sexism is sexism is sexism

A long time ago, I wrote letters to - and finally cancelled my subscription to - Ms. magazine because they wouldn't defend the rights of women in the military.

They've changed on that score, to their credit. But at that time, in response to misogynistic practices within the military, editors basically said, "Women shouldn't join the military in the first place." This infuriated me. Women should do whatever they want! They don't have to submit their choices to some feminist-approval board first. And whatever they choose to do, women must have equal opportunity, equal pay, and a safe workplace, free of fear, harassment or assault. We don't have to like every woman's choices. But they have to be treated as fully human and equal citizens.

It doesn't matter how we feel about a person who is the target of bigotry. The bigotry is still wrong.

In that spirit, I blogged about the sexism targeted at Hillary Clinton, who I never would have voted for. In that same spirit, take a look at this, from the excellent ThinkProgress.

Donny Deutsch, host of CNBC's Big Idea, praised Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) as the "new creation" of the "feminist ideal" yesterday on CNBC's Squawk on the Street. "Women want to be her, men want to mate with her. It's as simple as that," he said, adding that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) failed because "she didn't put a skirt on!":

DEUTSCH: There is the new creation that the feminist woman has not figured out in 40 years of the feminist ideal that men can take in a woman in power and women can celebrate a woman in power. Hillary Clinton didn't figure it out. She didn't put a skirt on! […]

She [Palin] talked about energy. Didn't matter! Today everybody's running in circles — we want to have her over for dinner. I trust her. I want her watching my kids. I want her laying next to me in bed. That's the way people vote.

I'll pause here for you to finish vomiting.

Done yet? A little more mouthwash, perhaps?

One more note about this disgusting woman who the disgusting mainstream media forces us to defend. There is no such thing as an anti-abortion-rights feminist.

You can be feminist and feel that you must not terminate your own pregnancy, wanted or not. I've known many women with those beliefs.

But you cannot be feminist and believe that the government, a religious institution, or anyone other than the woman herself should have the final say - or any say! - over what any woman does with her body.

A creature can't be a polar bear and a duck. And you cannot be a feminist and support anti-choice laws. You cannot be a feminist and want to outlaw contraception. These fucking Uncle Tom women should get themselves a new name.

Good story from a few years ago (Lynn Harris again!) about the group I'm not naming.

another abortion myth debunked

Here's an excellent post from Impudent Strumpet about how reproductive decisions work.

The Salon story Imp Strump links to is written by Lynn Harris, who I used to work with in the Haven Coalition. Lynn is the co-creator of Breakup Girl, among other things.

caroline arnold: abortion is about power

Caroline Arnold has an excellent piece about abortion rights in an Ohio newspaper, which I saw at Common Dreams.

Abortion: A matter of power, not God
By Caroline Arnold

The moribund Bush administration has proposed new Health & Human Services regulations that would cut off funds to health care providers who fired or refused to hire people who object to abortion or contraception for religious or moral beliefs.

Never mind that workers are already protected against such discrimination -- though it is not reciprocal: Catholic hospitals have no obligation to hire pro-choice workers or respect moral convictions about contraception or HIV.

Recently I've received comments about my views on abortion. I am always gratified when readers respond to the issues I raise, and often find their criticisms helpful in shaping my thinking. But I find myself unpersuaded by arguments that human life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder.

I can't accept, either as a matter of personal conscience, or of my commitment to my neighbors and the planet we live on, that we should invest scarce resources, argue endlessly and fruitlessly, and punish women, neglect children and forestall medical research in order to keep every fertilized ovum alive.

I believe we have more important things to do -- making sure children already born have enough to eat, medical care and education, and learning to live together without killing each other and consuming the planet we live on.

I don't think the abortion question is about religion, except insofar as most religious people think that God doesn't like it because it destroys a human life. What kind of a god worries about the destruction of some unviable human tissue but designs human reproductive systems with a 50 percent attrition rate? What kind of god gives males the choice to conceive a baby but doesn't give females the choice to reject it? What kind of god allows older children to starve so that younger ones may be born, or permits babies to be born to a life of want, violence and fear? Not one I want to have anything to do with. And I won't accept the "It was ever thus" argument about human frailty. Just because we humans have always done badly doesn't excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family.

That said, however, I have to retreat a step. I do have a kind of religious faith, pretty much defined by what it is not. The Skeptic in me demands that the utilitarian condition must be satisfied -- God cannot be less than as source of Goodness -- love, grace, fulfillment -- that is available to all creatures and living systems. But my Resident Mystic keeps insisting that a God worthy of human experience must be more than a bearded old man obsessed with sex and virgins, strewing goodness about while withholding it from sinners and showering wealth on entrepreneurial men, handing down Ten Immutable Rules for human behavior, torturing the wicked, and advising George W. Bush on how to conduct his war on terror. I believe we are called to imagine a God of Truth and Uncertainty, Beauty and Disorder, Joy and Loss, while we are challenged to love our neighbors and seek to live with them in peace.

But neither the Skeptic's God nor the Mystic's God speaks to me about abortion. Abortion isn't about God, it's about power. And it's not even about male power vs. female rights -- only whether a person is to be allowed to make decisions about her or his body independent of the rules of religion, society or the civic order. The prevailing mythology today is that women cannot be trusted to make the right decision or take responsibility for their bodies and must be forced to do so by law. Men are excused from responsibility because sex is "natural" for them. And Viagra, Cialis, and other male sex-enhancing materials are big sellers in our society.

What I don't understand -- but find infinitely galling -- is why anti-abortionists feel it is their right to despise my conscience, control my thinking, dictate my behavior, and criminalize a private medical procedure. I don't tell them what they can and can't do, or try to make laws or constitutional amendments to force their compliance with my beliefs.

The late John Seiberling was threatened in 1972 by Right-to-Lifers who claimed they would defeat him if he didn't vote to restrict abortion.

"Well, that's all right," he replied, "because if I can't vote my conscience in Congress, I don't want the job." He won (75% - 25%), he believed, because he stood up for his conscience.

Once again we are looking into a deep chasm between those who believe that human governance is a matter of blind obedience/uncritical acceptance of sacred or secular laws and authority, and those who believe that we must govern ourselves from individual conscience and shared values.

