Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘reproductive rights’ Category

Don’t you hate mixed messages?

“Thanks, but no thanks (wink, wink) to your bridge money, Congress, but be a dear and leave your $400 million on the nightstand.”

“Pork barrel spending?  Earmarks?  Why, no, I can’t remember when I last saw the likes of them.  Oh, wait.  Are you talking about those gifts of ‘progress’ that I, like, totally earned thanks to the hard work of the pimp I sent to Washington?”

Bite me.

Here’s the thing.  I know everyone has their own hot button issue that leads them to outrage and eventual involvement in a political campaign.  For a lot of us that issue is reproductive rights – abortion – access to contraception – sex education programs – Roe v. Wade – issues of choice when it comes to every aspect of women’s health.

I understand how it’s satisfying to make a donation to Planned Parenthood in the name of Sarah Palin, and have PP send her a thank you.  It’s a diabolical knife twist.  It’s a “gotcha” moment, and for those of us fighting for rights that we believe are basic human rights, “gotcha” moments are few and far between.

But.

A donation to Planned Parenthood at this critical moment in time is not aiding the Obama campaign.

If you are in a position to donate money, please consider where your funds will do the most good.  If you support Planned Parenthood (and I do not, so there is my bias for the record) and believe with all your heart that sending a message to Sarah Palin is worth every penny of your hard-earned money, I hope you will also dig deep and find a few additional dollars to send directly to the Obama campaign.

If you think I’m wrong, let me know.  If you think Planned Parenthood is wrong, tell them.  I do.  Every time they call or send a request for money.

Read Full Post »

yummy. sexy. bare naked garden porn.

That this blog is not a news blog should not be news to anyone. Hell, I’ve only been posting once a week or less, and I gotta tell y’all that you’re going to be seeing more of less very shortly. Greatest Husband has planned a gi-normous tour through Scandinavia for the two of us that begins in just a few short days.

It’s far from breaking news, but before I go, I’d like to write a few words concerning this, this and that. (I know, following links is such a pain. The three-word summary for each would go something like this: Viagra-McCain-birthcontrol, asswipe-Viagra-birthcontrol, and Bush-DHHS-asswipes)

I keep having this imaginary conversation in my head, in which I am a pharmacist being asked to dispense Viagra to a man at the counter.

ThreadingWater: “Sir, I’d like to ask you a question. Are you married?”

Man: “No. My wife died four years ago. Is this relevant information?”

TW: “Well, for me it is. I’m sorry. I can’t fill your prescription.”

Man: “Why not? Are you out of the drug?”

TW: “No. We have VIAGRA (loud enough so every one in the waiting area can hear) I just don’t believe in dispensing drugs so that unmarried men can have sex. I believe sex should take place after marriage and only for the purpose of creating babies. You, my friend, look a bit long in the tooth for procreational sex. In fact, my records here indicate that you’re 72 years old.”

Man: “But, that’s discriminatory. My doctor has prescribed this drug for a medical reason.”

TW: “I simply don’t believe any man has the right to a hard-on every time he wants one. That’s a life-style choice, not a medical reason. And, thanks to the Bush administration and the rule changes they made at the Department of Health & Human Services, my employer would lose all of their federal funding if they tried to fire me because of my personal beliefs. You’re out of luck, sir, or, should I say ‘you won’t be getting lucky tonight?'”

Man: “Can you at least direct me to a pharmacy that WILL fill my prescription?”

TW: “Nope. That would be another violation of my personal beliefs. Have a nice day.”

Don’t worry boys.  Your inalienable right to a hard-on is still secured by the patriarchy.  Just another little dream, like imagining an Equal Rights Amendment might someday be added to the U.S. Constitution so that, you know, we would all be treated equally.

Read Full Post »

Despite Saturday’s blistering migraine, all sorts of warning bells added to the disharmony in my brain when a dinner companion suggested I read Melinda Henneberger’s op-ed piece, “Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats,” in the June 22nd NYT.

The gist of Henneberger’s argument is that – based on her extensive “listening” sessions over a recent 18 month period – the Democrats need to soften their pro-choice stance on abortion in order to win back, primarily Catholic, women voters who would normally be inclined to vote Democratic. These are women who, according to Henneberger, identify with the Dems on issues such as the Iraq War and social programs and “are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats.”

Apparently, they just aren’t liberal or deep enough in their heart Democrats to vote pro-choice.

Anyone else’s crap-o-meter just go off?

Other bloggers have uncovered Henneberger’s lack of neutrality on the issue of choice and questioned her reporting methods, but what bugs me is her unquestioned bias that pro-life and pro-choice ideologies are opposite hard-line positions. They aren’t.

Unquestionably, pro-lifers are on a mission to deny access to abortion and contraception to every woman, regardless of circumstance (rape, incest, health) and one’s personal religious beliefs.

Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, wish to leave pregnancy and contraception decisions in the hands of women and their physicians. Opposed to using contraception? Don’t use it. Opposed to terminating a pregnancy through abortion? Don’t have one.

It’s hard to imagine a more moderate position than that afforded by pro-choice ideology. For Henneberger to suggest that socially liberal women looking for a moderate position on abortion can’t find a place for themselves within the pro-choice, political left is absurd.

Henneberger needs to hone her “listening” skills, and she needs to be more forthright with her readers about her own pro-life, Republican bias.

Read Full Post »

Scene 1

President George W. Bush, at podium surrounded by blond babies, vetoes legislation that would loosen restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research with the following words,

” . . . we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I’m not going to allow it.”

Stage left – imaginary question from inconsequential midwest blogger:

“But, President Bush, what about the 3,531 casualties among the U.S. troops you have sent to Iraq under pretense, lies and faulty intelligence? Are American taxpayers compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of their lives simply because they existed outside a petri dish?”

Scene 2

Right to Life terrorists, George L. Wilson and Drew Heiss, announce the Paul Hill Days with these words:

“On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard. He was arrested, given a sham trial, and executed as a martyr. On the 13th anniversary of Paul Hill’s act of love and mercy, memorial events will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to honor him as God’s man and our hero.”

Stage left, again the annoying voice of inconsequential midwest blogger:

“Mr. Wilson, can you explain how it is morally justifiable to murder large clumps of cells, but not small ones? Is there a magical moment when embryos outgrow their sacred selves and become legitimate targets of terrorist acts?”

Audience, stick around for the fascinating ‘talk-back’ session where we compare and contrast the moral fiber of our main characters.

Read Full Post »