Attempted Gotcha Gone Wrong

A resolution has been reached in the case of the pregnant Texas teen suing her parents who were allegedly pressuring her to abort.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, the judge ruled in the girl's favour.

But I'm not sure it's the propaganda victory the fetus fetishists envisioned.

They obviously thought they were being oh so clever in using Roe v. Wade in yet another braindead attempted gotcha.

But look what they wind up saying.

“This is a tremendous victory, and another life has been saved,” said TCDL (Texas Center for Defense of Life) attorney and President Greg Terra. “Our victory today stands for the principle that ‘choice’ goes both ways. Under Roe v. Wade and post-Roe cases, a teenage girl has the absolute legal right to choose life, even over the strong objections, pressure, and punishments of her parents.”

Yes, indeedy, as sane people have known all along, choice does go both ways.

Ijits.

Just Like Thanksgiving. . .

. . . Canadians can celebrate two Blogging for Choice Days.

On January 22, the US Supreme Court landmark judgement Roe v. Wade is 40 years old.

Much weakened recently -- 2012 was second only to 2011 in the number of new state restrictions on abortion -- but it's still in effect.

Here are some nifty infographics to decorate your blog-post.

Then, on January 28, we celebrate 25 years of lawlessness in Canada.

But all is not rosy here either. We've still got major access issues and the perennial wanking of fetus fetishists. The current one, Warawa's Wank is slated to have some debate in March.

Mark your calendars and shine your party shoes.

The best part? No frigging turkey.

In Canada, Pro-Choice Is Winning

If you've been wondering about fetus fetishists crowing about winning and pro-choice losing lately, this TIME magazine cover story is what it's about.

Amanda Marcotte responds.

There's much to like about Kate Pickert's Time cover story (hidden behind a paywall) on abortion rights 40 years after Roe v. Wade. Unlike the majority of big media stories on this issue, this one actually portrays abortion patients accurately, particularly pointing out how most of them are grown adults with children at home and notes the wide range of feminist activism—from fighting for women's economic rights to promoting contraception access—that actually results in lower abortion rates. Pickert even mentions the phrase "reproductive justice," a framework that takes a more holistic approach to improving people's reproductive lives and one that appeals strongly to younger activists, especially activists of color.

Too bad, then, that Pickert portrays the increasing restrictions on abortion access as the result of the failings of the pro-choice movement, a narrative which inevitably leads to blaming pro-choicers for being "hard line," "tone deaf," and lacking "nuance."

She tries to pass the whole deal off as 'business as usual'.

Two-steps-forward-one-step-back is the ugly reality of progressive politics.

That's often true, but not necessarily.

In Canada, we did it differently.

Merkin feminists won the right to abortion on January 22, 1973 with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

Immediately legislatures around the country started enacted restrictions.

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion. . . Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).

Merkin feminists have been fighting -- and largely losing -- rearguard skirmishes ever since.

Canadians watched in horror as the huge victory got nibbled to death by ducks.

We were like the younger sister. We got to watch Big Sis make terrible mistakes. And like the smart younger sister, we learned. We vowed to ourselves the political equivalent of 'blue eyeshadow is NEVER a good idea'.

It took 15 more years in Canada, until January 28, 1988, to achieve our victory, R. v. Morgentaler.

But because we watched and learned, we were ready for the ducks. Every time -- every fucking time -- the fetus fetishists show signs of screwing around with our rights, we act.

Recently, with Ken Epp's Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, we were a little slow off the mark.

So when Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312 surfaced, we were ready.

And we are ready for its sequel, Warawa's Wank, aka Motion 408.

As a matter of fact, the more the so-called debate heats up here in Canada, the more support we gain.

So, bring it, fetus fetishists.

We watched Big Sis fuck up.

We won't.

ADDED: Joyce Arthur's excellent Rabble piece on The Benefits of Decriminalizing Abortion.

Abortion criminalizers plan assault.

The New York Times provides a good overview of the attack plan US fetus fetishists are developing to take down a woman's right to a safe and accessible medical intervention to end a life-threatening pregnancy.

The politics of abortion have changed profoundly in some larger states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

“We’re facing the biggest threat to reproductive rights we’ve ever faced in this state,” said Lisa Subeck, executive director for Naral Pro-Choice Wisconsin.

In Michigan, because of the switch to an anti-abortion governor, “the dominos are lined up well for us this time,” said Ed Rivet, legislative director for Right to Life of Michigan. For starters, advocates hope to pass a state ban on the procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion that had been vetoed twice. After that, he said, “We have quite a list.”