I don't know if the latter is even possible on a planet now largely owned by private corporations, bristling with nuclear weapons, overpopulated with hungry, hopeful masses, and overheating by the desires and habits of men.

I do believe that if it is to be done at all, we humans -- male and female, all ages, colors and beliefs -- will have to do it ourselves. We can't expect a deus ex machina, Grand Plan, or U.S. president to save us.

We don't need more fascist regulations that override individual conscience on abortion. As we choose a new president and administration we do need honest elections, and candidates of conscience who will help us generate the laws and processes needed to stop killing and torturing humans already born, and start addressing the apocalyptic challenges of an endangered species on a threatened planet.

the u.s. war on women continues

The US's war on women has not stopped. It hasn't even slowed down. The woman-haters and fetus-lovers continue to chip away at women's rights, human rights - and modern life.

I had been seeing various scary posts on reproductive rights blogs for a few weeks, when James sent me this, from Ezra Klein's blog. Klein references this post from the main American Prospect blog.

The Bush administration is circulating regulatory changes within the Department of Health and Human Services that would prevent health care providers from choosing not to hire ideologues opposed to reproductive rights (including distributing contraception). The regulations, which could go into affect in as little as two months, would also re-define abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

Wow. In the past, HHS defined abortion the way the American Medical Association does -- as the termination of a pregnancy after implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. This new definition is clearly meant to re-classify emergency contraception, and perhaps even ordinary hormonal birth control pills, as abortion.

This Wall Street Journal story is good, too, and includes some helpful graphics.

I got in touch with my friend KK, who I know originally from the Haven Coalition. KK is working at the Guttmacher Institute, the best source of information on sexual and reproductive health. She sent me this.

A potential new regulation from the Bush administration would greatly expand the scope of federal refusal rights for health care providers. The draft regulation, which was leaked to the media and advocacy groups on July 14, would allow health care personnel and institutions to refuse to provide or even tangentially assist in the provision of services that offend their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Congress has enacted three such refusal clauses, starting with the Church amendment shortly after Roe v. Wade and most recently the Weldon amendment in 2004, which apply to some or all recipients of funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Bush administration now asserts that the American public, including state policymakers and health care professionals, is uninformed of these laws and has displayed hostility toward the principle of religious tolerance that they purportedly embody.

As evidence, the draft cites state laws mandating insurance coverage of contraceptives, requiring sexual assault victims’ access to emergency contraception, guaranteeing access to contraceptives at pharmacies and allowing officials to intervene in hospital mergers to ensure communities’ continued access to services. The cases cited as problematic cover most of the major legislative victories by family planning and reproductive health advocates over the past decade.

As further evidence of the purported problem, the draft cites a finding from a 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine stating that 86% of physicians believe they are obligated to provide patients with information on all of their medical options, regardless of a physician's personal objection. Presenting this fact as a "problem" implies that this belief held by the majority of doctors stems from their ignorance of the supposed legal right to refuse, rather than from a conviction that they are in fact obligated, both legally and under the standards of their profession, to provide all information necessary to obtain a patient's informed consent.

The administration asserts that the regulation will raise awareness of current refusal laws and clarify their meaning, but in "clarifying" the laws, the administration is actually redefining and expanding their reach in several crucial ways:

First, the regulation says that "abortion" (participation in which providers have long had an explicit right to refuse) could be defined — by any individual or institution — to effectively include all hormonal methods of birth control (because these methods may act post-fertilization, although this is not their primary mode of action). For years, leading antiabortion groups and conservative lawmakers have been asserting that commonly used methods of contraception are in fact "abortifacients." Adopting this position would be a stark departure from precedent in federal rules and regulations and from the consensus of the medical community.

Second, it defines other key terms so that laws originally designed to apply to health care professionals such as doctors and nurses, who are directly involved with a given procedure, would now apply to any member of a health care institution's paid or volunteer workforce participating in "any activity with a logical connection" to such services. The new definition would encompass information, counseling, referral, clerical and janitorial work and a host of other activities.

Third, it asserts that a provision enacted in 1974 as part of a law governing federally funded medical research applies to all DHHS-funded health research and service programs. This interpretation opens the door for individuals to object to being involved, even tangentially, in a range of health care activities beyond reproductive health or to serving specific types of patients, such as single women, gays and lesbians, or teenagers.

Among other consequences, the regulation, were it to be adopted, could have a serious impact on clients' guarantee of access to a full range of services, information and referrals at clinics supported by the Title X national family planning program and on the ability of health care provider entities to employ staff members supportive of their institutional mission. Certification and enforcement mechanisms included in the regulation also appear problematic, potentially adding major bureaucratic hurdles for domestic and even international government and health care institutions and inviting harassment by private citizens and advocacy groups alleging "fraud" by providers against the government.

In the meantime, many reproductive health champions in Congress are calling on the administration to drop the idea of even proposing such regulations, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), over 100 members of the House (both prochoice and antiabortion) and a group of 20 senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

At the bottom of the Guttmacher story, there are many good links about the implications of these proposed regulations. Note they are not law yet. In typical fashion, the US government is trying to slip them through without approval, debate - or even public knowledge.

Many blog posts on this issue - more than I can find or link to right now - focus on the supposed "conscience right" of a health care provider to refuse care to a person's whose life he or she does not approve of. If you have links, please feel free to post them in comments.

This is the kind of thing we have to make a fuss over. A loud, long fuss.

Controlling one's body is a basic human right. The ability to control one's reproduction is the bottom line of women's equality - and of human freedom. I've been reading about slavery (more on that soon), and it strikes me how the most pervasive degradations often involved stripping people of their ability to control their own bodies. Forcing people to be naked in public. Branding. Yokes, chains. Rape. Forced impregnation. Forced abortions. Stealing children from parents. These were some of the methods by which slaves were forced into submission. The common theme is the violation of bodily integrity.

A woman who cannot control her reproduction is a slave.

15% of female veterans in v.a. treatment show signs of sexual trauma

It took Diane Pickel Plappert six months to tell a counselor that she had been raped while on duty in Iraq. While time passed, the former Navy nurse disconnected from her children and her life slowly unraveled.

