunately, in the world we live, we see a growing disparity between the ability of rich and poor women to prevent unintended pregnancies and obtain abortion care.

Educating for healthy lives: In the world we want, the government puts resources into programs that offer real information for real lives. Instead of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that fail to give teens information on how to prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, government supported sexuality education would give people the information they need to make healthy decisions when it comes to sex, relationships, and family planning.

The world we want meets the needs of real people working to build a life for themselves and their families. On this 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is time to take a critical look at the world we have and start working together to build the world we want.

Anti-Choice Strategy: We Care About Women...except when it comes to their bodies

The forced birth strategists have decided to try a new strategy. Will we see an end to those disgusting images of bloody and dismembered fetuses on signs at every counter-demonstration of pro-choice rallies; what about the oh-so-crafty activities of the religious zealots hurling insults at women entering abortion clinics; or, finally, the endless legislation dictating what kinds of politically-named, fake procedures can and cannot be performed by doctors?

The New York Times Magazine on Sunday reports on an "evolving antiabortion strategy that aims to "dismantle the framework" of pitting fetuses against women (a perfectly heinous image), instead taking the perspective that abortion is, according to the NY Times article, at the "root of women's psychological ills."

Despite mountains of extremely current evidence to the contrary, anti-choice advocates have apparently decided that abortion hurts women by increasing the risk of: depression, drug abuse and other issues. Or, really, they have decided that maybe that tack will get them ever closer to their goals of ensuring control of women's bodies.

I think the anti-choice activists have a parallel strategy: to break down pro-choice advocates by introducing endless, meaningless, absurd reasons for why abortion should be illegal. Ultimately, I think they are hoping to exhaust us with their clueless approach and stunning lack of concern or compassion for women.

Marcy Bloom is going to write about this for RH Reality Check this week. I look forward to reading what she has to say!

Blog for Choice: The Choices of Mothers

It's the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade Day and I'm ruminating on what choice means to me - as a mother. For all of the statistics & facts that we hear: 61% of women seeking abortions are already mothers; women who have abortions and women who have children are the SAME women at different points in their lives, I still don't see mothers, as a force, organizing strongly enough, to make a deep dent in the reproductive rights landscape on behalf of all mothers.

When I talk about my perspective on reproductive rights, there is no way I can even begin to frame the issue outside of my role as a mother.

When we throw phrases out like "My body, my choice" and "Motherhood by choice", I think not only of my vehement stance that abortion should be safe, legal and accessible to all women in order for women to be free but that the ways in which women birth, the resource available to women before motherhood, during birth and post-birth are plentiful and accessible.

Right now women in this country are given very few, abominably few options when it comes to making a decision about when and how to have children. Most women in this country are not even given the proper pre-natal resources to ensure a healthy pregnancy and delivery. Postpartum care is available to the most privileged among us which leaves a great majority of women in this country suffering in silence, thinking that the myth of blissful motherhood must be their faults. Midwifery is barely an option for most women in this country, cesarean sections are becoming standard regardless of what a woman may ultimately want. Paid - or even unpaid maternity leave (or paternity leave) is far too rare to ensure economic security for families with babies, affordable childcare is even scarcer.

The truth is, the idea of "choice" for women when it comes to much of our sexual and reproductive health and lives, is a dream we have chased for far too long. I am not talking solely of ensuring that abortion remains an option available to pregnant women (which, we all know, is not truly an option for most poor, teenage or non-English speaking women in this country) but that our ability to make the best choices for our sexual and reproductive health and lives is being severely hampered in our country - still.

So, on this anniversary of the historic Roe v. Wade decision, when we acknowledge the tenuous platform on which legal abortion balances, we must also be aware that we have not even begun to remedy the threats to motherhood on multiple levels in this country.

Is Hilary Pro-Choice?

Well, she's done it. Hilary Clinton has declared her intention to run for President of the United States. And Emily's List has their panties in a wad. They are very excited.

I guess if I let myself, I'm excited as well. It's an incredible time to be living through - we may be witness to the first female president of the United States.