Many defenders of abortion rights argue that because the election hinged largely on the economy and the role of government, officials did not receive a mandate for sweeping new social measures. “This last election was not about these issues at all,” said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “We now are concerned about a real overreaching by some state legislators and governors that will make it very difficult for women to access reproductive health care.” [...]

The abortion rate in the United States, which had declined steadily since a 1981 peak of more than 29 abortions per 1,000 women, stalled between 2005 and 2008, at slightly under 20 abortions per 1,000 women, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.

So, expect abortion criminalizers to regurgitate their usual lies about abortion as they crank up their war against women's right to control their reproductive capacity - in effect, to overturn Roe v. Wade not at the Supreme Court level but incrementally in women's lives, where it will cause them the most harm.

Now She Tells Us

There was always something seriously 'off' about Laura Bush, wasn't there?

Well, for starters, anybody who married that evil buffoon would have something off about her.

But she also often had a glassy look about her. An air of not quite being there. Or maybe wanting to be somewhere else. Drugs? we wondered.

And who the hell would blame her?

But it turns out even weirder -- she supports legal abortion and equal marriage! She's a crypto-feminist!

She's written a book -- for a ginormous sum of money -- and she's plugging it. Last week she was on Larry King.

KING: . . Gay marriage, you tell us in the book that during the 2004 campaign you talked to George about not making it a significant issue. Do you think we should have it?

BUSH: Well, I think we ought to definitely look at it and debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that, you know, when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have I think the same sort of rights that everyone has.

KING: So would that be an area where you disagreed?

BUSH: I guess that would be an area that we disagree. I mean, I understand totally what George thinks and what other people think about marriage being between a man and a woman. And it's a real, you know, reversal really for that to accept gay marriage.

KING: But you do?

BUSH: But I think we could, yeah. I think it's also a generational thing.

KING: You think it's coming?

BUSH: Yeah, that will come, I think.

KING: How about choice?

BUSH: That was the -- I write in the book about the very first question I got on the morning of George's inauguration, from Katie Couric, who asked me two questions about abortion. That was the social issue in 2000 that everyone got asked about. And then I think gay marriage was the social issue in 2004. And I was say probably in the more recent election as well.

She asked me if -- she asked two questions about abortion, and then she asked me if I was for the overturn of Roe versus Wade. And sort of everything went through my mind. This was the very morning my husband was about to be inaugurated. And I thought, do I really want to start my husband's presidency, you know, suggesting that a Supreme Court rule being overturned. And I said no.

And I think it's important that it remain legal, because I think it's important for people, for medical reasons and other reasons.

KING: So you -- that would be two areas of disagreement.

BUSH: Uh-huh.

She was biting her tongue so hard the whole time that she must have just spazzed out.

Other interviews reveal that she's in favour of more women on the Supreme Court and doesn't like the totalitarian new 'papers please' law in Arizona.

My, my. What if Bush's rabid TheoCon followers had known there was an Enemy sleeping with their guy? A feminazi -- well, in their terms -- behind the throne? A supporter of the Gay Agenda with very close access to the Homophobe-in-Chief?

I betcha Bush's primary adversaries are gnashing their teeth over the lost opportunity.

Slut-Shaming Law Rejected

Oklahoma's panty-sniffing, slut-shaming legislation is declared unconstitutional.

Called the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act, the law would have required all doctors to file information on a woman's age, marital status, education level, number of previous pregnancies, cost and type of abortion, as well as the mother's relationship to the father, with the Oklahoma Department of Health.

Though it did not ask for names, the form posed 37 questions detailing a woman's personal situation. Critics say the first eight questions alone could easily lead to the identification of a woman who lives in one of the state's many small communities.

Doctors who fail to provide information would face criminal sanctions and loss of their medical license.

Sadly, it was found unconstitutional not because of its prurience or invasiveness, but because it violated the state's requirement that legislation deal with one subject only.

So, natch, the old white male farts in the state leg are working on new bills that do address single aspects of a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

But the Oklahomans are a bunch of pikers compared to Florida Baptist-minister-turned-legislator, Charles Van Zant.

Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights, cites the state and federal Constitutions, as well as the Declaration of Independence, in asserting that all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that the first among these rights is the right to life." Nearly one-third of his "Florida for Life Act" is devoted to legislative "findings," including statements that life begins at conception and that the high court’s 1973 and 1992 rulings legalizing abortion were wrong.

The bill also states that about 50 million abortions have occurred since the Roe v. Wade ruling 37 years ago. It contends that "the standard of decency of the people of this state has evolved" to a point that the people of Florida want the ruling reversed.