Carolyn Schapper says she was harassed in Iraq by a fellow Army National Guard soldier to the extent that she began changing clothes in the shower for fear he'd barge into her room unannounced — as he already had on several occasions.

Even as women distinguish themselves in battle alongside men, they're fighting off sexual assault and harassment. It's not a new consequence of war. But the sheer number of women serving today — more than 190,000 so far in Iraq and Afghanistan — is forcing the military and Department of Veterans Affairs to more aggressively address it.

The data that exists — incomplete and not up-to-date — offers no proof that women in the war zones are more vulnerable to sexual assault than other female service members, or American women in general. But in an era when the military relies on women for invaluable and difficult front-line duties, the threat to their morale, performance and long-term well-being is starkly clear.

Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.

In January, the VA opened its 16th inpatient ward specializing in treating victims of military sexual trauma, this one in New Jersey. In response to complaints that it is too male-focused in its care, the VA is making changes such as adding keyless entry locks on hospital room doors so women patients feel safer.

Depression, anxiety, problem drinking, sexually transmitted diseases and domestic abuse are all problems that have been linked to sexual abuse, according to the Miles Foundation, a nonprofit group that provides support to victims of violence associated with the military. Since 2002, the foundation says it has received more than 1,000 reports of assault and rape in the U.S. Central Command areas of operation, which include Iraq and Afghanistan.

In most reports to the foundation, fellow U.S. service members have been named as the perpetrator, but contractors and local nationals also have been accused.

Whenever I blog about sexual assault within the military, some wingnut warlovers feel obligated to refute it in their own forums. Military men regard military women as their sisters, they cry. Soldiers would never even touch a fellow female soldier - unless she asked for it. Then later, of course, they regret it and "cry rape".

Military men are apparently honourable and upstanding. Military women, however, are just lying bitches.

Do I really need to say that not all men are rapists? Not all men in the military are rapists, either. But the lawless, dehumanized, violent culture that surrounds war and occupation has transformed many a normal man into something he never was at home.

In War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, Christopher Hedges describes how in every war zone he covered, in every part of the world, sexual context between men and women was reduced to its most brutal and violent. Rape became a norm, and not only as a weapon against the enemy.

I applaud Diane Pickel Plappert and Carolyn Schapper for coming forward, and standing up with their real names. It's really hard to do, let me tell you. But once done, it gives you strength and courage, and soon you couldn't imagine making any other choice.

I know that other women will also find courage and comfort from Plappert's and Schapper's examples. I thank them.

either margaret wente needs a fact-checker or the entire united states is a backwater

I usually avoid reading Margaret Wente, but this morning the Globe and Mail put her on the front page, so a bit filtered through. She writes:

It's right to honour Henry Morgentaler with the Order of Canada. He fought to make this country a better place for women, and he succeeded.

But those who either lionize or despise Dr. Morgentaler tend to miss the point. By the time he came along, the tectonic plates were well in motion. Hospital abortions had already been available for years – subject to approval by a medical committee. Dr. Morgentaler's achievement was to make abortion a woman's private choice, subject to no one's approval but her own.

Except for a few backwaters in the United States, safe, legal and accessible abortion is the norm throughout the Western world. It would be the norm in this country, too, regardless of Dr. Morgentaler's pioneering work. He's a symbol now, and the passions he arouses are the same ones aroused by Roe v. Wade in the U.S.

Emphasis added. And added and added. Here are your backwaters, Ms. Wente.

In 2000, 87% of US counties had no abortion provider. Thirty-four percent of women aged 15-44 live in those counties. Eighty-six of the US's 276 metropolitan areas had no provider.

Abortions in the United States cost anywhere from $400 to $4000, depending on the procedure. A first-trimester abortion costs more than a family on public assistance receives in a month.

Low-income women and girls often delay procedures as they try to borrow the money they need. (Not easy when most people you know live hand-to-mouth.) "Chasing the funds" - as it is known in the movement - often forces women into second-trimester procedures. Those procedures are more complicated, more risky - and much more expensive. It is not uncommon for women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because they cannot afford a simple first-trimester procedure.

These three states prohibit the use of any state funds for abortion whatsoever. They have refused to comply with a federal law requiring states to provide Medicaid funding for abortion in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
Alabama
Mississippi
South Dakota

These states fund abortion in cases of threat to life, rape or incest only. All must be proven in court.
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

These states will fund abortion where there is threat to a woman's life or health, rape, incest, and some other reasons, such as verifiable abuse or mental health issues. All require several court appearances.
Iowa
New Mexico
Virginia
Wisconsin

These states restrict abortion access by age, requiring mandatory parental notification or consent for minors. States are required to provide varying degrees of so-called "judicial bypass", meaning a young person can plead her case to a judge, who can then grant or deny her permission to obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent. Think about that one.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Every state not listed here has had parental consent or notification laws introduced in its legislature, which activists defeated, often by tiny margins. The mandatory judicial bypass clauses are also the result of court orders won by activism.

Before any parents reading this trot out the old "if my daughter was having an abortion, I would want to know" response, let's just say: of course. That's obvious. And if you want to know if your daughter is having sex, or fears she is pregnant, or needs an abortion, create a home environment where your children know they can come to you with any problem, and receive unconditional support and love, even if that love includes disapproval.

Many teens are not that fortunate. I know from first-hand experience that in a home where young people fear abuse, including one's parents in decisions about sex and pregnancy is simply not an option. For their own health and safety, girls must be able to obtain abortions without telling their parents, and no state law is going to change that.

These states require women seeking abortions to register, then wait 24 or 48 hours before receiving a procedure.
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Virginia
Wisconsin

On first glance, a waiting period may seem innocuous. But for a low-income woman who must arrange child care and transportation, and travel a long distance to an abortion provider, the mandatory waiting period means one or more overnight stays, all of which she has to pay for - and none of which she can afford. If she is trying to terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of an abusive partner, an overnight stay can be the difference between life and death.

State-mandated waiting periods are condescending and demeaning, as they assume women cannot think for themselves and are requesting abortions in some kind of momentary fit of non-reason.