But since my topic du jour these days is reproductive health and rights, I'm on a quest to figure out where Ms. Clinton stands in regards to reproductive health & rights. Where do her (and did her) votes lie on the sexual and repro health issues in the Senate?

Hilary on Parental Notification:

I believe in parental notification. I think there are exceptions. There are situations in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. In general, I think families should be part of helping their children through this.

Hilary on Partial Birth Abortion (you know, the non-existent procedure named by anti-choice political strategists):

I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I�ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it�s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman�s choice.

Hilary on Abortion:

But I think it's essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.


NARAL gives her a 100% we love you Hilary and would die by you Hilary. But, I, on the other hand do not think that she would be the voice of complete reason on this issue.

More later.

Willful Ignorance

"The lack of public, comprehensive, and complex sex education in this country contributes to this toxic sexual culture on most college campuses."

Willful Ignorance is Courtney Martin's insightful analysis of the true consequences of abstinence-only "sex ed" (because abstinence-only "education", once and for all, is NOT education its zealotry).

I happened to write about an amazing coalition that formed last year in Washington state (my home) called The Healthy Youth Alliance (see my post below) on Reproductive Health Reality Check this week. I may just continue the conversation for my piece next week...But back to Ms. Martin...

She's absolutely right, of course. Who decided that my children don't need information on how to communicate about sex? For god's sake, they are four and almost eight and they ask about sex, sexuality and their bodies quite a bit. Why do they talk about sex at such young ages, you might ask?

Here's the list:

1. They are exposed to thousands of advertising messages each day that essentially teach them that SEX sells. ("Mama, why does that poster show a woman's boobies sticking completely out of her bra?")
2. From the time they could talk, we taught them that their bodies were their own. We taught them that sex was a beautiful, positive, amazing experience between two people that loved each other. This, of course, inspires them to ask questions about what sex is and who does it.
3. Bratz dolls (have you checked out the Bratz horse? My 4 year old daughter does NOT need a plastic horse that's looking at her with "sexy eyes")
4. Clothing for girls. Can you tell me again why I should buy my daughter an eensy weensy mini-skirt and a belly shirt?!

Our children are naturally curious about their bodies, how babies are made, what sexuality is about because it's NATURAL. As they get older, they become more curious. If we release them on the world with no information about what sex and sexuality is about, how to talk about their own sex and sexuality and how to negotiate sexual relations, we're dis-abling them.

Because we are not giving our young people the information they need to navigate their sexuality, college campuses are teeming with repressive young adults. College students are essentially receptacles of raging hormones and spotty sexual information. Throw in the fact that most of those young people are living independently for the first time - and young women and men are paying too high a price for society's fear of sex.

...Of course the differences in the ways this lack of sexual knowledge manifests itself in young women and men can be vast. And Martin doesn't seem to much focus on this fact. She refers to the fact that abstinence-only zealotry doesn't teach either men or women to talk with each other about their sexual needs:

"The abstinence-only sex education that most young men and women receive does not teach them how to articulate their own sexual needs and respect those articulated by their partners."

But then, she writes:

"One study found that 75 percent of the males and 50 percent of the females involved in college campus acquaintance rapes had been drinking when the incident occurred."

Somehow I don't think that young men raping women on college campuses are just having a difficult time articulating " their own sexual needs" and respecting "those articulated by their partners." I absolutely understand her hypothesis that alcohol plays a definitive role in young people's abilities or lack thereof to handle their own sexuality. But when she talks about rape on campus, she says:

"All parties involved can be hurt by a failure to properly delineate and stick to boundaries."

Well, Courtney, yes that's true. But there is a vast difference between the way men are "hurt" when they choose to rape a woman and the way a woman is hurt when they become victims of rape.

