Showing posts with label women's health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's health. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Samantha Bee Derides McCain's Derisive Air Quotes
Via Broadsheet: Although the Daily Show is a little late on this one, Samantha Bee reports: “John McCain has finally put the concerns of women where they belong; in derisive air quotes.”
Thursday, September 25, 2008
How Much Time Should She Do?
The How Much Time Should She Do? campaign is being run by NARAL Pro-Choice to highlight the extremist positions of John McCain and Sarah Palin by asking them: if you think that Roe vs. Wade should be over turned, how much time should a woman who has an illegal abortion serve in jail? After all, in many states abortion would become illegal automatically if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, and many others would move to outlaw the procedure very quickly after such a ruling.
The McCain campaign has responded by saying that it's preposterous to suggest that McCain wants to send women who have abortions to jail. But that leaves a pretty big question: why not? If a woman were to have an illegal abortion, she would be breaking the law. And the reason anti-choicers claim for wanting to outlaw abortion is that they believe it's "murder." Don't murderers go to jail?
What this campaign does is expose the truth behind anti-choice rhetoric. It's easier to be opposed to abortion personally and therefore want to legislate your views before thinking about the consequences. Some have argued that this campaign only heightens the rhetoric from anti-choicers, forcing them to propose a prison sentence, and is therefore dangerous. But personally, I have to ask -- what is wrong with anti-choicers heightening their rhetoric? Doesn't that only benefit us, by making the pro-choice side look far more reasonable -- which of course it is? I certainly think so. Many people want to "stop" abortion, without of course realizing that outlawing abortion doesn't stop it. A lot fewer people want to actually treat women like criminals, including particularly ardent anti-choicers:
One thing this video shows, in addition to the illogical nature of anti-choice arguments, is how very little those who oppose abortion actually think about the women who have them. How could one campaign to make abortion illegal for so long, without ever having thought about what might happen to women as a result? I'll let you draw your own conclusions there.
The How Much Time Should She Do? campaign does a few things:
1. It points out the extremism of the anti-choice view, including those held by public officials running for high offices.
2. It causes the viewer to think about the real consequences of outlawing abortion.
3. It brings the focus back to women, their health, and their well-being.
And I'd say there's a whole lot to like about that. We're never going to win the support of the most vehement abortion opponents. But the fight is for the hearts and minds of those whose views fall somewhere in between ours and theirs. Many people who oppose abortion do so because they're simply trying to do the right thing. I think it's about time we reframe what "the right thing" is, in a way that people who are uncomfortable with abortion can relate to.
The McCain campaign has responded by saying that it's preposterous to suggest that McCain wants to send women who have abortions to jail. But that leaves a pretty big question: why not? If a woman were to have an illegal abortion, she would be breaking the law. And the reason anti-choicers claim for wanting to outlaw abortion is that they believe it's "murder." Don't murderers go to jail?
What this campaign does is expose the truth behind anti-choice rhetoric. It's easier to be opposed to abortion personally and therefore want to legislate your views before thinking about the consequences. Some have argued that this campaign only heightens the rhetoric from anti-choicers, forcing them to propose a prison sentence, and is therefore dangerous. But personally, I have to ask -- what is wrong with anti-choicers heightening their rhetoric? Doesn't that only benefit us, by making the pro-choice side look far more reasonable -- which of course it is? I certainly think so. Many people want to "stop" abortion, without of course realizing that outlawing abortion doesn't stop it. A lot fewer people want to actually treat women like criminals, including particularly ardent anti-choicers:
One thing this video shows, in addition to the illogical nature of anti-choice arguments, is how very little those who oppose abortion actually think about the women who have them. How could one campaign to make abortion illegal for so long, without ever having thought about what might happen to women as a result? I'll let you draw your own conclusions there.
The How Much Time Should She Do? campaign does a few things:
1. It points out the extremism of the anti-choice view, including those held by public officials running for high offices.
2. It causes the viewer to think about the real consequences of outlawing abortion.
3. It brings the focus back to women, their health, and their well-being.
And I'd say there's a whole lot to like about that. We're never going to win the support of the most vehement abortion opponents. But the fight is for the hearts and minds of those whose views fall somewhere in between ours and theirs. Many people who oppose abortion do so because they're simply trying to do the right thing. I think it's about time we reframe what "the right thing" is, in a way that people who are uncomfortable with abortion can relate to.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
More on Ohio
Upon further contemplation, this Ohio bill just gets more and more disgusting.
Two things spring to mind. First, as Broadsheet points out, it isn't possible to to perform a paternity test until 11-20 weeks in pregnancy. Which means that a woman would have to wait longer to have an abortion. Oh, and never mind that performing the test in the first place is an invasive procedure on the woman...
Second, bill sponsor Rep. John Adams justifies the bill by saying that "In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."
So... does that mean Mr. Adams would allow the father force the woman TO have an abortion if he didn't want to support the child?
***
Update on the child healthcare legislation I mentioned yesterday: the House DID pass the expansion of SCHIP by a vote of 225 to 204 (a little too close if you ask me). So thumbs up for health insurance, thumbs down for 204 representatives.
***
Finally, can we all pause for a moment to be appalled by the story out of Florida re: the woman behind a $3 million adoption scam who shackled and abused 11 or 12 (unclear) children for YEARS? Among other things, the kids told police they were never allowed to attend school, see a doctor or a dentist and were fed little more than noodles, rice and beans. Often, they weren't allowed to use the bathroom and had to urinate or defecate on themselves. Their guardian was formally charged yesterday with 10 felony counts, including abuse of a disabled person and witness tampering. If convicted on all the charges, she faces a maximum of 160 years in jail.
Clearly they should throw away the key (umm, if she's guilty I mean), but you gotta wonder -- how did nobody else know what was going on?
Oh wait, someone did. Seems a complaint was filed -- and dismissed -- eight years ago.
Those poor kids.
Two things spring to mind. First, as Broadsheet points out, it isn't possible to to perform a paternity test until 11-20 weeks in pregnancy. Which means that a woman would have to wait longer to have an abortion. Oh, and never mind that performing the test in the first place is an invasive procedure on the woman...
Second, bill sponsor Rep. John Adams justifies the bill by saying that "In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."
So... does that mean Mr. Adams would allow the father force the woman TO have an abortion if he didn't want to support the child?
***
Update on the child healthcare legislation I mentioned yesterday: the House DID pass the expansion of SCHIP by a vote of 225 to 204 (a little too close if you ask me). So thumbs up for health insurance, thumbs down for 204 representatives.
***
Finally, can we all pause for a moment to be appalled by the story out of Florida re: the woman behind a $3 million adoption scam who shackled and abused 11 or 12 (unclear) children for YEARS? Among other things, the kids told police they were never allowed to attend school, see a doctor or a dentist and were fed little more than noodles, rice and beans. Often, they weren't allowed to use the bathroom and had to urinate or defecate on themselves. Their guardian was formally charged yesterday with 10 felony counts, including abuse of a disabled person and witness tampering. If convicted on all the charges, she faces a maximum of 160 years in jail.
Clearly they should throw away the key (umm, if she's guilty I mean), but you gotta wonder -- how did nobody else know what was going on?
Oh wait, someone did. Seems a complaint was filed -- and dismissed -- eight years ago.
Those poor kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