Only procedures relating to reproduction are subject to mandatory waiting periods. No other elective medical procedures are regulated by such laws.

These states prohibit private insurance coverage for abortion.
Idaho
Kentucky
Missouri
North Dakota

These states exclude abortion coverage from state health care programs.
Illinois
Montana

These states have spousal consent or notification laws. All spousal consent/notification laws have been ruled unconstitutional, and are therefore unenforceable, but they remain state laws.
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina

Like the parental consent/notification laws, many more states have had spousal/partner consent laws debated and defeated in their legislatures.

* * * *

Ms Wente says: "Except for a few backwaters in the United States, safe, legal and accessible abortion is the norm throughout the Western world."

Does this seem like a "few backwaters" to you? Does it look like abortion is accessible in the United States?

Without access, the right to abortion is meaningless.

* * * *

All facts in this post are verifiable at these reliable sources:
Human Rights Watch
The Guttmacher Institute
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Network of Abortion Funds
National Coalition of Abortion Providers
American Civil Liberties Union

Although I didn't use it for this post, Wikipedia's entry on abortion in the United States is quite good.

belated congratulations: henry morgentaler is a canadian hero

I was unable to blog about this when it happened, but I want to add my voice to the chorus of right-thinking Canadians who applaud Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada.

Dr Morgentaler should be a hero to everyone who values equality, personal autonomy and human rights. All the Canadian women and men who fought alongside Morgentaler are heroes, too.

It's our job to make sure their legacy does not unravel.

consume, dominate... decapitate?

The mind-snatchers grab another space. (Thanks to Allan.)

And some advertising misogyny: here and here. (Thanks to James.)

The tie ad is from 1939. I don't know how many North Americans were buying ties or having breakfast in bed during the Great Depression.

But the slacks-and-rug ad dates from 1970, corresponding with the re-emergence of the women's movement on the mainstream radar. Come on, men, don't fall for that shit: dominate!

I don't know about you, but I find seeing a woman's head without a body more than a little disgusting.

protesting the pill: anti-choicers prove my point again

Many bloggers are writing about Protest The Pill Day, first brought to my attention by Jen (of Keep Insite Open), via Joe. My. God. Since I don't link to wingnuts, I'll link to JMG instead: go here to read a bit about it, including Dan Savage's response.

The anti-choicers will be protesting oral contraceptives on the anniversary of the Griswold decision. Yes, they are protesting the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

I've been involved in the pro-choice movement for almost 30 years. (It's always easy for me to date my activism: 1980 = Ronald Reagan.) In all that time, I have seen again and again how the primary concern of the anti-abortion-rights movement is not stopping abortions. It is controlling women's lives. Punishing women for having sex. Punishing women for being independent. And curtailing that independence in any way they can.

To state the patently obvious, if the anti-choicers were concerned with reducing the number of abortions that are performed, they would promote contraceptive use. They would champion quality sex education. They would understand oral contraceptives - which, although not for everyone, are an extremely effective method of pregnancy prevention - as the modern miracle that they are. And they would hail Griswold as a huge step towards reducing the necessity and prevalence of abortion.

The Pill is a contraceptive. It prevents pregnancy. It is not an abortofacient: it does not induce abortions. But the anti-choicers hate Griswold, and they hate The Pill. Why? Because The Pill gave women sexual freedom.

Griswold is, without a doubt, one of the most important steps towards women's equality and freedom in US history. It is at least as important as Roe v. Wade. Leaving aside complicated Constitutional questions about the right to privacy, the short story is that Griswold legalized birth control, or made it illegal for a state to stop a married woman - a married woman! - from obtaining birth control. That opened the door for other important decisions that expanded reproductive rights, and so, women's equality.

Here in the beginning of the 21st Century, it may be difficult for us to relate to what The Pill represents. For a woman to be able to control her reproduction - in advance, without involving anyone else in the decision-making, in complete privacy, by herself for herself - changed everything.

People can discuss and debate whether sexual freedom is in itself a positive goal and whether oral contraceptives can be a healthy choice. (I say: Yes and Yes!) But whether or not any individual woman chooses to avail herself of these options, the fact remains they are options. If women have independent access to birth control, they can make these choices for themselves, just as men always have.

* * * *

In 2005, on the 40th anniversary of Griswold, Shira Saperstein of the Center for American Progress wrote:

On June 7, 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a critical, life-changing legal victory for women in the United States. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court ruled that married women have a constitutional right to privacy that allows them to obtain contraception. Ironically, forty years later, women are still fighting to exercise that right: in courtrooms, legislatures, and even pharmacies, obstacles to reproductive freedom continue to this day.

Mrs. Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, fought long and hard against Connecticut's outmoded laws banning the sale or use of birth control. The Connecticut ban, enacted in 1879 under the sponsorship of Connecticut state legislator P.T. Barnum of Barnum & Bailey Circus fame, had withstood years of legislative and legal challenges. Finally, in November 1961, Mrs. Griswold and her colleagues challenged the ban directly, opening a clinic in New Haven that offered family planning counseling and services. For this act of civil disobedience, Griswold and her colleague, Dr. Lee Buxton, a Yale obstetrician, were arrested, convicted and fined $100 each. Four years later, their appeal led to the Supreme Court victory that for the first time recognized a constitutional right to privacy in matters of marital intimacy and reproduction.

Griswold led the way for a string of other decisions in which the right to contraception was extended to unmarried women (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972) and to minors (Carey v. Population Services International, 1977), from contraception to abortion (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, 1973), and from reproductive rights to sexual rights (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), where Justice Kennedy wrote of "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."

These decisions – and others that rely on and expand them – have been fundamental to advancing human rights in the United States. For only with the freedom to decide whether, when, and with whom to have sex, and whether, when and with whom to have children, can other human rights – economic, social, cultural, and political – be fully realized.

However, in celebrating the Griswold decision this month, we must acknowledge that this victory was always incomplete and is now at great risk.

Saperstein goes on to detail a few of the many ways reproductive freedom has been diminished or destroyed for women in the US, especially low-income women.