I think Courtney has written an excellent piece and I agree completely that the effects of abstinence-only zealotry is much more deleterious than we realize. It's depressing but here's an upside:

See my post below on the Healthy Youth Alliance - working to ensure that comprehensive, science-based sexuality education becomes a reality for teens in Washington state.
Also, check out the blogosphere for more fabulous commentary on Courtney's article:

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=525

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_echidneofthesnakes_archive.html#116915596451277383

http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post_group/main/C3zy

http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1410

http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/2007/01/saying_yes_acce.html

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/17/because-those-bitches-is-crazy/

Healthy Youth Alliance: Swerving To Avoid Ignorance-based Sex Ed

My latest on RH Reality Check. The Healthy Youth Alliance released the results of a statewide survey of public schools on what (if anything) they are teaching to our teens when it comes to sex ed.

You can go to: www.healthyyouthalliance.org to see the report!

NBC show 'Scrubs' is my new hero

Last night, I fell upon the NBC show 'Scrubs' while channel surfing. I admit to having watched this show a few times - though not much - and mostly because I have a 38 year old-woman-with-two-kids crush on Zach Braff.

But last night the show's storyline centered primarily on character Carla Turk's (played by Judy Reyes) plunge into postpartum depression immediately following the birth of her baby.

I gotta tell you - it was gooood. As a woman who suffered (needlessly in my opinion) from postpartum depression after the birth of my most amazing first child, my son, it was incredible to see such a thoughtful and measured portrayal of PPD.

The storyline essentially followed Carla from the moment she came home with her beautiful baby - you know, the time when we mom's are supposed to be blissed out and beautiful, wallowing in o-so-natural mamahood?
Except she wasn't. She was a bawling, sad pile of mess. And her husband, to the writers' credit, was not clueless and stupid or neglectful and frustrated. He kicked it into high gear - he immediately encouraged her to get help, go see a doctor, and continually told her it was normal to have those feelings. When she protested it was just "the weepies", he assured her it seemed more like postpartum depression.

Ahhh, knowledgeable television. I know I seem overly excited about this. But here's the thing. Towards the middle of the show when she was really, really losing it and clearly could not cope, her husband and his colleague - himself with a wife that had suffered through PPD- conspired to get them together so that Carla could hear firsthand that PPD was not only normal but common - from another mother!!

Yea - 'Scrubs' - you did good. You depicted one mother, suffering terribly from PPD & a society that STILL will not ensure that mothers have the resources they need to be healthy mothers, receiving clear, intelligent advice from another mother - a woman who knew exactly what she was talking about, acted kind & supportive and made sure the suffering mama received the help she needed right away.

I know some folks will protest because the last scene portrayed Carla Turk in the blissed- out-on-baby-love stage because of the anti-depressant assistance she finally received. But, again, as a woman who suffered through PPD and also used anti-depressants to get through that stage, I say GO FOR IT. Anything that will make that stage easier, make the mama feel better, help the woman to be able to truly enjoy those first few months of the most mindblowing, outrageous, difficult and heart-bursting time you will ever experience is fine by me.

Here is a blog devoted to gettin' the word out about PPD:
http://postpartumprogress.typepad.com/weblog/

Life Support for Feminist Healthcare? Parts I and II

Check out my articles on the future of the feminist women's health movement & the centers , like Aradia, it helped spawn.

A huge thank you to Feministing.com, Shakespeare's Sister, and Our Bodies, Ourselves for picking them up!


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/01/02/life-support-for-feminist-health-care

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/01/09/life-support-for-feminist-health-care-part-ii

WWJD on Political Cortex & Alternet

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/12/5/10591/1329

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/45176/


My latest RH Reality post is part of a "top-rated submission" on Political Cortex - a democractically operated political magazine-type web site (that's a long explanation). Check it out!

What Would Jesus Do About The Christian Coalition?

The Christian Coalition has proven to me once again that their freaky fixation on women's bodies and what we do with them goes beyond simple morality- mania. It extends to a genuine fear of women's bodies and the power we have to do nothing less than destroy the world with them. Why else would they continue to fight against any attempts to re-adjust their focus away from reproductive rights and towards the truly scary issues of poverty, global warming and HIV/AIDS? Clearly, women’s bodies are dangerous to these people.

So, is it any surprise that on Tuesday, November 28th The Christian Coalition voted to accept President-elect Reverend Joel C. Hunter’s resignation before he started because he wanted to expand their core issues beyond the confines of an anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality agenda?

