40 Years and We're Still Fighting for This?

Wow. Over a month (coming up on two actually) without a post on this blog.

To be honest, I got a little overwhelmed, feeling like I had to write about "Important Issues" on this blog. I often wanted to write but was afraid that my topics weren't feminist enough, and I found myself not writing at all, and feeling guilty for not keeping up the blog.

I decided to take a break and start a new blog, a blog where I could write about anything and everything, whenever I felt like it. And I really enjoy it. I don't feel restricted by a theme or topic. I think eventually, I may just merge this blog into the new one, since writing about feminism fits pretty easily under the "writing about anything and everything" umbrella. But I'm not ready to let this one go just yet. So here we go with the first post!

I was going to write about this piece, A Letter to the Guy Who Harassed Me Outside the Bar, because it's awesome. And you should absolutely read it. Everyone should read it. But then I found this: Fifteen Women (and a Few Men) on Aborting.

Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and abortion rights are still very much (maybe even more so?) in danger. In my home state, our governor and legislators are actively trying to shut down Mississippi's only abortion clinic. My Facebook feed today was full of women (women I'm so proud of, by the way) standing outside the clinic in Jackson with signs saying, "This clinic stays open!" and "You trust me with an assault rifle but not my own uterus?" Diane Derzis, the owner of our clinic in Jackson, said, "...while Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, it is totally inaccessible in Mississippi." (For more on this, check out this video from MSNBC.)

Photo courtesy of Cristen Hemmins, an amazing advocate
in Mississippi.

With abortion rights still very much in question, I think it's important for women (and men) to share their stories and experiences, and that's what this article does. The piece is full of short stories about all types of women who have all types of feelings about their abortions. Some women just didn't want to have children. Others felt they had no choice. This particular quote broke my heart, "I was made that there wasn't some kind of support system that would allow me to raise the child not in total poverty." (BTW, did anyone notice that in Obama's inaugural speech, when he mentioned a person in poverty, he specifically said she? Because he did. Because that's accurate. Women and children in poverty, often because of the lack of support for mothers in this country.)

What I love about this piece is that it's not full of emotional stories. Or, I should say, only emotional stories. One woman simply write about the difficulty of paying for the abortion. The point of the article is that abortions are complicated and the lives of the women who have them are complicated. There are lots of reasons to have an abortion. For lots of women, abortions are the right decision. And I think the best reasoning I've read in a long time for why abortion should remain a legal and viable choice for women to make for themselves came in story #9, written by a woman who had an early abortion and then had children later in life:

"Being pregnant is like having a parasite literally sucking the life out of you. You should be totally onboard."

Legitimate Rape vs... What?

I woke up yesterday to an e-mail informing me that Congressman Todd Akin (a Congressman I had not heard of until today) was on TV this weekend talking about abortion. When asked about exceptions for rape and incest, he said:

"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Thanks, Todd Akin! I was really afraid that rape could sometimes result in pregnancy, but now I realize that if I am legitimately raped, my body will wave a magic wand and make that unwanted fertilized egg poof! disappear.

Phrases like "legitimate rape" are so dangerous because they imply that there is another kind of rape: the illegitimate kind. I'm not sure what Akin thinks would classify as illegitimate rape, but I have a few guesses: a rape that occurred when a woman said yes to "hooking up" but then changed her mind; a rape that occurred when a woman drank too much and wasn't capable of making decisions; a rape that occurred when a woman went out to a bar in a tight or revealing outfit; a rape that was committed by someone the woman used to have sex with. Guess what Todd Akin? These situations are all rape. A sexual activity forced on someone who doesn't want it, whether through violence, coercion, drugs, etc., is rape. This is why we worked so hard to get the FBI to change their definition of rape, to get rid of the phrase "forcible rape." It just doesn't make sense (a sentiment echoed by President Obama).

Phrases like "legitimate rape" are dangerous because not only do they imply other kinds of rape, but they put doubt and blame on the victim's shoulders. It's just another way of bringing up questions like "Were you asking for it?" "What were you wearing?" "But you went to his apartment, right?" And now with Todd Akin saying that he understands this all from doctors (I'd like to know which doctors!), he could really have believing that their pregnant daughter can't have been raped, because otherwise her body would have performed the magical expulsion of the rape-egg. He's completely ignoring science and biology, and he's doing it in a dangerous way that could have real, terrible consequences for women.

Survivors of rape have so much shit to deal with; let's not add Todd Akin's idiotic understanding of the female body or the shame and blame he would impose on it.