* * * *

Fortunately, most people understand that birth control is a necessary and important part of life. The good thing about Protest The Pill Day is that it will help more people see the anti-choicers for what they really are.

c-537: final verdict

I first blogged about C-537 here, and was met by some objections I hadn't considered, from health-care workers' perspective.

To summarize, I had said:

Health care providers cannot be allowed to pick and choose what legal procedures they want to perform or assist with. If a person cannot in good conscience have anything to do with abortion, or any other legal medical procedure, that person shouldn't be working in health care.

My friend Jen suggested this revision:

I'd amend that to "If a person cannot in good conscience have anything to do with abortion, or any other legal medical procedure, that person shouldn't be working in: Labour and delivery/ER/post partum".

Likewise, those opposed to/don't understand electro-convulsive therapy should steer clear of the psych units, those opposed to/don't understand harm reduction should steer clear of public health, etc. Health practice, individuals and patient needs are all to many and too varied for there to be an expectation of everyone to be on the same page.

My friends the nurses weren't supporting C-537; they were pointing out flaws in my reasoning against the bill. I know these folks to be smart and progressive people, as well as caring health care practitioners, so I took their concerns seriously. Their comments are significant and worth reading. Some excerpts:

. . . the College of Nurses of Ontario and College of Physicians and Surgeons . . . both allow their members to refuse to perform procedures they object to via scope of practice statements. Even in NY State as nurse I was free in my practice to refuse to perform acts that I deemed objectionable and the state board of nursing protected that right.

. . . I don't believe as a nurse, I should be asked to do anything that violates my personal, ethical or religious beliefs as I've defined them. This could be widely interpreted to include a good deal of other issues besides abortion and abortion-related practices.

. . . Health care professions are self-regulating and autonomous. It was a long hard fight to be able to say "no" and advocate for the patient against unsafe and/or unethical practice (e.g.: giving meds, especially sedation, against the patient's will or unbeknownst to them; withholding information from patients at family's request, etc). . . .

The "by law you must do this" approach to practice was a huge motivator (among many other things) in the eugenics movement as another example of the end result of a very slippery slope.

These comments (which I hope you'll read in their entirety) brought a lot of food for thought to my table. Their concerns made sense to me. But the bill was still bothering me. A lot.

So I've thought more about this, and read what many other pro-choice bloggers have written. And now my thoughts are crystal clear.

This bill would define human life as beginning at conception. Meaning it would define the fertilized egg as a human being. That's all we need to know.

I am quite sure life of some sort begins at conception. After all, an amoeba is a life form. So is a cow. So is a carrot. So, too, the zygote. But we must reject any legislation that seeks to define the zygote as a human life under the law. The implications are obvious.

Reproductive freedom is the cornerstone of women's equality and self-determination. If a zygote has the same rights that I do as an adult woman, then disposing of that blob of cells is murder. And we can't take one step down that road.

The concerns about autonomy and personal ethics raised by my nurse friends have much merit. And, as they've pointed out, their concerns are already addressed by their professional regulatory bodies. Just as C-484 is unnecessary because the criminal code already speaks to the same issues without defining the fetus as a legal person.

C-537, like C-484, is an anti-abortion bill dressed up in a costume of concern. C-484 is supposedly about concern for female victims of violence: but we know better. C-537 is supposedly about concern for health care workers.

But both are really about abortion. Both are attempts to chisel away at our rights. If you feel as I do, make sure your MP knows how you feel.

retraction, or at least rethinking

Yesterday I blogged about C-537, which I see as a stealth anti-choice move on the part of Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott.

Two friends of wmtc, both nurses, objected to my objections. They explained why, and also explained their legal rights as healthcare practitioners. Some other commenters agreed with them from a patient's perspective. You can read all about it in comments here.

I hadn't thought about the issues they raised, or I had, but not from the perspective of the health-care worker. They make a lot of sense, and I agree with much of it.

But something still bothers me about this bill. I still perceive it as an attack on choice, and I can't put my finger on why.

Is it the offensive language of the bill that would sneak a non-legal definition of personhood into the law: "...'human life' means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation..."? And my fear that language could be used as a wedge for subsequent anti-choice legislation?

Is it the general vague language stating that no employer can refuse to employ a health care practitioner based on these convictions? What if the employer is a family planning clinic? Could an anti-choice health care worker sue the Morgentaler Clinic for refusing to hire her, creating unnecessary legal and economic challenges?

Is it my awareness of the terrible lack of access of comprehensive family planning services in the US, where law after law shredded the right to a legal abortion into a mere technicality? And my fear of those successful chipping-away strategies being used in Canada?

It's all of those things, but it's more than that, too. I'm still thinking about it. After you read the comments in the first thread, please feel free to continue the discussion here.

c-537: another threat to choice and equality

Hard on the heels of C-484, the fetal homicide bill, another stealth anti-choice private member's bill is before the House of Commons.

This one is C-537, "an Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession)", brought by Maurice Vellacott, Member of Parliament for Sasaktoon-Wanuskewin. It's the third time this MP has introduced this same bill, which he frames as "freedom of choice for all health care workers". When Vellacott introduced the bill in Parliament, he said:

...the bill would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia. ...

Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and of conscience in our country. Yet health care workers and those seeking to be educated for the health care system have often been denied those rights in medical facilities and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully dismissed.

This bill is anti-woman, anti-equality, anti-personal liberty, anti-choice and anti-common sense.

Health care providers cannot be allowed to pick and choose what legal procedures they want to perform or assist with. If a person cannot in good conscience have anything to do with abortion, or any other legal medical procedure, that person shouldn't be working in health care.

In the theocracy to the south, where models for all manner of anti-choice, anti-woman legislation can be found, reports of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for contraception have been surfacing for many years. Some states have tried to pass laws upholding a pharmacist's right to do so, while other states have mandated that all licensed pharmacists must fill all legal prescriptions.

(I should note that I'm using pharmacists as an analogy, and not abortion providers, since as of 2000, 86% of US counties had no abortion provider. 97% of American women in non-metropolitan areas live in counties with no abortion provider. An opt-out law would hardly make a difference there.)

