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!!"

Today's Lesson: "Making the Womb A Safer Place to Live"

This Tuesday, October 24th, an anti-choice protest coordinated by an extremely religious, virulently anti-choice organization called Stand True Ministries, will not go on as planned at an elementary school in Livingston, MI.

Two families with children at Hutchins Elementary School were to organize the silent protest at the school as part of the ministries' 3rd annual Day of Silent Solidarity. Stand True coordinated protests will occur at two area high schools. But news travelled fast and parents at the elementary school took quick action to shut down the planned event.

However, a quick glance at the ministries' web site boasts a list of hundreds of participating schools (I saw only one additional elementary school) around the country and into Europe.

The instructions for hosting a "Day of Silent Solidarity" are straightforward. Register your event, inform people, wear red duct tape over your mouth with the word "life" written on it but last (and not the very bit least according to them) is to pray.

All in all, I say why not? Go for it. Have your day of silent solidarity. It's your right of course. However, it is most certainly our right to inform folks about what Stand True Ministries advocates for.

In a nutshell, "Making the womb a safer place to live." Started by a young guy who thought he was going to be the next big Christian rock star (who's the first big one?!), he was called to create this "ministry" when, according to him, he was hanging around an abortion clinic waiting room stuffing pro-life literature into magazines.

Let me stop here for a moment. I have worked at an abortion clinic for six years. I'm not sure what clinic this guy is referring to but I'd say they need to ramp up their security. If his story is true (and I'm inclined to believe it's not), he was allowed to hang around in the waiting room of an abortion clinic with no one noticing, while stuffing "pro-life literature" into the magazines?!

The second part of his story:

I walked over to the window at the reception area and someone opened a door behind the window. I saw a young girl laying on the table with her head turned to me and tears flowing down her eyes. There was a man reaching down between her legs and I suddenly realized how real this was. I was witnessing a child being killed in front of my eyes and a young girl being emotionally damaged.

So, the procedure rooms are right behind the reception area and if you happen to be standing at the reception area at the wrong time, you just might witness an abortion being performed?

I know this absurd tale of the ministries' founder seems a bit beside the point. However, it points to an inherent, well, absurdist quality to these kinds of organizations. They are founded on bizarre lies and serve only to promote lies. Which leads to another one of their claims, or more accurately, tag lines:

"Making the womb a safer place to live."

If making women's wombs safer is his goal, I'd like to start with some facts:

• Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures a woman can undergo. It is ten times safer than childbirth (the risk of death associated with childbirth is about ten times greater than that associated with legal abortion).
• Less than 1% of women who undergo abortions experience a major complication as a result of either an aspiration (surgical) or medication (pills) abortion.
  
• Abortion has no impact on one's future ability to get pregnant and carry that pregnancy to term.
  

There are most certainly risks associated with an abortion procedure (including incomplete abortions, perforation of the uterine wall and infection). But those risks are treatable and rare.

So, I guess the founder of Stand True Ministries, in his zest to make my and all of our wombs safer, will need to also ban sexual relations of any kind (even between married folks) that might lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy makes our wombs much more unsafe than abortion ever could. Pregnancy is a risky proposition for both baby and mother.

If you want to make our wombs a safer place to live, why not focus on ensuring health care access for all pregnant women in this country that want to be pregnant? And what about pregnancy in developing nations? The same pregnancy-related complications that affect women in developing countries (severe bleeding, obstructed or prolonged labor, infection or sepsis, pre-eclampsia) due in part to a severe lack of proper pre-natal medical care also threaten the babies lives. In fact, in less developed countries, of the estimated 8 million deaths each year that occur in utero or in the first week of life, the vast majority are associated wtih maternal health problems or poor obstetric care during childbirth.

So, please don't tell me that you care about making women's wombs safer. It's simply not why you're doing this.