The Abortion Issue, or, Why I Still Love Grey's Anatomy

I just finished watching last week's episode of Grey's Anatomy. And here is why I still love it:

Cristina had an abortion at the beginning of this season. She didn't want to have kids. She told her husband (a little late, but they did rush into their marriage in about 12 hours) that she didn't want kids. Meredith explained to Owen what it felt like to be the child of someone who doesn't want kids. And so Owen agreed to the abortion, and held his wife's hand through the procedure.

So that's it, right? The show took the feminist path, proclaimed all things wonderful in the land of choice, and we move on.

Nope.

Because even though I do think it was a bold, feminist move to show a character having an abortion, and having one because she chose to, not because of rape or a risky pregnancy, it would also do the show (and the real-life situation of abortion) a great injustice to move on without this having any effects.

In the past few episodes, Owen has begun voicing his problems with the abortion. He yelled at Cristina that she "killed" their baby. And in this latest episode, they are in couples' counseling. And this is where I think the show is really thriving. Cristina explains that not everyone wants kids, that some people just don't want kids, that she wasn't abused, she wasn't "mugged by a baby," she just doesn't want kids. And Owen keeps insisting that everyone wants kids, that she'll change her mind when it's too late and regret her decision. And, more importantly I think, he keeps asking her to at least see his side, to understand, which she can't do. Personally, I think she can't do it because seeing his side would mean the relationship has to end; they can't meet each other's needs anymore, and I think they know it but won't admit it. (Ahh! It's so stressful!) But she also can't see his side because she knows that, even with all the terrible after-effects, abortion was the right choice for her.

This is real life. Abortion, even when chosen, is not easy. Marriage and relationships are not easy. The decision to not have children can be a huge deal-breaker for a relationship (which is where I'm afraid Cristina and Owen are headed, but I haven't seen this week's episode yet; nobody say anything!). Cristina and Owen are two very real, well-developed characters who have very real and conflicted emotions about abortion, children and relationships.

This is what I wish people who see abortion in black and white would see. Pro-choice activists do not want women everywhere to have abortions. We want to reduce the abortion rate (alone with the infant mortality rate, the unintended pregnancy rate, and the teen pregnancy rate). But we also want to reduce the number of women who die from illegal and dangerous abortions. We want to reduce the number of unwanted children in this world. We want to reduce the number of women whose lives were completely derailed because of an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. We don't think abortion is easy. We don't think abortion is light-hearted. We don't think it's a spontaneous decision made in the blink of an eye.

We know that abortion is a difficult choice to make. We don't envy anyone making that choice.

But we also will not take that choice away. Because, for many women, it is ultimately the right choice.

To Mississippi Legislators: Represent Us!!!

Here's how the democratic system (supposedly) works. Every person in our country can't possibly voice their concerns to the government, so we elect people to do this for us. Our local, state and national government officials win their offices through elections. We the people vote for the candidate who best represents our interests and goals. The person with the majority of the vote, therefore, should represent the interests of the majority of the people.

This is NOT how this system is working, at least in Mississippi (and I'm guessing other places too). In November, Mississippi voters defeated the personhood amendment with 60% of the vote. 60% of Mississippians do not want personhood as a law. 60% of Mississippi voters do not think that personhood is the best way to reduce abortions, or unplanned pregnancies. 60% of Mississippians do not think that laws should get in between women, their doctors, and their personal decisions. 

Yet our representatives have introduced a personhood bill into the MS legislature, even with very vocal voting Mississippians screaming at the top of our lungs "This is not we want!! Represent OUR interests!" The problem here is that the majority of representatives are not representing our interests, they're representing their own. White, older, wealthy men are pushing their own agendas. And I have to say that I agree with my mother, who recently said: "I like men. I was married to a man. I would like to be married to another man in the right circumstances. But when it comes to pregnancy and abortion, I just don't think they have a right to open their mouths." I agree. I'm not usually a fan of separating the sexes, but when it comes to reproductive rights, health, and healthcare for women, I think women should be making the decisions. Because men don't get it. They can't. They can't get pregnant. They haven't lived in fear of getting pregnant at the wrong time. They haven't lived in fear of rape (most of them), or the added fear of pregnancy resulting from rape. They do not get it. And this is obvious when you look at the laws that they are trying to pass.

Of course, I'm not saying that men, in general, are the problem. There are female supporters of personhood too. But as this picture points out, men make up the majority of the pro-personhood, anti-abortion movement, and men make the majority of legislative decisions that deal with women and their health.

We need more women representing us in government. And we need everyone who represents us, male or female, to be tuned in to what their voters want. We need actual representation in government. 

To Mississippi legislators: Represent us!

Please sign this petition against the personhood bill in the MS legislature.

On a lighter note, campaigners from my own hometown of Oxford, MS made it into the latest issue of Ms. Magazine! Check out this picture!

