Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Perilous Position of Choice- news & updates
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
humanist77
This is text from one of the emails sent to me from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and someone leading an online petition, which already has over 22,000 signatures-let's keep it going! I got the first two almost a month ago, I should've posted this back then! Everyone sign all 3 at the bottom, and spread the word!

"President Bush's new head of federal family-planning programs
believes that birth control is "demeaning" to women.

Did you have to read that twice? So did we.

Late last week, after pledging to bring the country together
after his electoral losses, President Bush appointed Eric
Keroack to lead the Department of Health and Human Services'
family-planning program - which helps more than five million
people annually at 4,600 clinics nationwide.

Keroack has dedicated his career to telling women that birth
control and abortion are wrong. He most recently was the medical
director for A Woman's Concern, a network of six anti-choice
"crisis pregnancy centers" in Massachusetts that maintains a
policy that states: "the crass commercialization and
distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading
of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness."

Putting a doctor who opposes birth control in charge of federal
family-planning programs is just plain irresponsible."


Help us block Keroack from assuming this influential position.
Click here:

(The Petition Site)
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...;ltl=1165863415

(NARAL)
http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/hhs_fa...edS1%5fRM1QYX7E

(Planned Parenthood)
http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/keroackpe...Wp%5fH66F1CSnCE
roseviolet
Thank you so much for posting this, Humanist! The appointment of this man is absolutely ridiculous.
humanist77
I was just reminded of it today when I got another email about it-we cannot let this happen!

Here are two more items-a Boston Globe article, and literature from one of Keroack's crisis pregnancy centers:

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/hhs_fa...106/explanation
ginger_kitty
That man's views are disturbing to me! Thanks for posting those links, humanist77. I don't understand how he considers bc "demeaning" ? I considering having it available as empowering to women. The Women's Concern's policy was absurd.
nickclick
today, the 33rd anniversary of roe v. wade decision, is a good day to resurrect this thread!

today's ny times cover story about anti-choice rhetoric posing as post-abortion counseling. (lengthy but worth reading, i think)

a woman "counsels" (she does not have a psych degree, only a "a revelation from god" as her credentials) women in prison who had abortions into forgiving themselves and imagining their "dead babies" in heaven.

yes, let's encourage women with unresolved emotional issues, rap sheets and likely drug-addictions to be mothers! save the children!

tesao
thank you nickclick! i came in to say happy anniversary, roe v. wade!!!

that was an interesting, provoking and somewhat scary article. brrrrrrrr!

i've been around long enough to have been of an age where i could have gotten pregnant and NOT have been able to get a legal abortion in the USA. i worry sometimes that people who haven't seen the damage (physical, emotional, psychological) back alley abortion clinics can do don't understand just how much of a landmark decision roe v. wade WAS. i worry a lot about winding up with a supreme court that will recognize a fetus as an individual human, thus bestowing upon it all of the rights that already belong to the mother and are the basis of the decision.


lucizoe
The thing I cannot wrap my head around about the whole brouhaha re-abortion debate...no one can legally force another person to donate blood, organs, bone marrow, even when such a donation could mean the difference between life and death for another, even one's own child. Parents cannot be legally made to give up their organs to keep their child alive. So why in the freaking hell is it even an issue when women decide they don't want to give up nutrients, bone mass, mental health, etc., for a zygote, embryo, or fetus? Especially if dog forbid a fetus ever becomes legally classified as a person. How is it different? I really want a forced-birther to tell me.

Oh. Wait. Because pregnant women have to have teh babies as a punishment for teh dirty sex.

I totally forgot that.
maddy29
yah, what were you thinking lucizoe? women must be held responsible for having sex. they must accept the consequences of their actions. if they are irresponsible, well then, i'm sure being forced to have a baby will make them much more responsible.

grr.

i'm pretty nervous about where all this is going. i do think that a lot of people are so uncomfortable with the whole idea of abortion, and they really truly believe it's taking a life. i don't think those people are going to change their minds anytime soon.

tes, i think you are absolutely right-for those of us who've always had access to safe legal abortions it's hard to imagine living in a world where that isn't available. it's scary, i know several women who've had abortions, and when i think that they could all be dead from having back alley abortions, it's horrifying. i worry too about recognizing a fetus as a human-i mean that's already the case when someone kills a pregnant woman, right? it's considered two lives?
culturehandy
"In America we have a big drug problem, and we don't realize it's because of abortion".


