Well, the Shrub's done it again. This time his assault on womens' reproductive rights is a White House Rule through the Health and Human Services department that is meant to "protect the moral and religious objections" of medical workers who object to abortions or sterilization. The major problem is that the wording is so vague it could end up being applied to simple birth control - among other things. Of course, my feeling is that if a doc or even the person sterilizing the instruments (protected under this proposed rule) has such a strong objection to what they're expected to do in their daily jobs, they should be looking for another one, not expecting me to curtail my rights to please theirs to be an ass.
Here's a link to an Adobe Acrobat pdf of the whole rule: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf
Read it and see if you have a problem with it. If so, contact the White House before September 25, which is the deadline for public commentary. If you want to leave a comment at the main site, use this link: http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. Of course, I just tried finding the proposed rule using all the search criteria I could think of and didn't, so good luck that way.
There are plenty of online groups that are already circualting petitions like the NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.org. However, a personal letter with specific insights from the proposed rule itself might be more effective.
Now, to read it more thoroughly and figure out what I'll be using for my letters, one to the editors of the Times and one to the Health and Human Services Department.
Ugh! Shall we all be barefoot and pregnant, ladies?
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Monday, August 25, 2008
Saturday, August 02, 2008
What a waste of great DNA
Be proud of me. I managed not to hit someone today. On the bus ride home, I ended up talking to two of the more obnoxious of my fellow bus riders today plus an absolutely gorgeous male specimen whom I had briefly spoken to on the ride up to the mall. Well, when my little conversation with the three men was done I went back to perusing my new stitching magazine. Mr. Gorgeous turns to me and my heart went a little pit-a-pat. Then he opened his mouth and uttered these words: "I think Women's Lib has killed the American family."
Let me back this up and tell you how this started. I got on and was reading my magazine. I suddenly realized all three men were staring at me. I asked what was wrong. Obnoxious Rider #1, responded that they had been talking about sewing. I was reading a sewing magazine (sort of). So, I commented that he knew very well that if I'm not stitching on the bus, I'm reading about it. This is mostly accurate. Mr. Gorgeous then turned to me and said, "I'll bet Rumpelstiltskin was your favorite fairy tale." I scoffed at this and said I preferred stories where the princess ended up saving the prince, totally disregarding the fact that Rumpelstiltskin wasn't exactly about sewing, even if spinning is pretty much the most vital step of getting decent thread to use. There was a little more about women in sports and athletes of all genders and types doping, with a little segueway into David Beckham, but the conversation pretty much died a natural death.
I went back to my magazine. That's when Mr. Gorgeous proved that great genes do not necessarily make a great person. I kept my cool through the whole conversation, even when he brought in the Bible and God making women inferior, yadda yadda. I brought up some polyandrous and matriarchal societies in history that did well. He tried the religion card again and I told him I didn't believe in his and to drop any point he wanted to make that hinged on the religious. He then brought up divorce rates in America and I told him that divorces weren't necessarily bad, see the example of abused women getting out of bad relationships. Here's where the restraint came in, people.
Mr. Gorgeous says that women are abused because they mentally and emotionally abuse their men first and that when said "man" strikes back, he's accused of being in the wrong. Women want to be equal to men, but when they are abused they cry foul. So, basically, it's that old argument that women just ask to be abused.
I did agree with him that there are unhealthy relationships out there, but I did not agree with him that anyone deserves to be hit. In fact, I'm even the one that brought up the fact that there are abusive women out there. I brought up my uncle's relationship with his wife. He's completely whipped. They have scream fights, yes, and she's really in control of the relationship, to his detriment, in my opinion, but he does not strike her. He doesn't, as Mr. Gorgeous contends, get back at her for "abusing him first".
Then Mr. Gorgeous brought up "the mother of his child". Apparently, she talks trash about his deceased mother, who was a drug user. He says he's pushed her, but not hit her. She is apparently a nasty piece of work, so in his mind, she deserves this. My comment to that was that I'd just stay away from her as much as possible, interacting only in regards to the child. Personally, it sounds like he shouldn't be throwing any stones. Too much glass around.