But without an obsessive focus on reproductive rights, how would The Christian Coalition protect against feminists-gone-wild rampages where we gratuitously leave our partners, kill our children and become lesbians ?! The key to ensuring a harmonious bible-based society is keeping tight reins on a woman’s ability to control her own body.

However, citing “philosophical differences” , Reverend Hunter (author of the tellingly titled "Right Wing, Wrong Bird: Why the Tactics of the Religious Right Won't Fly With Most Conservative Christians") chose to step down before he was scheduled to take over the leadership of this odious organization on January 1st.


Full Story on Reproductive Health Reality Check

A Guttmacher Gift

Hi folks!

Here is my very first post (entitled A Guttmacher Gift) for Reproductive Health Reality Check - a new-ish web site that focuses on - you guessed it - reproductive health public policy and analysis.

It's a GREAT site filled with fantastic information. What I like best is that it features those of us in the field, working on the ground. So you get a million different perspectives on what's up in the world of reproductive rights and health depending on where we work, where we live, what populations we work with, and what kinds of programs and services our organizations provide.

I'll be writing one post each week so PLEASE, if you have ideas, send 'em my way! And be sure to read and comment on my posts so I know what you're thinking.

Happy Holidays...

Campaign to Partition Women's Bodies

Posted on Alternet.org

I'm thinking that instead of legislating what women can and cannot do with their own bodies in this country, we should propose a law that partition's women's bodies into sections much like what we seem to be doing with Iraqi land.

Therefore, we can enact one law that lords over a woman's uterus related to all things reproductive: pregnancy, abortion, childbirth. A woman' s uterus may be used to grow and house the pre-born but may not be emptied of its contents via an abortion.

We can then legislate women's breasts allowing for the bearing of boobs on billboards, in strip clubs and in television & print advertising - that is, for purposes solely related to ogling and superficial sexuality.

Public breastfeeding is OUT under those legal tenets. We all know how repulsive breastfeeding is, right?

According to Delta Airlines, breastfeeding your baby on an airplane is tantamount to public drunkenness and will get you thrown off a flight. On October 13th, as a Delta flight was preparing to take off from Burlington, Vermont, a 27 year-old mother, seated in the second to last row in a window seat, preceded to breastfeed her 22 month old child.

A flight attendant asked her to "cover up" and offered her a blanket - which the mother declined. The flight attendant, apparently up-in-arms over this blasphemy, called to a Delta ticket agent to remove the family (!) from the plane. The young mother, feeling extremely embarrassed at that moment, complied.

MSNBC quotes the mother as saying, "It embarrassed me. That was my first reaction, which is a weird reaction for doing something so good for a child."

I'd say so. The CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services both promote breastfeeding as a tremendous health benefit for the baby as well as, in some instances, for the mother (it has been reported that breastfeeding reduces a woman's risk of breast cancer later in life).

In fact, the CDC is committed to increasing breastfeeding rates throughout the United States. Delta Airlines needs to step up to the plate and institute a company-wide policy that directly addresses public breastfeeding as permissible as well as ensure that their employees are up to snuff with their cultural competency skills.

According to MomsRising.org, a new advocacy web site started by Joan Blades from Moveon.org and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner (author of The Motherhood Manifesto) this mother was publicly humiliated for doing what doctors, and even large government agencies advocate. They've got a petition going to Delta Airlines to encourage support of breastfeeding mothers.

They are also lobbying to get Congress to pass an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 called the Breastfeeding Promotion Act. Not sure what that is but it's worth some research...

New Congress, Old Abortion Fight

We've got twenty additional advocates for reproductive rights in Congress as a result of the election. The South Dakota abortion ban was overturned by voters in that state. Oregon failed to pass an initiative that would have required parental consent for minors before obtaining an abortion.

These are all reasons to celebrate. To be sure, they are victories and I'd like to feel encouraged by them - at least for a few moments - before ruminating on the reproductive rights challenges we are still faced with each and every day.