Uh, what the fuck is that? I. Am. Speechless.

What I find infuriating is that people seem to think that if abortion were again to become illegal, that it would stop. All it will do is force abortion underground, and make back alley abortion prevalent again. Simply saying that something isn't illegal isn't going to make it stop. What will happen is that more and more women will have enormous complications and will die because they cannot access this service, I wonder how the anti-choice zealots will feel with that blood on their hands. Then again, it seems that they don't care about the women, they only care about the fetus. (My question is if the anti-choicers are so into this, why are there so many children waiting to be adopted. I guess they conly care about them while in utero).
maddy29
oh yes culturehandy-they only care about the fetus, not about the actual life of the children. the same people who are urging women to have babies are the ones who also cut welfare programs and other types of support for moms.....
culturehandy
I know. I work for social assistance in the provice I live in, and granted things are okay here, they are still a disgusting mess.

I recall when I was in university, there was the Genocide Awareness Project on campus, and I wa arguing with these people about why there were all these children waiting to be adopted, and why can't we educate youth on birth control, there were never any answers. Then a man tried to tell me, I just told him to shut up, because he didn't have a uterus or vagina, he had no idea.

Every single time I read something, i think that it cannot get any worse. Then someone says something worse.
ginger_kitty
culture, that quote is crazy!!!

I was looking for this thread the other day.....I found out my state, Indiana is close to passing a law that before a women can get an abortion she has to talk to a doctor who must tell her that the fetus can feel pain. I think that's kind of cruel to put women through.

Okay three cheers for Roe Vs Wade!!!!
nickclick
hip hip hooray!
hip hip hooray!
hip hip hooray!
nickclick
oops. sorry for the double post. ginger, that story reminds me of this case bouncing around the courts here in NJ:

N.J. Supreme Court To Hear Appeal Of Ruling That Jury Can Consider Whether Physician Being Sued Gave Adequate Information About Abortion

"Appellate Court Judge Ariel Rodriques, writing for the three-judge panel, added, "Obviously, the term 'baby' meant something different to Acuna and Turkish. For her, it meant an embryo or fetus; for the doctor, a human being following birth. Arguably, from Turkish's perspective, he answered correctly and discharged his duty to his patient by indicating there was no 'baby' there."
vesicapisces
QUOTE(ginger_kitty @ Jan 22 2007, 03:49 PM) *

...must tell her that the fetus can feel pain.


And they have medical studies to back this up? I don't think so. I just love it when the state defines medical information, and WRONG.

Last night I went to our local Freedom of Choice coalition's annual Roe event - dinner at one of those banquet hall places, with a speaker who spent time last fall organizing in South Dakota to overturn their abortion ban. It was nice, and my organization had nearly 3 full tables of people in attendance. This is the second year administration has opened it up to all staff and paid their way.
humanist77
At least in the first trimester, the fetus hasn't even developed a nervous system yet-it *can't* feel pain!

My friend thought of another way to stumble and piss off anti-choice nuts: ask them what they would do if a fertility clinic was on fire-would they save the doctors/nurses/office workers, or would they save the embryos in the lab?
ginger_kitty
nickclick, what an interesting story. Tough situation.

humanist77, vesicapisces, exactly my point! It's just a scare tactic to freak women out. I sent e-mail to a couple Indiana lawmakers, noting my disgust and disapproval, but it will probably fall on deaf ears. Indiana is notoriously conservative. There is already a waiting period and madatory counciling required before a woman can get an abortion, which I feel is enough. But having to speak to a doctor who's going to lie to you seriously irks me. I haven't heard if it's passed yet.
culturehandy
Today's Globe And Mail reports;

Imprisoned anti-abortion extremist James Kopp was convicted yesterday of of violating the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by shooting and killing an abortion provider in 1998.
The jury also convicted him on a weapons count. He could face life in prison without parole.
Mr. Kopp, 52, is suspected in the non-fatal shootings of three Canadian doctors in the Hamilton, Winnipeg, and Vancouver areas, as well as one in Rochester.
vesicapisces
And mandating what the doctor has to say - can you imagine any reasonable doctor putting up with that? What are they going to do, put recording equipment in the consult room to make sure the doc says the right words?