Pity, he really is a gorgeous man: high cheekbones; shaved head; yummy, runner-fit body; creamy, cafe-au-lait skin. What a waste of great DNA.
Let me back this up and tell you how this started. I got on and was reading my magazine. I suddenly realized all three men were staring at me. I asked what was wrong. Obnoxious Rider #1, responded that they had been talking about sewing. I was reading a sewing magazine (sort of). So, I commented that he knew very well that if I'm not stitching on the bus, I'm reading about it. This is mostly accurate. Mr. Gorgeous then turned to me and said, "I'll bet Rumpelstiltskin was your favorite fairy tale." I scoffed at this and said I preferred stories where the princess ended up saving the prince, totally disregarding the fact that Rumpelstiltskin wasn't exactly about sewing, even if spinning is pretty much the most vital step of getting decent thread to use. There was a little more about women in sports and athletes of all genders and types doping, with a little segueway into David Beckham, but the conversation pretty much died a natural death.
I went back to my magazine. That's when Mr. Gorgeous proved that great genes do not necessarily make a great person. I kept my cool through the whole conversation, even when he brought in the Bible and God making women inferior, yadda yadda. I brought up some polyandrous and matriarchal societies in history that did well. He tried the religion card again and I told him I didn't believe in his and to drop any point he wanted to make that hinged on the religious. He then brought up divorce rates in America and I told him that divorces weren't necessarily bad, see the example of abused women getting out of bad relationships. Here's where the restraint came in, people.
Mr. Gorgeous says that women are abused because they mentally and emotionally abuse their men first and that when said "man" strikes back, he's accused of being in the wrong. Women want to be equal to men, but when they are abused they cry foul. So, basically, it's that old argument that women just ask to be abused.
I did agree with him that there are unhealthy relationships out there, but I did not agree with him that anyone deserves to be hit. In fact, I'm even the one that brought up the fact that there are abusive women out there. I brought up my uncle's relationship with his wife. He's completely whipped. They have scream fights, yes, and she's really in control of the relationship, to his detriment, in my opinion, but he does not strike her. He doesn't, as Mr. Gorgeous contends, get back at her for "abusing him first".
Then Mr. Gorgeous brought up "the mother of his child". Apparently, she talks trash about his deceased mother, who was a drug user. He says he's pushed her, but not hit her. She is apparently a nasty piece of work, so in his mind, she deserves this. My comment to that was that I'd just stay away from her as much as possible, interacting only in regards to the child. Personally, it sounds like he shouldn't be throwing any stones. Too much glass around.
Pity, he really is a gorgeous man: high cheekbones; shaved head; yummy, runner-fit body; creamy, cafe-au-lait skin. What a waste of great DNA.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Colorado "Personhood" Amendment
As much as I would love to be back in Colorado right now, getting my degree, something is happening there that makes me just want to pull a "Hulk Smash!" I wonder how much of this Tancredo pushed for?
In November, Coloradans will vote on an amendment to the state constitution granting "personhood" to "any human being from the moment of fertilization." The ultimate goal being to stop any and all abortions and overturn Roe v. Wade.
Some of my problems with this proposal:
1. A zygote or embryo cannot live outside the womb. Until the third trimester a fetus cannot live outside the womb. Yes, there have been very rare cases of a twenty-week fetus surviving but as I said, they are very rare and most doctors and medical professionals consider the third trimester to be the viable stage. Even early third trimester, premature births need a lot of TLC to make it with reasonable health. My personal opinion is that until viability is reached, said fetus is not a person. Sorry to sound harsh.
2. If a miscarriage (medical term: spontaneous abortion) happens and some yahoo says the pregnant woman did something to cause it like drink or smoke, this could open her up for criminal negligence charges. Please, if she intended to keep the baby and deliver it, she'll already be torn up by the loss. Charging her afterward is like twisting the knife and pouring salt in the wound at the same time. Women are already being charged under child abuse laws if they drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant, even if nothing bad happens to the child.
