(U.S. President George W. Bush delivers remarks on the global war on terror in Washington February 24, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young)
Breaking News: Ghost of Eisenhower Tries to Incapacitate Bush with Glare of Doom
(U.S. President George W. Bush delivers remarks on the global war on terror in Washington February 24, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young)
Abortion Ban One Step Closer in SD
After passing the State Senate, now it has passed the South Dakota State House.
South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.Sigh. I’ll keep you posted…
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill…
"I think the stars are aligned," said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican. "Simply put, now is the time."
…According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, similar abortion proposals are in the works in seven other states: Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee.
Self-Reflection
Sarah Elizabeth Richards posts at Broadsheet about the use of mirrors therapeutically to help women change negative perceptions about their body images.
Researchers followed 45 women ages 17 to 31, whose obsession with the weight and shape of their bodies affected their feelings of self-worth. Half were asked to stand in front of a three-way mirror and objectively describe the areas they liked and disliked. (They were also told to stay away from the scale or mirror at home.)Sometimes people just need to be given permission to change the way their perceptions. It’s ingrained from such an early age to look at our flaws disapprovingly, rather than just accept them, and I imagine that’s a big part of why this therapy works. It’s not just learning how to view yourself differently; it’s being given permission to view yourself differently. If you don’t want to obsess about your gut flab, it’s okay; you don’t have to.
After three sessions, the women reported better self-esteem and were less depressed than a comparison group, who participated in traditional talk therapy with a counselor.
One of my mom’s favorite stories to tell about me is how I gave her permission to say no. A few years ago, she was moaning and groaning about some wedding shower (or baby shower, or something) that she didn’t really feel like attending. “I don’t want to go, but I have to,” she sighed.
“No you don’t,” I said.
She sort of blinked at me, surprised, and said, “Yes, I do. I was invited. They’ll be hurt if I don’t go. I have to go.”
“No you don’t,” I said again. “If you don’t want to go, just tell them you can’t come. Send the gift and card and stay home.”
She looked stunned, as if I was saying the most revolutionary thing in the world. Well, I was—in her world. She always felt so obligated to do everything that anyone asked. That’s the way she’d been raised. It had never really occurred to her that she could just say no, that if she simply preferred to stay home and watch a movie or read a book or sit and stare at the wall it was okay.
After a long pause for consideration, she nodded her head. “I’m going to tell them no!” she announced.
“Good for you,” I told her.
She felt very pleased with herself, but made a self-effacing comment about how her daughter had to teach her how to say no. But it’s not like she didn’t know how; she just needed permission to do it. There are things within all of us that go so deeply, we can’t allow ourselves to break with (or from) them. Sometimes we just need a jolt to do it, someone to say, “That’s allowed.”
Realistically speaking…
Mannion’s written a very thoughtful post on the abortion debate, taking up the task of addressing that, on the “when life begins” question, we’re all just guessing, whether our answer is “at conception” or “at birth” or anything in between. In the absence of definitive proof, one guess shouldn’t (and logically can’t) trump another, which is another way of saying that “God says so” isn’t a particularly compelling political position—although Mannion says it (as usual) much more eloquently.
One little thing was niggling at me, though…but it’s not really Mannion’s post to which I’m responding; it’s some other discussions going in various comments threads (especially this one) around here the past couple of days. This was the bit in Mannion’s post that sparked the thought, however:
And if the Supreme Court were to decide or Congress were to pass a law stating that except in cases where the mother's health was at risk, abortions should be banned, or severely restricted, after the fourth month instead of the sixth, I wouldn't be outraged.In theory, I might not be outraged, either. (Although, in addition to provisions made for the mother’s life and health, I’d always add something about the health of the fetus; with grave deformities or other health issues that would make life outside the womb unsustainable, some of which may not always be detectable until further along, I believe the decision whether to terminate early or give birth to a baby that will inevitably quickly die after a short life of suffering is best left to its parent(s).) But theoretical arguments don’t work very well in abortion debates.
It’s to the anti-choice brigade’s credit that they have us focusing on second- and third-trimester abortions at all. They do make for great theoretical arguments, inflamed with all sorts of passion and emotion. But the reality is that second-trimester abortions account for less than 10% of all abortions, and third-trimester abortions account for less than 0.5% of all abortions. It’s quite a coup for them that we spend so much time discussing 10.5% of abortions, as if they’re of more importance than the nearly 90% of abortions that all happen within bounds with which we’re all pretty comfortable.