Why are they doing "this"? Why are they rallying thousands of folks around the country to participate in their "Day of Silent Solidarity"? Their "Personhood Redefined" brochure gives me a clue. It starts out: "Three times in recent history personhood has been redefined and stripped away from a group of people. Their very rights as a human have been taken away by men who had no right to do so." Sound familiar? They are of course advocating for the rights of the fetus and do it with reference to three main "issues": The Dred Scott decision, The Holocaust and Roe vs. Wade.

In essence, Stand True Ministries believes that fetuses, Jews and African-Americans are legally one and the same.

The Stand True "Day of Silent Solidarity" protest that was planned at this elementary school in Michigan as well as at high schools, colleges, and universities around the country, are not about "standing true" at all. They are about screaming lies - even in their silence. The young people who are participating are being ministered to by an organization that preaches distortions from the pulpit in the name of truth and love.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are the Answer?!

Then what's the question?

Who received more than $60 million last year from our federal government and is receiving thousands more from Minnesota's state government to scare women and provide false and misleading information to women thinking about abortion?

Crisis Pregnancy Centers, that's who.

And now this:Finding Common Ground On The Abortion Divide

Does Minnesota want to prevent abortions, really? Because this is NOT the way to do it, I assure you. I am all for prioritizing low-income women in our federal and state public policies. I support giving mothers and mothers-to-be the assistance they need to provide for the children they have and the children they are expecting. However, I can tell you that there are other ways to do it. Giving Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) thousands of dollars under the guise of "preventing abortions" is a crisis itself.

CPCs don't "prevent abortion." CPCs use scare tactics and false information to force women to choose parenting or adoption. Forcing a woman to choose any option is wrong. The goal here is to provide women with information and resources so they can choose the best option for themselves and their families. So, I don't see how, as the title of this article suggests, we are finding "common ground on the abortion divide."

In recent weeks, I have been working with local pro-choice advocates including NARAL, fellow women's health centers and a nonprofit legal organization to tackle some extremely disturbing issues for women in our area seeking out free pregnancy testing and ending up at CPCs.

Reports from women in our area who have mistakenly or not wound up at a Crisis Pregnancy Center range from not being able to retain a record of their pregnancy test results, therefore unable to apply for medical coupons through the state to pay for an abortion (or simply for medical care), to being given an ultrasound with a mass circled on it of something outside her uterus and told that this was her baby. Stories from women also include being hounded via telephone by CPC staff wanting to make sure that they were not going to get an abortion; one woman talked of her experience of mistaking a Crisis Pregnancy Center that opened up shop in a mall, for the Planned Parenthood right next door.

Reportedly, this is a common practice for Crisis Pregnancy Centers, some of which are using this as a strategy for luring women away from abortion clinics.

I fully support a woman's right to access a range of information and services. But when these centers resort to trickery and deception under the guise of "helping women", it becomes unethical and even worse - harmful to the very women they say they are attemting to help.

To be clear, this is not simply a clash of pro-choice vs. pro-life perspectives. Crisis pregnancy centers provide information on adoption and parenting, as do abortion clinics. That can be crucial information for a woman who is weighing her options to receive. It is not even, to go one step further, that CPCs are blatantly anti-abortion. As long as they are open about that fact, they have every right to exist and offer assistance.

It is that crisis pregnancy centers are more often than not run by extremely religious outfits. We are talking about federally and state-funded religious organizations offering non-regulated medical care to women and providing these women with inaccurate and limited information so that they will not - and many times cannot - access abortion.

A man named Robert Pearson opened the first pregnancy center designed to be explicitly (what I call) pre-life. Pearson started a foundation and soon after created a manual called HOW TO START AND OPERATE YOUR OWN PROLIFE OUTREACH CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTER. According to an article in an Indiana newspaper earlier this year, "Until the mid-’90s, many CPCs were run according to the principles laid out in Pearson’s 1984 manual, which asserted that “A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby.” How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center advocated activities ranging from the use of misleading clinic names — “If the girl who would be going to the abortion chamber sees your office with a similar name, she will probably come into your center” — to withholding the results of a client’s pregnancy test (available in two to five minutes) and keeping the woman at the CPC for up to an hour in order to show her graphic anti-abortion videos.