"I’m the brand-new kid on the block, as far as being in politics, but I believe that this appeals to the will of our people," Van Zant said in an interview. "I believe it is the will of the Lord but beyond that, this country was founded on a Constitution that was a flat-out attack on every act that would take rights away from the people — and the very first of those is life, which includes the unborn."

Stephanie Kunkel, state director of Planned Parenthood, called the bill "totally unconstitutional." She said polls and experience in other states show the public to be pro-choice, although the Republican-run Legislature leans the other way to varying degrees.

"This is the most rigid and inflexible ban on abortion in the United States," said Kunkel. "Not only does it ban abortion, it also has absolutely no exceptions for rape or incest."

The only exception would be to save the life of the mother but the approval of two doctors would be required.

Take that, Roe v. Wade!

Spin and shrieeekkk watch.

Pro-choice supporters advocates have allowed to a certain extent pro-lies zealots to set the terms of an 'abortion vs no abortion' orthodoxy.

Because abortion-criminalizers are rigid, absolute, dogmatic, uncompromising, and extreme in their ideological discourse, pro-choice individuals and organizations have articulated and developed official positions that offer the same political intransigeance, as counter-weight.

Frances Kissling - you may remember her from this - raises some challenging and complex questions in the first part of an essay posted at Salon.

We are pro-life to the extent that we do not want to abuse or harm living things if we can avoid it. That at least is our ideal -- which we then regularly violate with war, torture, the death penalty, and the callous way in which we deny those in need healthcare, food, shelter and education. Still, I realize that expressing pro-life values, when you're pro-choice, is much more complicated. The fact that the fetus resides in the body of a woman requires special consideration of her rights.

Protecting the fetus in any way comes with a cost that only women can bear. But I have come to believe that women's autonomy does not require that all efforts be made to protect women from pain or from hearing the word "no." The Supreme Court attempted to balance women's autonomy and respect for life in Roe [vs Wade] by allowing states to "proscribe abortion [after viability] except when it is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother."

These are valid considerations in the US where the laws are different. In Canada, the termination of a pregnancy has been for over 20 years a strictly medical intervention regulated by the health care system. Yet we know for a fact that access to first-trimester abortion is not quickly nor easily available in all jurisdictions and that has consequences for women's reproductive health as well as their choices.

It's safe to predict that Blob Blogging Wingnut and other fetus fetishists will prevaricate and spin snippets of Kissling's reflection while ignoring its resolutely pro-choice foundation. SHE has sneered and twisted HER own meaning from such iconoclastic musings before - it may be the fact that Kissling is a former president of Catholics for Choice that gets HER knickers in knots.

In parting, we at DAMMIT JANET! support Emma the Embryo and her perspective, as drawn below by Alison at her own blogsite Creekside.

The Shrieeek We Want to Hear

Today is the 36th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade and the fetus fetishists are taking to the streets of Washington to protest. Again.

But as that link points out, they're not going to get much support from President Obama.

In fact, pro-choice supporters are expecting Obama to mark this anniversary by rescinding the Mexico City Policy, or Global Gag Rule today.

This will be a good thing but what we're really looking forward to is his signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which will nullify all the pissant little rules, regulations, and restrictions various states have instituted to impede women's reproductive rights.

The shrieeeeking will be thunderous. And delightful to pro-choice ears.

Blog for Choice

Thirty-five years ago, I was a 20-year-old hippie travelling through the US with my hippie boyfriend in a VW van. Life was pretty groovy. Like most 20-year-olds, I didn't have much historical sense. Events seemed to be unfolding as they should. Civil rights were on the march. The Merkin people seemed to be succeeding in protesting an unpopular war.

Then, women's rights took a leap forward with the USian Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Groovy.

Thirty-five years later, women's rights in the US are going backwards.

Harvard puts out an annual review of the laws on abortion around the world. Scroll down to the United States there to view the state of play in the 50 states.

Parental notification laws. Extended wait times. Mandatory counselling. Mandatory ultrasounds.

And in an election year the word 'abortion' is on the lips of every slimey huckster seeking office. The less slimey merely want to 'reduce' the number of abortions. The truly scary theocrats want to outlaw abortion entirely and jail women who succeed in obtaining one.

(I won't even get into the creeping attack on contraception in general.)

While we at Birth Pangs stand in solidarity with our USian sisters, we sometimes despair. You've got a fuck of a long way to go yet, baby.

(First published at Birth Pangs.)