And then there’s the theory v. reality of that 10.5%. In theory, it’s all about making sure we address the morality of callous or indecisive women who lazily wait until their second- or third-trimester to seek out an abortion. In reality, the majority of women seeking early second-trimester abortions do so because they didn’t realize they were pregnant earlier and/or because they had problem raising the funds to pay for an abortion. (If finding a way to pay for an abortion takes a couple of weeks, pushing a woman into her second term, financial problems become increasingly complicated; second-trimester abortions can be more costly, and they require, for many women, travel costs to a state with abortion providers who perform the procedure.) And the majority of women seeking late second-trimester abortions do so for reasons relating to their own health or the health of the fetus, much like third-trimester abortions.
Here’s another little nasty reality: As of 2000, 87% of counties in America had no abortion provider, and 86 of our 276 metropolitan areas had no provider. Nearly one-third of all American women aged 15-44 lived in counties without providers. The number of providers continues to steadily decrease.
So, why, pray tell, do we spill so much ink (as it were) debating our hand-wringing concerns about second- and third-trimester abortions? Why do we discuss ad nauseam when life begins and when whatever rights we’re willing to confer to fetuses, if any, should kick in, when what we should be talking about, what we need to be talking about, is lack of access?
First, lack of access to comprehensive sex education, which decreases the incidences of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Second, lack of access to emergency contraception, which is cheaper, among other things. Third, lack of access to safe, legal, and affordable abortion providers. If women’s inability to get cash and get to an abortion provider is one of the main contributors to delayed abortions, then our focus on the morality of second-term abortions is really putting the cart before the horse. Let’s make abortion accessible to women during any stage of their pregnancy, and then see if the whole argument isn’t a moot point.
In theory, I wouldn’t be outraged by lots of stuff—including spending endless amounts of time mounting philosophical debates about abortion (which can be very interesting). But in reality, I’m more interested in giving women the best options possible. Good information, birth control, emergency contraception, full and easy access to abortion when needed. Once we’ve got all that, I’ll spend all the time in the world debating second- and third-trimester abortions, if there’s anything left to debate.
Bush is Stealing My Rap
The enemy we face is brutal and determined. [They] have an ideology. They share a hateful vision that rejects tolerance and crushes all dissent. They seek a world where women are oppressed, where children are indoctrinated, and those who reject their ideology of violence and extremism are threatened and often murdered.Funny, that’s what I say about him and his minions all the time. Sure, he threw in some stuff about murder and WMDs so he could talk about “the terrorists,” but I’m not fooled. His speechwriters are reading my blog.
[They] have aims. They seek to impose their heartless ideology of totalitarian control… To achieve their aims, [they] have turned to the weapon of fear. [They] do not understand America. They're not going to shake our will. We will stay in the hunt, we will never give in, and we will prevail.
Q: What do Bush’s balls taste like?
A: I don’t fucking know. Ask John McCain.
The following is a statement by Senator John McCain on the debate over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage U.S. sea ports.See, that’s just the problem, though. They haven’t earned our trust, but in fact have undermined it at every opportunity, and therefore don’t deserve the presumption that they will do best by the American people on any issue. And no amount of thinly-guised or overt accusations of partisanship or racism can distract from the fact that there’s just no reason to trust this administration with the stewardship of this country, even (and perhaps especially) on national security. This is the administration who ignored warnings about al Qaida strikes, cooked intelligence, deliberately conflated bin Laden and Hussein, outed a CIA operative working on WMD proliferation in a game of political retribution, did a half-assed job in Afghanistan, mismatched the war in Iraq from day one, sanctioned torture, spied on Americans, and the rest of the miles-long list of fuck-ups, all in the name of national security. The president’s “leadership” hasn’t earned him anything except the well-deserved title of Worst President Ever. End o’ story.
“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short.”
“I was on the moon…with Steve!”
Who me? Uh, I don’t speak your language.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was not aware a Dubai-owned company was seeking to operate terminals in six U.S. ports and that his agency was leading the review until after the deal's approval, an administration official said yesterday.This is from the Moonie Times, for crying out loud, which has carried more water for this administration than has been broken by Michelle Duggar. If even they're pointing out how ridiculous this "I didn't know" crap is, you know it's bloody ridiculous.
Mr. Chertoff's spokesman, Russ Knocke, told The Washington Times the issue rose no higher than the department's assistant secretary for policy, Stewart Baker.
