Update: Injunction, Injunction...

Judge Jordan ruled today to extend the injunction, keeping the Jackson abortion clinic open for now. It's a small victory, but definitely a step in the right direction.

For more information, check out this article written by Emily Wagster Pettus, who was also live-tweeting during today's hearing. Also, check out this video from Rachel Maddow's show (skip to 6:45 to see the Mississippi portion).

Maddow points out something that I hadn't noticed before but is so important to this whole debate. While the legislators of Mississippi have not been shy about saying that this law was an attempt to stop abortion of Mississippi, they have also occasionally thrown out, "Oh yeah, it's for the health of Mississippi's women." They say that doctors need to have admitting privileges to a local hospital in case of abortion complications. Rachel Maddow, quoting a medical expert, points out that doctors would have to admit 10 or more patients in a year in order to get privileges, but "A typical abortion provider would rarely admit more than one patient a year for abortion complications, and in many years would have no complications requiring hospitalization." Oh, how crafty, Phil Bryant and company! You say that these doctors need to have admitting privileges for the safety of the women, yet you know that they won't be able to get those privileges because abortions are safe and so rarely have complications!!

Maddow also points out that there are 4 other states in the country with only one abortion clinic, so the final decision in Mississippi could very well set a precedent for banning abortion without touching Roe v. Wade. Hopefully, today's small victory of upholding the injunction temporarily will turn into a much larger victory of ruling this TRAP law unconstitutional.

Injunction, Injunction, What's Your Function?

Recently in Mississippi, a law was passed in order to shut down the state's only abortion clinic. Of course, abortion, while controversial, is still legal in the United States, so Mississippi legislators can't just decide to close it because they are uncomfortable with a woman's right to choose.

But of course, that's exactly what they've been trying to do.

The TRAP law (while the acronym makes sense on its own, it actually stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) requires doctors performing abortions to be OB-GYNs with admitting privileges to a local hospital. The Mississippi clinic is staffed by OB-GYNs, but they have been refused admitting privileges at all the hospitals in the required range. Because of this refusal, the clinic would have to close once the law goes into effect.

However, today, the day the law should have gone into effect, US District Judge Daniel P. Jordan issued a temporary injunction to keep that from happening. A lawsuit has been filed, calling the new law unconstitutional and medically unnecessary.

The best part about this is that the extreme Republicans who have been so proud of this new law that they have really shot themselves in the collective foot. If they had been able to come up with some sort of medical or health-inspection reason for the clinic to be shut down, then it would closed, over and done with. But Governor Phil Bryant and others strutted around, boasting of making Mississippi "abortion-free" and, I'm sure, hoping to win (and probably succeeding) conservative votes for this. And now these quotes and boasts have been brought into the case against the new law as evidence that the goal of the law was simply to shut down the clinic without any medical reasons.

If Mississippi's legislators were actually concerned about the health of their state's women, they wouldn't have bragged so arrogantly about shutting down the state's abortion clinic (of course, if they really cared about women's health, they wouldn't work to shut it down at all, but that's wishful thinking it seems...). Their overblown pride over shutting down the clinic could now end up being the very reason it stays open.

The fight over abortion in Mississippi (or the US) isn't over, but this current turn of events has me feeling optimistic for at least a few more days.

Videos to Keep You Going

I know I haven't been writing much lately, and as much as I want it to get better, I'm about to move out of my apartment and into a house, so the rest of this month will probably be just as spotty as the last one was. I promise to get back on track after the move, and to post as much as I can during this time, but here are a few videos on recent events to keep you going.

I'll start with the funny, before we get to the sad and too-very-real. The latest from Funny or Die, called Republicans, Get in My Vagina! Hilarious. 

 

This video is Rachel Maddow discussing how an extremely qualified doctor in, you guessed it, Mississippi was fired from the Board of Health because of a very remote connection to an abortion clinic. Ridiculous.

Here is more Rachel, this time discussing the problems with the wage gap in this country, after she argued with Republican Alex Castellanos who told her, quite simply, that women don't get paid less than men, or when they do, it's because they choose lower-paying jobs (totally ignoring facts like how we raise our daughters not to pursue fields like math and science, how societal pressure forces many women (instead of their husbands/boyfriends/partners) to drop out of the workforce to raise a child instead, or how overly expensive daycare often makes a parent dropping out of the workforce the cheaper option.) 

And last but not least, a little humor to brighten your day. This video was filmed in Oxford (I think, I'm not sure who made it), in response to Phil Bryant's recent claim that all liberals have one goal: to abort babies. Enjoy!