“The mission of the CPC,” according to the current Central Indiana Crisis Pregnancy Center Web site, “is to affirm the value of life by providing a network of care to those experiencing pregnancy-related crisis and by compassionately presenting biblical truth resulting in changed lives to the glory of God.”

Men are Like Waffles, Women are Like Spaghetti

So, now we know CPCs are religious missions run by those who have little regard for the woman as a human being and with even less regard for her well-being. But a quick glance at one of the largest organizations running CPCs currently, Heartbeat International, tells an even deeper tale.

Heartbeat International would like to set up CPCs in every city in every state in this country. And they have a Pearson-like set of instructions for opening an "affiliate." The list of resources for potential affiliates includes a brochure on "Resting in God's Presence", how to discuss abortion and most telling: packets on what they deem "Sexual Integrity" which includes books with titles like "Men Are Like Waffles, Women Are Like Spaghetti", "Does Birth Control Cause Abortion?" and "Contraception, Why Not?" Their message includes clear instructions on remaining abstinent until marriage.

Ultimately, I would have little problem with Crisis Pregnancy Centers if they a) did not receive immense federal subsidies, b) use deceptive and misleading methods to "reach out" to and/or provide services for women and c) harass and intimidate women once in their care.

What to do about it? Carolyn Maloney, a Democratic Representative from New York, introduced a bill last year called Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women's Services Act. The bill is designed to legislate how Crisis Pregnancy Centers can advertise their services, specifically regulating the way they advertise their "abortion services." Although Maloney has said that she doubts the bill will go anywhere in a Congress saturated with Republicans inextricably tied to the religious conservatives, it is a start. Go to Rep. Maloney's web site for more information.

For more information on Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the National Abortion Federation has some excellent resources.

Young Poets

This is what has made my heart full today. How can you see the world as bad when there are young children writing poetry like this? It's from a local organization's, Powerful Schools, free poetry class. Powerful Schools provides free after school classes in a handful of schools down in South Seattle (where we live) where the kids are more "in need" of free programs like this. How lucky we are, truly.

I took off the kid's names for the sake of their privacy.


Vowels: A,E,I,O,U and Sometimes Y

A
The sound that
comes out and
makes an apple.

E
The shape of the
end of a rake.

I
The letter that
switches around and
makes an H.

O
The mouth of yours
which opens and shuts.

U
The symbol
of the smile
on your face
(or a frown that
makes you feel down.)

Y
The two fingers
you use
to make a
funny bunny’s
ears.

My Dog Sky

My little dog is named Sky. People
say he is shaky as a wire
but I don’t care. They say he isn’t
one speck of silver, but a speck
of dirt, but I don’t care. They
say if the sun was to come
today it would burn all the dirt
off him, but I say “good,” and
“I don’t care, he needed a bath anyway.”
They say if it snowed, he wouldn’t dare
to shiver because all the
dirt would keep him warm.
They say he is dark, is a
night time sky, but I don’t
care; they say he is crazy
just like the people on the
road trying to get through
traffic last Sunday. But
I don’t care because
I love my dog and
I always will.

"What's a feminist" follow-up!

Feminists for Life are still pushing the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Services Act of 2005.

Basically they want federal money to subsidize campus centers around the country that, under the guise of "providing services for pregnant and parenting students" actually give them incomplete information, espouse a pro-life perspective and get women to either parent or put their child up for adoption. This is what the Feminists for Life web site says about the topic of pregnancy on campus:

“Schools can talk about everything else in orientation, classes and the student newspaper—drinking, drugs, rohypnol, sexual assault, STDs, domestic violence and gay rights—but they never bring up pregnancy. When a woman doesn't see anyone else succeeding as a student parent, she assumes that the administration won't support her. Most often the clinic automatically refers her to an abortion clinic. There is a better way.”

Oh, it's a fantastic idea to include how easy and wonderful it can be to become a student parent at age 18. And, the last line says it all. Of course the ultimate purpose of these "centers" is to steer women away from abortion and be clear that they really have only two "choices" - parenting or adoption.