3. If there is a medically necessary procedure that will harm the fetus to save the mother, whose rights are paramount?
4. The old stand-by of rape and incest. What do you do? Using the much-to-often-repeated standard "It's not the child's fault" doesn't negate the irreparable harm a pregnancy carried to term could do to the real victim of such crimes, the woman. Again, until viability, not a child. Would this give the rapist a chance to say he demanded the "child" be born, thus compounding and extending his rape for at least nine months. What a power trip. This amendment would hand him the perfect weapon over his victim - one he could wield continuously for at least nine months. Maybe more. As if having to face him in trial isn't bad enough.
5. Who the hell gave some state or government the right to tell me what to do with my own body? Not me. My body, my choice. Stay the hell out of my uterus.
6. I also object to it because it can ultimately be used to halt vital stem cell research into diseases like Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries (to name the most famous). Now, I do think that if using adult stem cells could yield positive results, we should study that, as well. Whatever works the best.
7. What would happen in the case of in vitro fertilized eggs that haven't been implanted and are slated to be destroyed? Do they automatically have to be implanted and given a chance to develop into infants? Who has to carry or pay for them? Honestly, frozen eggs are enough of a pitfall, shall we add more to an already dodgy subject?
8. Do we really want to return (as if we've really left) to the back-alley, coat hanger abortion days? This would simply serve to drive women with no other option to it. Septicemia, bleeding out, permanent injury? Yeah, we really look forward to this type of thing again.
Dianne N. Irving says some interesting things about the proposed amendment, actually. Worth a read.
Also, read this .pdf by JAMA bout fetal pain.
*sigh* There is so much more that's wrong with this asinine attempt to control women's bodies and minds.
In November, Coloradans will vote on an amendment to the state constitution granting "personhood" to "any human being from the moment of fertilization." The ultimate goal being to stop any and all abortions and overturn Roe v. Wade.
Some of my problems with this proposal:
1. A zygote or embryo cannot live outside the womb. Until the third trimester a fetus cannot live outside the womb. Yes, there have been very rare cases of a twenty-week fetus surviving but as I said, they are very rare and most doctors and medical professionals consider the third trimester to be the viable stage. Even early third trimester, premature births need a lot of TLC to make it with reasonable health. My personal opinion is that until viability is reached, said fetus is not a person. Sorry to sound harsh.
2. If a miscarriage (medical term: spontaneous abortion) happens and some yahoo says the pregnant woman did something to cause it like drink or smoke, this could open her up for criminal negligence charges. Please, if she intended to keep the baby and deliver it, she'll already be torn up by the loss. Charging her afterward is like twisting the knife and pouring salt in the wound at the same time. Women are already being charged under child abuse laws if they drink alcohol or do drugs while pregnant, even if nothing bad happens to the child.
3. If there is a medically necessary procedure that will harm the fetus to save the mother, whose rights are paramount?
4. The old stand-by of rape and incest. What do you do? Using the much-to-often-repeated standard "It's not the child's fault" doesn't negate the irreparable harm a pregnancy carried to term could do to the real victim of such crimes, the woman. Again, until viability, not a child. Would this give the rapist a chance to say he demanded the "child" be born, thus compounding and extending his rape for at least nine months. What a power trip. This amendment would hand him the perfect weapon over his victim - one he could wield continuously for at least nine months. Maybe more. As if having to face him in trial isn't bad enough.
5. Who the hell gave some state or government the right to tell me what to do with my own body? Not me. My body, my choice. Stay the hell out of my uterus.
6. I also object to it because it can ultimately be used to halt vital stem cell research into diseases like Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries (to name the most famous). Now, I do think that if using adult stem cells could yield positive results, we should study that, as well. Whatever works the best.
7. What would happen in the case of in vitro fertilized eggs that haven't been implanted and are slated to be destroyed? Do they automatically have to be implanted and given a chance to develop into infants? Who has to carry or pay for them? Honestly, frozen eggs are enough of a pitfall, shall we add more to an already dodgy subject?
8. Do we really want to return (as if we've really left) to the back-alley, coat hanger abortion days? This would simply serve to drive women with no other option to it. Septicemia, bleeding out, permanent injury? Yeah, we really look forward to this type of thing again.
Dianne N. Irving says some interesting things about the proposed amendment, actually. Worth a read.
Also, read this .pdf by JAMA bout fetal pain.
*sigh* There is so much more that's wrong with this asinine attempt to control women's bodies and minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)