OK, on a slightly different tack, I present to you a direct quote from the President's speech the other night:

"In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are not made by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

George W. Bush
State of the Union
January, 2007

Now, he was talking about insurance companies getting involved in care decisions, but hmmmm... doesn't that also apply to, oh, a woman's right to decide how to handle a pregnancy? Or which kind of abortion she needs to have?
go_kayte
Have any of you read "Freakonomics"? It's a good book, I forget who it's by. One chapter is about (I'm sure I don't have all the facts right here so bear with me) in the Ukraine, maybe in the 70's the ruler outlawed abortion. Two decades later, there was a humongous surge in violent crimes and drug addiction, guess what? among those around 20 years old. I know it sounds callous, but that's what this guy does, he just looks at data and draws conclusions. It's a good read. Some interesting facts about the "no child left behind" repercussions as well.

So anyway, the author looked at what happened after Roe v. Wade, and 20 years later the crime rate was dropping quickly, but sociologists had predicted a massive rise in crime (based on the pre-Roe v. Wade rates).

I know I'm bad at explaining this and it probably didn't make any sense, but it's explained in freakonomics if you ever feel like reading it.
moddivorce
QUOTE(go_kayte @ Jan 27 2007, 08:26 AM) *

Have any of you read "Freakonomics"? It's a good book, I forget who it's by. One chapter is about (I'm sure I don't have all the facts right here so bear with me) in the Ukraine, maybe in the 70's the ruler outlawed abortion. Two decades later, there was a humongous surge in violent crimes and drug addiction, guess what? among those around 20 years old. I know it sounds callous, but that's what this guy does, he just looks at data and draws conclusions. It's a good read. Some interesting facts about the "no child left behind" repercussions as well.

So anyway, the author looked at what happened after Roe v. Wade, and 20 years later the crime rate was dropping quickly, but sociologists had predicted a massive rise in crime (based on the pre-Roe v. Wade rates).

I know I'm bad at explaining this and it probably didn't make any sense, but it's explained in freakonomics if you ever feel like reading it.


Thanks for that. We have Freakonomics collecting dust in our house - I never really had an interest in reading it until now - after reading your comments.
ht.
www.moddivorce.com

QUOTE(vesicapisces @ Jan 26 2007, 02:28 PM) *

And mandating what the doctor has to say - can you imagine any reasonable doctor putting up with that? What are they going to do, put recording equipment in the consult room to make sure the doc says the right words?

OK, on a slightly different tack, I present to you a direct quote from the President's speech the other night:

"In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are not made by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

George W. Bush
State of the Union
January, 2007

Now, he was talking about insurance companies getting involved in care decisions, but hmmmm... doesn't that also apply to, oh, a woman's right to decide how to handle a pregnancy? Or which kind of abortion she needs to have?


I think they call the recording equipment "a nurse with a selective memory."
Right on with Bush's contradiction! - How many days left in office? (ugh)


QUOTE(culturehandy @ Jan 26 2007, 01:09 PM) *

Today's Globe And Mail reports;

Imprisoned anti-abortion extremist James Kopp was convicted yesterday of of violating the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by shooting and killing an abortion provider in 1998.
The jury also convicted him on a weapons count. He could face life in prison without parole.
Mr. Kopp, 52, is suspected in the non-fatal shootings of three Canadian doctors in the Hamilton, Winnipeg, and Vancouver areas, as well as one in Rochester.


Isn't he the man who did it in broad daylight then admitted in court, on the stand that he did it and he'd do it again if given the opportunity?
Life? Isn't he a prime candidate for death? mad.gif
ht
www.moddivorce.com

QUOTE(humanist77 @ Jan 24 2007, 06:41 AM) *

At least in the first trimester, the fetus hasn't even developed a nervous system yet-it *can't* feel pain!

My friend thought of another way to stumble and piss off anti-choice nuts: ask them what they would do if a fertility clinic was on fire-would they save the doctors/nurses/office workers, or would they save the embryos in the lab?


EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!
crazyoldcatlady
vesica, they said the same thing about that part of the SotUA on feministing. gah!

i heart that site.

anarch
ask them what they would do if a fertility clinic was on fire-would they save the doctors/nurses/office workers, or would they save the embryos in the lab?

drive-by posting - interesting discussion of this question here
humanist77
Thanks for the link, anarch. I was under the impression that my friend thought of the question himself-perhaps he did coincidentally, but I doubt it. I am definitely enjoying seeing how people respond to that question.

OT~the kitty in your avatar looks very much like one of mine-face and eyes and color-even the white spot : )
anarch
No kidding they look alike! They could be siblings. Your Silvie isn't from Connecticut by any chance is she? We got Wriggly from a friend in Connecticut. He and his family were living feral under somebody's porch.
aviatrix
no. not really.
hoosierman78
I don't know if any busties live in tennessee, but if you do, you may want to contact your state senator/rep to make sure they don't let this piece of garbage pass.

Seems Rep. Stacey Campfield wants to make it law that aborted fetuses be issued death certificates. The state currently keeps records on how many abortions are performed in TN, but does not track the names of women who have the abortions. This would create a public record to identify any woman that had an abortion in TN.

If this passes and somehow survives the ensuing court battle, it's only a matter of time before other states follow suit, making it even more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.
faerietails
I was just on my way here to post that, hoosierman78! That is such a screwed up law.
culturehandy
Oh my.
maddy29
another woman at walmart denied plan B-the pharmacist LAUGHED at her and told her no one would fill it for her. GAH! fucking AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. sometimes i hate the world. they fucking laughed at her. grrrr. go to naral to send walmart a letter-they have a pre-written one.

why do men want to control us? why do they hate us soooo much? (not all ,but a lot). it makes me violent and sad at the same time.
girltrouble
.
girltrouble
euphrates is back for another boring encore.

he's a basic run-of-the-mill, generic anti-choice xtian who likes to post graphic fake photos.

rose violet was kind enough to post a little how-to on changing your ignore settings it goes something like this:

QUOTE
The Ignore Feature is a lovely little tool. When you put a member on ignore, you never ever have to look at another one of their posts. No words, no pictures, no nothing. It's a beautiful thing! There are two ways to impliment the Ignore feature. You'll have to be logged in to use either method

Method #1: This will allow you to put a person on Ignore without ever having to find one of the person's posts! Yay!
1. Click on My Controls (it's up there on the right).
2. On the new screen, scroll down until you see the "Options" section on the left side of the screen. Find the link that says Manage Ignored Users. Click on that.
3. On the new screen, scroll down until you see the section called "Add new users to your list". In one of the boxes, type in the name of the member you would like to ignore (example: Euphrates).
4. Click on the Update Ignored Users button.
That's it! You never need be bothered by that individual again.


Method #2: In order to use this method, you have to find a post made by the offending member. However, there's no typing involved, so some people find it easier.
We'll use Euphrates' post below as an easy example.
1. See on the left there were it says the name "Euphrates"? Click on that.
2. The screen will then display the profile for Euphrates. Just to the right of Euphrates' name on the profile, you'll see the words "Profile Options". Click on that.
3. A little drop-down menu will appear. In that menu, click on "Ignore User".
4. The screen you see next will display everyone you have placed on your Ignore list. Euphrates should now be listed under "Add new members to your ignore list". Towards the botom of the page, you'll see a lovely button that says "Update Ignored Users". Click on that.
And that's it! The pesky poster is ignored! Hooray!



























faerietails
Mmmhmm, yeah. okay then.
snafooey
Cross-posted with Sufferin' Suffragettes:

McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned
culturehandy
I used to have an ounce of respect for the man. Farq.
aviatrix
it's amazing to me how many politicians are so ready to sell out their beliefs to curry favor with their party's base. that's what's wrong with a two party system. funny thing is nearly all of the republican candidates have gone on record as being ok with roe v. wade.
faerietails
Ugh. And they called Kerry a flip-flopper. Doesn't surprise me, though. He couldn't get what he wanted during the last election on his stupid "patriotic" platform, so now he's a courtin' the crazies instead. *eyeroll*
ginger_kitty
McCain has been really disappointing lately, he really seems to just be saying what he thinks people want to hear.