I blogged about the pharmacy issue a long time ago, and when I went back to look for the post, I saw this in comments:

When I first read about the move to allow pharmacists to not carry certain items according to their conscience, I thought, "Gee. That's a good idea. No one should be forced to do something they don't think is right."

But then I thought about it some more. Where does it end? Can an emergency room doc withhold treatment from a gang member because he disapproves of gang activity? Can he refuse to treat an injury caused by the patient's own stupidity? What if he wants to withhold surgery from someone because they are gay, or a different religion, or a different color? Just because they think it's wrong.

Back to the pharmacist. What if he wants to withhold AZT from someone with HIV because he assumes that AIDS is a gay disease and thinks it's wrong? What if he doesn't want to fill a prescription for pain killers because he would choose to tough it out and you should too?

Initially, I was even able to answer these questions with, "So what? You can always go to another pharmacist for your drugs." But if everyone in a conservative town is withholding the same prescriptions, it essentially becomes impossible to get.

I really appreciated this line from your post:
But if you can't do your job properly because your conscience is bothering you, you need to find another profession.

When you sign up to be a pharmacist, you know what you're getting into. It's not like you accidentally got the job; it takes a lot of time and effort. So to all the pharmacists out there, know what you're getting yourself into, then live up to your responsibility and quit complaining about it. Otherwise, find something else that's more compatible with your lifestyle.

That's it in a nutshell. (Thank you, former reader from Arkansas.) A health care provider's first responsibility is to the patient. Providers who cannot meet their obligations to their patients because of religious or conscience issues shouldn't be doing that job. Prospective employers must be free to screen for such potential issues and not hire people who might put a patient at risk because of a conflict of conscience.

For a more exhaustive list of what's wrong with C-537, and about the Conservatives' attacks on women in general, see this excellent post by The Regina Mom.

state of the planet: women in war, rape as a weapon

The ordeal of Jamie Leigh Jones - and her willingness to be public about it - has inspired many other women to speak out. Jones, you'll recall, is the former KBR employee who was gang-raped by other employees, then her employer - with the help of the US government - covered up the crime.

Writing in The Nation, Karen Houppert tells the story of "Lisa Smith" (a pseudonym), a paramedic working for the private contractor in southern Iraq. The story is here. Warning: Rape survivors with sensitive flashback mechanisms may want to proceed with caution or save it for the right time. There are graphic details.

From Houppert:

Smith felt very alone. But she was not.

In fact, a growing number of women employees working for US defense contractors in the Middle East are coming forward with complaints of violence directed at them. As the Iraq War drags on, and as stories of US security contractors who seem to operate with impunity continue to emerge (like Blackwater and its deadly attack against Iraqi civilians on September 16, 2007), a rash of new sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints are being lodged against overseas contractors--by their own employees. Todd Kelly, a lawyer in Houston, says his firm alone has fifteen clients with sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation complaints (for reporting assault and/or harassment) against Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC (KBR), as well as Cayman Island-based Service Employees International Inc., a KBR shell company. (While Smith is technically an SEII employee, she is supervised by KBR staff as a KBR employee.)

Jamie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December--when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government--also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

The "Lisa Smith" story offers an excellent and rare insight into the heart and mind of a recent rape survivor. It concludes:

Smith, who says she cannot sleep, appears exhausted. She tells her story without affect, little inflection and tamped emotion. She only tears up twice, most visibly when speaking about one of her sons, a 22-year-old US soldier who served in the Middle East recently. While she was in the process of debating whether--and how--to go about reporting her assault, she contacted him to see what his feelings were on the matter. "I didn't want him upset with his mom," she says, explaining that she was very loyal to the mission in Iraq and that he was similarly loyal to his service. "I was assaulted by somebody who was wearing the same uniform as him, and I just didn't want him to think bad of me. My children are pretty much my world." Smith's eyes fill with tears, and she pauses to collect herself. "I didn't want him to be upset because I was calling out somebody who was wearing his same uniform. They're supposed to be proud of what they do. And I'm proud of my sons. And in my mind, I live that war every day. I can make all sorts of excuses under the sun for bad behavior."

Her son advised her to make the formal complaint.

"He was like, 'Of course you're going to talk to CID, Mom. Of course you are.'" Smith smiles. "He doesn't think people should be allowed to wear his uniform and act like that. He's been in the war too and says it's no excuse. They're better trained than that. That's what my son thought. And he's not angry at his mom."

Rape has been a weapon during wartime for as long as there has been war. The classic Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller was probably my earliest education about that. But my more recent exploration of the nature of war has also helped me understand it (as much as such a thing can be understood). In War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, Chris Hedges writes about the dehumanization, the atmosphere of violence and aggression, the numbing of all empathy and compassion, that overtakes most people in war, where sex becomes another weapon of submission.

In the movie "The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo", filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson documents rape on a scale almost too large to comprehend. Jackson is herself a rape survivor, and she travelled to The Congo to hear the stories of survivors of mass rapes.

It became so much woman to woman. I very quickly lost that sense of them being 'other.' It made it easier, but it also made it harder. . . there were a lot of tears alone in my room at night, . . . I would find myself, at Panzi or in the bush for instance, and there were entire villages of women who had been raped - there was not a woman there who had not suffered."

I spent more than two years, on and off, interviewing rape survivors and people who minister to them. I thought I could do that without the stories touching memories of my own assault, or perhaps I needed to think that to begin. I also interviewed several social workers who specialize in sexual assault, especially child sexual abuse. I was interested in what happens to people who are absorbing all that pain. I really admire the work Jackson did to make this film. I'm especially impressed (and amazed) that she interviewed men who committed these crimes.

From Women Make Movies:

Shot in the war zones of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), this extraordinary film shatters the silence that surrounds the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. During the decade-long brutal war in the DRC, many tens of thousands of women and girls have been systematically kidnapped, raped, mutilated and tortured by soldiers from both foreign militias and the Congolese army. A survivor of gang rape herself, Emmy-Award winning filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson travels through the DRC to understand what is happening and why.