One of those challenges comes in the form of a federal abortion ban (what pre-lifers have termed the "Partial Birth Abortion ban") currently being heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have written about the term "partial birth abortion" for Alternet.org in reference to its creation by pro-life advocates who strategically named a non-existent procedure for political purposes and then preceded to artfully frame the issue through this meaningless term.

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing in once again on whether or not to overturn legislation passed by Congress in 2003 outlawing "partial birth abortion." And this time we've got Justices Alito and Roberts to contend with. Lawyers for the Bush administration faced off against legal advocates for reproductive freedom in front of the justices (Justice Clarence Thomas was out ill) and were grilled specifically about what the procedure entailed.

This is where, for me, it gets sticky (if I say "no pun intended" is that gross?). In reference to the specific procedure outlined in the law, Justice Roberts asked: "We have no evidence in the record as to how often this situation arises?" To which Priscilla Smith, arguing to strike down the federal ban, replied, "No, we don't your honor."

To which I say: if we are discussing a particular procedure, a D&X, that is done only in third trimester abortions and only when the woman's health or life is in danger and only, obviously, under a doctor's supervision and suggestion, then why are we questioning how often "this situation arises"? Why do we care? But, if we are discussing the law the way it is written then I say: we have no evidence as to how often "this situation" arises because the law does not refer to ONE situation but in fact can be interpreted as referring to both second and third trimester abortions.

This piece of legislation has been deceptive from the moment it was crafted. And during arguments in front of the SCOTUS over the last two days, the procedure to which the pro-life backers refer to as "partial birth abortion" but which in reality is a D&X, has been called gruesome and inhumane. Justice Ginsberg has repeatedly questioned the criteria for legislation against a particular procedure based solely on the fact that it is "gruesome" or "disgusting."

A D&X is a medical procedure that is undergone only at a doctor's discretion because it is the safest procedure available for the woman in question. It is undergone but only a few thousand women every year out of more than 1.25 million abortions (90% of abortions occur in the first trimester).

The federal law has been struck down six separate times by courts across the country because of its over-reaching impact on all abortions infringing on a woman's right to access abortion under Roe v. Wade. If history is any indication, this piece of legislation will finally take its resting place in the graveyard of U.S. law. In 2000, a similar piece of legislation in Nebraska was struck down for its lack of an exception for a woman's health.

This Supreme Court battle is not our only fight for reproductive freedom on the horizon. The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1977 prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions, has been squeezing out low-income women from their constitutional right to access abortion for thirty years and has recently been thrown into the ring again by a coalition of reproductive rights and health organizations and advocates.

The "Hyde - 30 Years is Enough" campaign started by NNAF (the National Network of Abortion Funds) highlights the need for overturning this amendment enacted not long after Roe v. Wade was decided. In particular, this campaign calls for culturally competent family planning services and abortion access for low-income women.

32 states ban state Medicaid to pay for abortion. They are legally obligated to provide coverage in the cases of life endangerment, rape and incest but more often than not fail to do so. One state provides coverage only in cases of life endangerment and 17 states provide state Medicaid coverage for poor women in almost all cases; proudly Washington state is one of those states.

This is an issue that the mainstream pro-choice movement has swept under the rug for a long time because of who the law affects - poor women seeking abortions. But the time is now to use this amendment as a springboard for addressing the inherent cultural, socio-economic and racist biases inherent in the reproductive freedom movement. If we cannot ensure that low-income women are able to access their constitution right to safe abortion care, then legal abortion is not a reality for a large percentage of the women in this country.

More later on the Hyde Amendment. For now, let's unify around these crucial reproductive freedom issues, ride this wave of victory and strategize about how we can use our new congress for bigger and better things!

Election karma

So, there were some significant wins for Democrats last night. I wonder how this will translate into real benefit for real people. I was watching Brian Williams on NBC this morning. He asked, "What will these election results mean for Democrats and Republicans? What will these results mean for President Bush and his administration?"

I felt strangely left out. What should be on the top of our minds is: what will these election results mean for Americans?