I was really annoyed last week when Giuliani tip toed around his stance on abortion, claiming he was pro-choice, but adding he didn't believe in abortion and so on.

My idea canidate would step up and proudly proclaim that they were Pro-choice, and would only let Roevs.Wade get overturned over thier dead body. I guess in our super conservative/christian country that is too much to ask?
humanist77
I think McCain has MPD or something..he jumps back and forth from one end of the spectrum to the other everytime I hear anything about him..it's fine to be independent, and not categorize yourself with any particular political party, but one second he's calling himself a "republican" and the next, a "democrat" and sometimes he's neither. He just wants everyone to wuv him, I guess..what a putz..
hoosierman78
QUOTE(humanist77 @ Feb 21 2007, 07:09 AM) *

He just wants everyone to wuv him, I guess..what a putz..


The sad part about that statement, is the fact that this approach tends to work better than having an actual backbone.
nickclick
QUOTE(humanist77 @ Feb 21 2007, 02:09 AM) *

I think McCain has MPD or something..he jumps back and forth from one end of the spectrum to the other everytime I hear anything about him..it's fine to be independent, and not categorize yourself with any particular political party, but one second he's calling himself a "republican" and the next, a "democrat" and sometimes he's neither. He just wants everyone to wuv him, I guess..what a putz..

uh oh..... he's flip-flopping!
tommynomad
I lost respect for McCain long before this. He's behind the bill that will destroy PBS and local-access broadcasting in favour of the big cable companies. Soooo antidemocratic.
lilacwine13
Wow, tommy, you just gave me another reason not to like him.

I hope whoever goes up against him in the Republican primary nails him for being a flip-flopper, or that the base he's pandering to is smart enough to reject him (I know it's a lot to ask, but one can always hope...).
ginger_kitty
Ewwww, the list of reasons to not like him is really growing.
culturehandy
I used to think that John McCain was okay for a republican, kind of a middle conservative (the moderate conservatives here in Canada, are, well, missing I suppose). But now I think McCain is a prat.
vesicapisces
Anyone who's on Planned Parenthood's email list may have already received this, but they're looking for people to go to certain pharmacies to try to get emergency contraception. Go to http://pillpatrol.saveroe.com/ to learn more.
notwearingwords
I recently attended a seminar held by my favorite professor and personal heroine, Linda J. Wharton, who worked for the Women's Law Project in Philadelphia which was the representation in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a landmark decision regarding abortion rights. I'll give a little background for those of you who don't know much about this case - the case was challenging restrictions on abortions like laws and statutes requiring that married women have the signed consent of their husbands before having abortions or establishing a mandatory waiting period, where women seeking abortions have to come in to a clinic for a counseling session 24 hours or more before coming back in for the procedures, etc. There are laws such as these in many states, but this case was challenging the constitutionality of those passed in PA. Opponents hoped to overturn Roe v. Wade, but instead, the Supreme Court established a standard which allows states to pass these laws as long as they don't impose or intend to impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions - they have been judged on a case-by-case basis by countless courts since the decision was handed down in 1992. Another case attempting to overturn Roe is being decided by the Supreme Court now, so my professor and her colleagues have collected and assembled data from state, appellate, and federal district courts to publish the first comprehensive study on the application of the undue burden standard and to point out the need for the Supreme Court not to overturn Roe in this new case, but to clarify the standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Some courts have interpreted nearly all restrictions as an undue burden while other, more conservative courts, have allowed extreme restrictions, finding that they are not unduly burdensome on women. The study is the culmination of all of this data and it will be published in the Yale Journal of Law, a huge accomplishment.
I thought some of the Busties here might be interested in reading this, and also in following the outcome when the Supreme Court hands down its decision on this new case - hopefully before our oldest justice decides to retire and tips the balance to the other side!
crazyoldcatlady
a good news thing: my state is in the process of repealing the parental notification law for abortions!
culturehandy
Time magazine just had a cover story about the secret abortion wars, and the so-called "supportive counselling" some places are performing.
vesicapisces
QUOTE(crazyoldcatlady @ Mar 8 2007, 07:53 PM) *

a good news thing: my state is in the process of repealing the parental notification law for abortions!



What state? And do you know why they're doing that?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.