This post is cross-posted on the blog Represent!

What's the Buzz? Tell Me What's A-Happenin'!

First of all, yes, that is a musical reference in the title of this post. No, Jesus Christ Superstar is not my favorite musical, but the song title was fitting. So here we go. I haven't posted in a while, and I feel like I've missed the chance to write about certain topics as they were still very current. So quick recap:

Obama reinforced his birth control coverage rule, making it clear that religious institutions are required to cover birth control for their employees with their insurance plans, regardless of their beliefs about birth control/contraception. As Laura Murphy said in defense of Obama's plan, “People are not being forced to adopt a new set of religious beliefs by this rule. They can practice their religion as they see fit, they can choose not to use birth control.” Thanks, Obama, for standing up for women everywhere!


The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure pulled funding from Planned Parenthood, supposedly because of a rule about funding institutions currently under investigation. After a huge outcry, the decision was reversed, and the VP Karen Handel has resigned. Jessica Valenti writes about the controversy, and the proof on online feminist activism making a difference, over at the Nation.


Prop 8, a California ban on same-sex marriage, has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The next step will likely be an appeal to the Supreme Court, but this is still a victory. 


OK, I promise a real post in the next day or two. Thanks for sticking with me! And if I missed any current events, let me know in the comments section.

Is There Such a Thing as a "Pro-Life" Feminist?

I just read an article, by Anne Summers, with the title "There is no such thing as a pro-life feminist". (For purposes of this post, "pro-life" will be used as the popular media uses it: to mean a person who is anti-abortion. I'm not a fan of this term [with the connotation of "pro-death" being its opposite], but this is how it is used in the article to which I am referring. Also, I should note that pro-life defines people who want all abortion to be illegal. Women who would never, ever have an abortion themselves, but don't want to take that option away from other women, would be defined as pro-choice.) I found this article through a link on Twitter, and I went to it out of anger. How dare the writer claim to determine who can or cannot be a feminist?! Even as someone who is very pro-choice, I was insulted for women everywhere who are pro-life and still encourage and rally for women's independence and economic freedom.

But, as I read the article, I found her argument compelling. Summers writes,

As far as I am concerned, feminism boils down to one fundamental principle and that is women's ability to be independent.

There are two fundamental preconditions to such independence: ability to support oneself financially and the right to control one's fertility. To achieve the first, women need the education and training to be able to undertake work that pays well. To guarantee the second, women need safe and effective contraception and the back-up of safe and affordable abortion. 

She compares two women: Tankard Reist, an anti-pornography self-proclaimed feminist, and Margaret Thatcher, who never identified as a feminist but Meryl Streep has stated that she was one "whether she likes it or not." She goes on to write,

Tankard Reist, on the other hand, rails against the abuse of women and girls' bodies through pornography but then sanctions the ultimate assault on a woman's body: requiring her to carry a child she has decided she cannot have.

I think this is definitely a compelling point. For people who are truly pro-life, they are also pro-forced -parenthood. Now, I'm not saying that "pro-life" supporters want to force everyone to have babies; of course not. But when abstinence-only education has failed (as it does), and birth control has failed, and condoms have failed, pro-life supporters want the baby to be born, no matter the circumstances. No matter the woman. 

So, I think I might agree with her, though I'm very reluctant to do so. I'm not railing against pro-life supporters; I believe in everyone's right to beliefs and opinions. And I don't like the idea of saying "You believe in women's independence, equal pay, equal treatment, but because you also believe in no abortions, you can't a feminist." That seems unfair. I don't think that feminism should be all or nothing. But I do think that a woman's ability to control her life and all aspects of it, to decide when she can or cannot have children, is essential to her independence. I'm very conflicted here.

So what do you think? Can you be a pro-life feminist? Is the ability to control one's fertility so essential to independence that you can't truly be a feminist without advocating for safe and legal abortion? 

The Right to Life: Why I'm Against Personhood in All Forms

Since Mississippi voters voted down the personhood amendment in November, politicians have decided on a second way to get this anti-woman legislation passed: the MS Legislature. Completely ignoring the opinion of the voters, two bills will most likely be introduced: one dealing with "humane treatment of human embryos" and one proposing to define "life at conception." From what I've been reading and hearing, these bills will be revamped versions of personhood, supposedly with adjustments made for the issues voters brought up (ectopic pregnancy treatment, contraception, IVF, etc.). And it's possible that these adjustments could sway some of those "I'm anti-abortion but this bill goes too far" people. And it was very easy, because the proposed personhood amendment was so vague, to keep the arguments in the "It just goes too far" realm (because, of course, it did). But I would like to point out why I'm against these measures no matter what.

I am pro choice.