"[Chertoff] was not briefed up to this until after this story started appearing in the newspapers," Mr. Knocke said.
Mr. Chertoff is the third Cabinet official to acknowledge he did not know his agency had signed off on the plan as a member of the interagency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). Both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow have publicly said they were unaware of the deal.
But Mr. Chertoff's exclusion is more noteworthy because his department headed the CFIUS review and is in charge of security at all U.S. ports.
Can some fiesty journalist (see: Helen Thomas) make it simple for the adminstration and just ask who did know about deal and whether it rhymes with “Gnarl Stove”?
Love It
If an Ohio lawmaker's proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.Awesome. This—“Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that “credible research” shows… Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims”—is giving me a huge case of the giggles.
State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship…
Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious…
To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."
However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.
Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence" to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.
(Hat tips to Kathy at Birmingham Blues and Shaker Constant Comment.)
More Love for Mozza
How can you not love a guy who supports Jon Stewart for president, but can’t even vote in America yet? Not to mention having written the definitive lyric of progressives' feelings about this administration, nearly two decades in advance?
The pain was enough to make a shy, bald Buddhist reflect and plan a mass murder...
Nicked from Mags.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Litbrit... What is your earliest memory?
Mine is crawling behind my parents' ancient sofa, trying to chase down one of their two white, long-haired cats. It was either Kevin or Shutter. One was dead by then, but I don't remember which.
September (11th) Spawned a Monster
My lord and master, Morrissey, former frontman of The Smiths, after whose song “Shakespeare’s Sister” this blog is named, has been investigated as a possible threat.
Singer MORRISSEY was quizzed by the FBI and British intelligence after speaking out against the American and British governments.The most outrageous thing I’ve ever heard him say at the nine gazillion concerts and public appearances I’ve attended (not to mention the eighty-three kajillion zillion articles I’ve read) was right after Reagan died (it may have been the actual day; I can’t recall). He said onstage, “I bet you’re disappointed it wasn’t your current president,” which received a big round of applause and some scattered boos, the latter of which prompted him to retort, “I can’t imagine what you’re doing at my show.”
The Brit is a famous critic of the US-led war in Iraq and has dubbed President GEORGE W BUSH a "terrorist" - but he was baffled to be hauled in by authorities.
Morrissey explains, "The FBI and the Special Branch have investigated me and I've been interviewed and taped and so forth.
"They were trying to determine if I was a threat to the government, and similarly in England. But it didn't take them very long to realise that I'm not.
"I don't belong to any political groups, I don't really say anything unless I'm asked directly and I don't even demonstrate in public. I always assume that so-called authoritarian figures just assume that pop/rock music is slightly insane and an untouchable platform for the working classes to stand up and say something noticeable.
"My view is that neither England or America are democratic societies. You can't really speak your mind and if you do you're investigated."
That said, I suspect songs like “America Is Not the World” and “Margaret on the Guillotine” haven’t exactly endeared him to the American and British governments. (“Margaret on the Guillotine,” which was about Margaret Thatcher’s conservative policies and ended with the sound of a guillotine falling, promted a police search of his house at the time of its release.) Nonetheless, he’s never exactly been Abbie Hoffman.
(Big hat tip to Creature and Ted at State of the Day.)
Speaking of Indiana…
I had no idea Bush was visiting our fine state today.
US President George W. Bush speaks
Apparently, he was speaking at a Republican fundraiser for Rep. Chris Chocola, at Gates Gymnasium in Bethel College. A charming fellow (and, thankfully, just far enough away to not be my representative), Chocola has a 0% rating from NARAL and a 92% rating from the Christian Coalition, probably because he votes for things like the Marriage Protection Amendment.
This is how close Dear Leader and I were today:
Scary.
“Fight on, fight on, dear old Muncie…”
Organisers of a mardi gras party say ticket sales have soared since church groups complained of drunk and lewd behaviour. Co-ordinators of the mardi gras in Muncie, Indiana, report calls for tickets from as far as Chicago and Cincinnati. It comes after local pastor John Tyner appeared on network TV to discuss local faith-based objections to the event. Event coordinator Cheryl Crowder told the Star Press: "There's no way we could pay for that exposure."Obviously I had to go find out just where this doofus appeared to protest against a Mardi Gras party in Muncie fricking Indiana, which is not exactly known as a hotbed of sin.
Where else? The O’Reilly Factor, of course.