I am heartened and encouraged that we now have the first female speaker of the house in Nancy Pelosi. This is the highest office a woman has attained in the United States government. Should Bush and Cheney meet with an, uh, "untimely" end Nancy Pelosi would lead this country. It's somewhat of a comfort.

And, the South Dakota abortion ban has been rejected by voters in that state as wholly unwanted. However, it's been rejected on the basis of the law being too far-reaching. The law could simply be reworked to include an exception for a woman's life (imagine that) and regain its legal status.

It's not that I'm not thrilled. As of today, Wednesday, November 8th at 12:50PM PST, here are the results of the three primary restrictive state ballot initiatives direct from Beverly Whipple, ED of the Feminist Women's Health Centers in Washington state:

California Proposition 85: Parental Notification 54% NO 46% yes/ 94% of precincts

Oregon Measure 43: Parental Notification 54% NO 46% yes/ 66% of precincts reporting

South Dakota Referendum 6: Ban on Abortion (Yes is vote to overturn ban) 52% yes 48% no / 99% of precincts reporting

and the resounding defeat of Attorney General Kline in Kansas - PRICELESS!

Fight the South Dakota Abortion Ban --

in South Dakota. Can you get away for the next 6 days on a moment's notice? I just got this email from a listserv I'm on:

You can take action live, in person, in South Dakota – at no expense to yourself!

On November 7th, voters in South Dakota will be voting to either uphold or overturn that state’s recently passed abortion ban (Referred Law 6). We just learned that the ACLU will cover expenses to get more volunteers to South Dakota to work to defeat the ban. Please consider lending a hand over the next 6 days to this important cause. If you cannot go yourself (and even if you can) please pass this message along to your friends, families, and other interested parties. We must ensure that South Dakotans don’t lose their right to choose! Contact is treagan@aclu.org to get involved (ACLU can cover housing if necessary).

If you have the time to spare, NOW is the time to act. In a few days it may be too late. We are in do-or-die mode and if this abortion ban passes, South Dakota will be second only to Nicaragua in its oppressive and virulently anti-family policy.

If I didn't have two young children to care for I would head down. It's not the kind of activism I'm able to engage in at the moment but if you can, GO!

Ew.

Tesco condemned for selling pole-dancing toy.

Okay, this is straight from the UK. But, ew.

Apparently the woman in the photo above was searching for Christmas gifts for her daughters (ages 10 & 11) online when she came across a pole-dancing kit in the toys and games section of the British company Tesco's web site. The "toy" or "game" (depending on how you use it I suppose?) is called "Peekaboo Pole." Here's a portion of the marketing copy from the web site:

"Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars". (emphasis is mine!)

Clearly Tesco, the company that sells this product, feels it's appropriate to groom girls for glamorous careers as exotic dancers in strip clubs. It seems they'd actually like to be part of the educational process - teaching them how to pole-dance while they're young.

The Tesco web site entices potential buyers of the Peekaboo Pole to "unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!" However, the company denies that the pole is "sexually oriented" and have agreed to move it from the "Toys and Games" section instead being sold under "Fitness."

Tesco also features another "fitness accessory" presumably geared towards men (?) called Peekaboo Poker featuring a young woman in her underwear hawking the idea for "outrageous fun." The box is clear in its directive: "You set the limit." Somehow that's not much of an assurance to me.

I'm not sure why our society feels that young girls need, want, should be subjected to "toys" that purely objectify them at an incredibly young age. I am incredibly frustrated that it is now acceptable to sexualize girls, young girls, in the name of "entertainment."

My daughter brought home a Bratz doll the other day - a gift from a friend. It's unclear how my daughter was supposed to play with her. The doll was huge - half the size of my four-year old daughter and had a fully developed body and an ambiguously ethnic face with loads of make-up and a head full of wild, auburn hair. She was wearing a long, fur-like coat and looked, well, she looked straight out of a porno film.

How again is my four year old supposed to play with her? What kinds of games, stories, pretend play is she being encouraged to engage in with this oversized porn star doll?!

"Look at me Mommy, my bratz doll is pole-dancing with my brand new Peekaboo Pole-Dancing kit! Someday I'm going to pole-dance in my fur coat too!!"