The (Feminist) Conversation: Ashley Judd's Media Attack

So did you hear about Ashley Judd and her "puffy" appearance? Well, neither did I, until today. Apparently news sources and tabloids have recently been discussing Ashley's "declining" appearance, calling her puffy and claiming that she had plastic surgery. Today, Ashley Judd fought back, writing a piece for The Daily Beast in which she attacks the media for their misogynistic comments. Judd offers reasons for her appearance (being sick, taking steroids, and not exercising) but she offers much more. She offers a criticism of our society, our media, and the conversations about women's bodies that negatively affect women and girls. The whole article is worth reading, but this is my favorite section:

That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

After reading this today, I was thinking, "Tell 'em Ashley!!" I especially like the part about patriarchy being a system in which women and men play a part; she implies that women can be misogynistic, too. This is something I've always tried to express but never been able to word as clearly as she does in that sentence.

Also, call me easy to please, but I was really pleased to see her use the word "feminism" in her piece. (She wrote, "If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start.") Ashley Judd has been an outspoken feminist for a long time; the first time I ever saw a "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" T-shirt was in a picture of Judd wearing one. And I know that feminism seems to be making a bit of a comeback, with women fighting against all the latest attacks on women's bodies, health and decision-making rights. But, it is still nice to see a mainstream figure using the word feminism with no shame and no explanation. She puts it out there because there is no other productive way to talk about these issues.

I, for one, love that Ashley Judd wrote this piece. Women in the spotlight, actresses, musicians, athletes, they all deal with constant objectification, speculation and criticism surrounding their bodies, their clothes and their decisions. Today at the grocery store, my boyfriend and I noticed all of the tabloid magazines by the checkout counters: headlines about the Kardashian women having been "abandoned" by their men, unflattering pictures of "overweight" celebrities with their faces covered and the tagline 'Guess Who?!', speculations about who's getting married, who's getting divorced, who's engaging in adultery. We are bombarded with the policing of women, and celebrity women have to handle it constantly. But Ashley Judd didn't just stand by and take it. She didn't just speak out with reasons for her less-than-stellar appearance. Instead, she pointed out the flaws in the criticism against her. She pointed out that the problem is not with her and her body, but with the media which thinks it has a right to degrade her in such an aggressive and negative way. She pointed out that this "insanity" over women's bodies is a problem for everyone, and that we are all limited by it. And most importantly, she pointed out that we need feminism, feminist discussions, and feminist activism in order to fight it.

Tell 'em, Ashley!

Santorum: Better or Worse for Obama?

OK I'm just kind of thinking and writing at the same time.

I know that at the beginning of the Republican circus to find a candidate to run against Obama, Mitt Romney was the expected candidate. So the White House, I assume, has been planning their campaign strategy largely around defeating him. However, we all know the race has dragged on much longer than expected, and that with the recent wins in Mississippi and Alabama, Rick Santorum is still very much in the race.

I also know, thanks to Facebook, that many Democrats/liberal-leaning voters have been voting in Republican primaries to help Santorum win the nomination, the idea being that he's too extreme and will be easier to defeat than Romney. And I think this might be true.

But at the same time, is it good for Obama supporters to be helping Santorum into the race? I really am torn about this, so I would love some feedback. But Santorum has gotten more support than I would have expected (though maybe I'm still being naive, with the extremes that so many Republicans all over the country have been leaning toward). It's really terrifying to me that the man who has said publicly that he doesn't believe the separation of church and state should exist has gotten so much support. And as much as I like to encourage myself that liberal-leaners helped him to win in my home state, we all know that there were not enough of those voters to make much a difference. By and large, the Republicans in my home state have legitimately chosen Rick Santorum as their preferred candidate.

So if he is really doing this well among Republican voters, does he actually have a chance at defeating Obama? I hope not. I like to think that the Republican attack on women has gone too far, and will be a deciding factor for moderate and independent voters. As I heard some political analyst say on the news recently, "Abortion is a divisive issue. Contraception is not." This says to me (and I hope it's true) that the extremists of the Republican party are shooting themselves in the foot. I know plenty of young women who grew up in Republican homes who are on birth control (however, this doesn't necessarily mean that they voted Republican once they were of voting age; that I'm not sure about). I know of many young women who do currently identify as Republican who have spoken out against the personhood amendment and attacks on women. And I'm hoping that by having made contraception such a big issue, the Republican party is going to be motivating hordes of young people to head to the polls and vote for contraception, for women's rights, and, therefore, for Barack Obama.

But am I underestimating the amount of extreme conservatives in the Republican party? What do y'all think? Is Rick Santorum a better candidate in the long run for those of us who want Obama and his better-for-women plans to stay in office? Or is he proof that more of the country than I realized is extreme and not concerned with women's rights?

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.