This moving, award-winning documentary, produced in association with HBO Documentary Films and the Fledgling Fund, features interviews with activists, peace keepers, physicians, and even – chillingly – the indifferent rapists who are soldiers of the Congolese Army. But the most moving and harrowing moments of the film come as dozens of survivors recount their stories with an honesty and immediacy pulverizing in its intimacy and detail. A profoundly disturbing portrayal of the ways that violence against women is used as a weapon of war, this powerful film also provides inspiring examples of resiliency, resistance, courage and grace.

The Greatest Silence premieres on HBO this week, and I imagine it will soon be available on DVD. This is the kind of film that I must force myself to see, but I always do, eventually.

I often hear people say they don't like to see movies that are so disturbing. I think, how else can we learn about other people's experiences? And if we don't learn about them, how will we empathize? I think of it this way: if people can live through it, the least I can do is bear witness.

state of the empire: reproductive freedom

Some Florida teens believe drinking Mountain Dew or smoking marijuana will prevent pregnancy and that swallowing a capful of bleach will prevent HIV/AIDS. Thank you, abstinence-only sex education! [sic]

When those pot-smoking, bleach-swilling Floridians get pregnant, they had better be prepared to become mommies and daddies. Their state legislature is trying to pass some of the most stringent anti-abortion laws in the US.

New laws would require any woman seeking an abortion to pay for, have, and view the results of, an ultrasound test.

The Florida state House of Representatives also passed a fetal homicide bill that would create a separate murder charge if a pregnancy is terminated by violence against a pregnant woman. The law would define a fetus from conception on as an "unborn child".

This hasn't passed the Florida state Senate yet, and may not. If it becomes law, reproductive-rights groups will go to court, as they always do, and the law would likely be found unconstitutional.

My point is not these laws in themselves, disgusting though they are. It's the laws in conjunction with abstinence-only sex "education".

The war against women is fought on many fronts. "Popline" is the world's largest database on reproductive health. It is managed by Johns Hopkins University, with money from US AID, the heavily politicized, anti-abortion, anti-woman Agency for International Development. Last week, a spokesperson for Johns Hopkins said the University had programmed its computers to ignore the word "abortion" in searches.

Librarians at the Medical Center of the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern about the restrictions this week after they had difficulty retrieving articles from Popline.

In an e-mail response on Tuesday, Johns Hopkins told the librarians that "abortion" was no longer a valid search term.

"We recently made all abortion terms stop words," Debra L. Dickson, a Popline manager, wrote. "As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now."

As outrageous and Orwellian as that seems, the US has been making "all abortion terms stop words" in the global sense for a long time, using what's called the Global Gag Rule. Officially known as The Mexico City Policy, the Gag Rule was instituted by (who else?) Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Bill Clinton in 1993, then reinstated by the Resident on his first day in office in 2001.*

The Global Gag Rule states that no US funds can be provided to any foreign organization that uses funding from any other source to: perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country.

Think about it. This is not just "we won't fund abortions". It's "we won't fund you at all, for anything, if you utter the word abortion or accept money from anyone else who does".

The Global Gag Rule increases the spread of HIV/AIDS, contributes to illegal and unsafe abortions, increases the world's population of unwanted babies, decreases the use of contraceptives (including HIV-preventing condoms), and in general increases human misery, suffering and death throughout the world.

For more information on how the Global Gag Rule hurts women, children and families, see Access Denied. You can search by continent and country to see the mighty reach of Empire.


-----
* OK, there is sometimes a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

miss bimbo: because you're never too young to think about breast implants

Starvation diets, breast implants and huge mobile phone bills. Sounds about right for a nine-year-old, eh?

Parents in the UK, France, Australia and New Zealand are horrified at an online game being marketed to their pre-teen daughters: Miss Bimbo.

Parents' groups have condemned a new internet game in which girls as young as nine are encouraged to "buy" their virtual dolls breast operations and facelifts.

The aim of the Miss Bimbo beauty contest game, which was launched in Britain last month, is to become the "hottest, coolest, most famous bimbo in the whole world", and contestants who compete against each other are told to "stop at nothing", even "meds or plastic surgery", to ensure their dolls win.

Children are given a naked virtual character to look after. They compete against other players to earn "bimbo" dollars so they can dress her in sexy outfits and take her clubbing. They are given missions, including securing plastic surgery at the game's clinic to give their dolls bigger breasts, and they have to keep her at her target weight with diet pills.

Although it is free to play, when the contestants run out of virtual cash they have to send text messages costing £1.50 each or use PayPal to top up their accounts.

But fear not, plastic surgery and dieting are not only about self-absorption and mindless consumerism. They are vital weapons in service of that all-important goal: getting a man. Some of the targets:

Level 7
After you broke up with your boyfriend you went on an eating binge! Now it's time to diet... Your goal weight is...

Level 9
Have a nip and tuck operation for a brand new face. You've found work as a plus-size model. To gain those vivacious curves, you need to weigh...

Level 10
Summertime is coming up and bikini weather is upon us. You want to turn heads on the beach don't you?

Level 11
Bigger is better! Have a breast operation

Level 17
There is a billionaire on vacation... You must catch his eye and his love!

Are you nauseated yet?

A few quick Google News searches revealed a lot of parental outrage, which is good news. Meanwhile, telecom regulators are investigating the website, because it appears that children are being encouraged to call premium-rate numbers, and the game may "exploit or provide content that parents are likely to think unacceptable", which is inconsistent with the Phonepayplus ethical code.

I wonder, how many years from now will the name "Miss Bimbo" surface in eating-disorder support groups? The game will long since have disappeared, but its effects may be felt every time a malnourished young woman looks in the mirror and believes she is too fat.

Thanks to Mara for turning me on to this.

a view to the inbox of a female sportswriter, or, why we still need feminism, part two

A Day in the Email Inbox of the Female Sportswriter

Thanks to Redsock.

equity pay in ontario, or, why we still need feminism

Antonia Zerbisias had a great column this week about equity pay - and the lack thereof - in Ontario.

A woman's work is not only never done, it's never valued as highly as a man's.

Ten years ago, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union announced that the average assistant teacher in child care centres was paid less than the average wage of a parking attendant.

Do we value jockeying our cars more than caring for our kids?

Nothing has changed.

Today, on the 20th anniversary of Ontario's pay equity legislation, women are even seeing their wages shrink relative to men's.