I believe that legal abortions should stay legal. I believe that a teen rape survivor should be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I believe that an incest survivor should be allowed to make her own decision when finding herself pregnant in horrifying circumstances.

I also believe that a young woman in a sexual relationship should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I believe that a woman who doesn't want to have kids shouldn't be forced into parenthood, a lifetime commitment, because the condom broke, or she missed a pill, or the very determined sperm just got through anyway.  I believe that a woman who is not ready for children (financially, emotionally, physically) should be able to plan her life accordingly (and 66% of women who have abortions plan to have children later in life, when they are prepared). I believe that a woman who has children already, and cannot afford another, can make her own decision about what kind of family she can or cannot handle.

Now, the first step to all of the above circumstances (except for the rape and incest circumstances) is contraception. And, as I've written before, comprehensive sexual education and access to contraception and healthcare is a big part of this. But we all know that contraception can fail. In fact, according to the statistics of this site, half of all women getting abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant (and this site confirms this, putting the number at 54%). So even if these new bills don't affect birth control, they will still affect women's abilities to make their own decisions about their lives.

But let's look at some other statistics. The anti-abortion argument that bugs me the most is "women shouldn't be using abortion as just another form of birth control." This bothers me because it paints all women having abortions (and pro-choice supporters) as people indifferent to the lives of children. It paints them as uncaring, unfeeling killers.

The truth is, women are not using abortion as another form of birth control. As already mentioned, it is often a last resort when other contraception has failed. Also,
"If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%). Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high." (from Abortion Facts: Women Who Have Abortions)


No matter what else the bills do or do not address, I am still against them, because I believe that a woman's right to choose is essential to a woman's independence. If she can plan when to have children and when not to, if she can decide when to use contraception and when not to, then she can fully live her life. Women often make choices because they have unexpectedly become pregnant, or even because they fear they might become pregnant. And I'm not saying that fear will ever go away; it's something all women have to deal with at some point. But with the right to make decisions about her own body and her own life, women are freer to live, and plan, and enjoy their lives as they choose and desire.

That's the right I'm fighting for. The right to life.

Xtreme Politics: Republicans and the War on Women

The campaigns to find the Republican presidential candidate (or, as I like to refer to them, the Big Freak Show) have me a bit baffled. I realize that many Republicans have been waging a war on women, attacking reproductive health rights, health care, and more, but I'm suddenly very aware of how extreme all of these candidates' ideas really are. Look at the first paragraph of this article from Salon:

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Also according to Salon, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all signed the Personhood Pledge, which would ban all abortions as well as potentially restricting or banning many forms of birth control and IVF. (Mitt Romney said he would support this, even though he clearly didn't understand how birth control could be affected by it.) Yet, according to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, "Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method," and "Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a method." 

So even though a majority of women are using birth control, the majority of Republican candidates are in favor of restricting access to it, or banning it all together. Bachmann, Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all also supported stripping all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, most of which goes to family planning and providing contraception, not abortion. And I realize that for many people abortion is the argument, but come on! We know, and the candidates know, that their actions and the bills they support are much more far-reaching than that. 

It breaks my heart that people get so caught up on something like abortion that they refuse to see the bigger picture. Think about my home state, Mississippi. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate; banning abortions will only increase this. Banning contraception will absolutely increase this. And, I have to go back to the slogan from the Personhood fight: "Republicans only care about you if you're a fetus." This may not apply to all Republicans, but it certainly seems to apply to all of the major candidates this year. Increasing health care for women and children? Of course not! They don't plan to take care of these children once they are living in independent bodies! They just want to keep women from having complete control over when, how, and if they have children. 

The personhood fight is not over. The war on women is not over. We have to stand up against these extreme candidates. It's interesting (read: sad) to me that Phil Bryant, a man who can compare over half of his state's voters to Nazis and Satan, a man who was in fact the co-chair of the Yes on 26 Campaign, can be elected governor in the same moments that personhood is soundly defeated. Now, I don't think that elections should be determined by one issue, or candidate's should be supported or opposed based on one issue. However, I do think that the war on women is an exception of sorts. For one thing, the war on women encompasses more than just a stance on personhood; it's a stance on healthcare, reproductive rights, insurance plans, life-saving treatments for pregnant women, and much more. 

But also, even if we lump all of this into one category, one "issue," it could (and will) decide my votes. These issues are too important and too far-reaching to ignore. We can not elect officials who refuse to stand up for women and allow them equal rights and equal control over their lives. We should not be voting down personhood while electing its most vocal supporter. 

Republicans like Phil Bryant and those running around in the Big Freak Show have taken a strong stance against women. 

Now, we need to take a strong stance against their extreme views that serve no one's best interests but their own.