That's according to at least two major reports released last week.

The first is Working Women: Still a Long Way from Equality by the Canadian Labour Congress. It shows that, in 2005, female fulltime workers earned, on average, $39,200 compared to men, who earned $55,700 – a wage gap of $16,500, or 42 per cent of a woman's paycheque.

That means women earn 70.5 cents on the man's dollar, down from 72 cents just over 10 years ago.

It's not that the women are less-qualified or educated than men. It's that there are still "pink ghettoes" on the job market, entire job classifications seen as not worthy of parking lot attendant wages.

The second study, Putting Fairness Back Into Women's Pay, comes from the Ottawa-based Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It accuses the Ontario government of shortchanging its own lowest-paid female workers.

"It has failed to deliver approximately $78.1 million in pay equity adjustments owing to women for 2006-07," the centre says. "A further $467.9 million is owed from 2008-11. As a result, the government is now open to another Charter challenge (the last challenge forced the Harris government to pay up)."

"This is the government with its own employees. It's outrageous," says NDP labour critic Cheri DiNovo.

Both groups hope that when Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan tables his budget on March 25, female government workers will get some of the surplus he will no doubt be crowing about. They also want women's issues – which by extension include child welfare, poverty and the well-being of seniors – to get serious consideration.

Most important, they demand that pay equity enforcement measures be reinstated, to ensure employers comply with the law.

The column is here, and in this blog post, you can read more.

This reminds me, I didn't highlight Zerbisias' post on the C-484 vote. It's pretty much a round-up of what we've all been saying, but I thank her very much for writing so strongly about it. We are lucky to have her.

history lessons through letters to the editor

The other day, I had a letter in the Globe and Mail about Mother's Day, itself in reply to another letter. Today, there's a reply to my letter, and it's excellent.

Laura Kaminker states that "Mother's Day is a feel-good celebration of motherhood" (Not A Motherhood Issue - letters, March 12) and contrasts it with International Women's Day, which is "about all women - whether or not they are mothers - changing the world."

The origin of Mother's Day in North America came from an anti-war Mother's Day Proclamation written in 1870 by U.S. feminist, suffragette and peace activist Julia Ward Howe. She began a one-woman peace crusade with her proclamation, which called on the women of the world to rise up against war.

An excerpt from her proclamation shows her original words are as relevant today as in 1870: "Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

She sought to change the world; it is to our shame that we have allowed the historical origin of this special day to be co-opted by sentimental, commercial interests.

Patricia Hartnagel
Edmonton

I am a big fan of Julia Ward Howe, and I'm very happy to learn this bit of American and women's history. If you happen to know Patricia Hartnagel, thank her for me.

catholic church outdoes itself on hypocrisy

I don't usually pay attention to pronouncements by popes and papal cohorts, and I would rarely, if ever, blog about anything Catholic Church- related. But this item from James is just too rich.

Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close ally of the Pope and a top official in the Vatican, has come up with a new list of deadly sins for the modern "globalised" world.

He's told the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, that the seven classic "sins of yesteryear" - sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride - have a "rather individualistic dimension".

He hopes his new sinful versions will make the faithful realise that their vices have an effect on others.

They include: accumulating obscene wealth, polluting the environment, genetic engineering, drug dealing, abortion, paedophilia and causing social injustice.

Holy cow. Holy shit. Holy shitting cow.

The Catholic Church is including accumulating obscene wealth and pedophilia on its sin list??

The same Catholic Church that accumulated obscene wealth (often by stealing it from people it was forcibly converting and/or torturing and killing) for centuries? And has continued to accumulate obscene wealth while so many of its adherents live in obscene poverty and squalor?

And I assume this is the same Catholic Church that covered up its sexually abusive priests and nuns for decades by moving them to other unsuspecting parishes where they could continue to ruin yet more childhoods?

Now let's all play "what doesn't belong on the list". I love how abortion is on par with child sexual abuse and causing social injustice. Would that be the same social injustice the Catholic Church increases through its anti-woman (anti-contraception, anti-abortion) policies?

Oy. It wasn't always easy to be Jewish (especially as an atheist), but thank something I didn't have to recover from this crap. My heart goes out to recovering Catholics everywhere.

what i'm reading

I finally finished Chris Hedges' War Is A Force That Give Us Meaning.

As I've mentioned, even though it's a short book and the writing is very clear and accessible, it took me a very long time to read it, because it is so disturbing. But it's a very important book.

I believe that those of us who stand for peace, and who will likely never know the reality of war, should try to learn all we can about what it is we're trying to stop. Hedges uses history and literature to illustrate the psychology behind war - for the state that promotes it, the soldiers who prosecute it, and the people who must cope with its devastation. He shows you, as well as mere words can, the gruesome reality.

Hedges is an excellent writer who is making a huge contribution to our understanding of peace and justice. You can read Hedges in The Nation and on TruthDig. His most recent book is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America .

Next up, Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss, and the Myths and Realities of Dieting, by Gina Kolata. (This explains why the blog Weighty Matters jumped out at me.) Rethinking Thin is not a diet book, but more of an anti-diet book.

In this eye-opening book, New York Times science writer Gina Kolata shows that our society’s obsession with dieting and weight loss is less about keeping trim and staying healthy than about money, power, trends, and impossible ideals. Rethinking Thin is at once an account of the place of diets in American society and a provocative critique of the weight-loss industry. Kolata's account of four determined dieters' progress through a study comparing the Atkins diet to a conventional low-calorie one becomes a broad tale of science and society, of social mores and social sanctions, and of politics and power.

Rethinking Thin asks whether words like willpower are really applicable when it comes to eating and body weight. It dramatizes what it feels like to spend a lifetime struggling with one’s weight and fantasizing about finally, at long last, getting thin. It tells the little-known story of the science of obesity and the history of diets and dieting—scientific and social phenomena that made some people rich and thin and left others fat and miserable. And it offers commonsense answers to questions about weight, eating habits, and obesity—giving us a better understanding of the weight that is right for our bodies.

Since I don't have a category on this blog for dieting (and you can be sure I never will), I'm filing this book under feminism. Close enough.