John Tyner appeared on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor last week..They’ll also have a prayer walk on Saturday at 10 a.m. to bring attention to their cause. Hopefully no one will be injured tripping over the passed-out bodies in the gutters.
Faith-based opponents will have a prayer meeting at 6 p.m. Friday in Christ Temple Church at 654 N. Jefferson St., to rally for their cause. Many churches have put up No Mardi Gras yard signs this month, displaying their objections to what they describe as drunken and lewd behavior at the celebration.
Tyner even went so far as to produce “a video of last year's event that showed public intoxication and indecent exposure, both misdemeanor offenses.” If filming college girls baring their breasts doesn’t prove how serious he is about ending the deviant spectacle of “Muncie Gras,” I just don’t know what would.
Man, I love Indiana.
Any health professionals reading Shakes?
If so, I’d like to read your responses to this article about misdiagnosis, specifically if you think the Isabel Healthcare software is part of a good solution to lowering misdiagnoses. It sounds like it is to me, but I have no experience in the field, so I’m curious to hear from people who have a different perspective.
Of course, as always, I’m interested to hear the opinions of lay-Shakers like myself, too!
Pathetic
Welcome to George Bush’s Compassionately Conservative America:
More than 25 million Americans --including nearly 9 million children and 3 million seniors -- receive emergency food assistance each year from America's Second Harvest -- The Nation's Food Bank Network of charitable agencies, representing an 8 percent increase since 2001, according to a report released today…And the saddest part about this is that it’s exactly how “compassionate conservatives” believe America should work. Not the government’s responsibility. Let the private sector pick up the slack.
"It is tragic and alarming that more and more people are relying on emergency food assistance in the United States, where we produce enough food to feed every hungry person in the world," said Robert Forney, President and CEO of the America's Second Harvest Network.
About 70 percent of the clients seeking emergency food assistance are living below the federal poverty line, and nearly 40 percent have at least one adult working in their household. Seventy percent of clients are living in food insecure households-not knowing where they will find their next meal-and 33 percent of those clients reported experiencing hunger - that is, being completely without a source of food.
But when “the slack” includes 30% of people who are living above the poverty line and still need to seek hand-outs for food, there’s something sincerely, severely wrong with the distribution of wealth in this country, with the minimum wage, with workers’ rights, and with the way we collectively view poverty.
Something’s gotta give. Perhaps we ought to start with those tax cuts…
Youth Activists Fight for Comprehensive Sex Ed
I’ve got a new piece up at Raw Story about young activists who are taking the fight for comprehensive sex education at home and abroad into their own hands—encouraging support of the REAL Act, which seeks to fully fund comprehensive sex ed domestically and petitioning for global funding for programs that will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The F Word
PSoTD shares a funny story about his 5-year-old and “the F word”—fart.
My nephew did a similar thing when he was about the same age, whispering in my ear, "I know the F-word."
"You do?" I asked dubiously.
"Yep," he said, giggling evilly. "Fart."
"Scandalous," I told him. "You're a terrible, wicked child."
"I know!" he said proudly.
“Adults make choices.”
Toast passed on this article written by a woman who made the choice to have an abortion, which eerily parallels the post I wrote earlier.
I am a 58-year-old white woman. I had an abortion 19 years ago. I am not bragging, nor am I apologizing.That’s precisely the real life equivalent of my projection.
I am a mother of three children in their 20s, and I am an ordained Christian minister. I had one child and then twins. Having twins the second time caused me my great good fortune of having three children in diapers. While nursing the twins, I did not think I needed birth control. I was wrong…
I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband and for my three children. I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. I think the quarrel about when life begins is disrespectful to the fetus. I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to.
I did what I think men do all the time when they take us to war: They choose violence because, although they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives. The "just war" theory assumes that human beings get caught in terrible choices all the time. This freedom is not just for men; it is for women also.
When I made my choice to end one life on behalf of other life, I was terribly troubled. I was in a double bind. I prayed and anguished. Then I made a choice. Adults make choices.
I have long thought that the drama of the abortion battle was not about unborn babies at all. Instead, it is about women and sex and about women and maturity. We are considered babies, sub-adults, in need of supervision over our sexuality. Otherwise we are dangerous…
Because women are mature sexual beings who make choices, birth control and abortion are positive moral forces in history…
For further interesting reading on women as rights-bearing subjects, check out this September post by LeMew, which I’ve recommended before and feels pointedly relevant at this moment.
more on South Dakota
The WaPo picked up the South Dakota story today, making it ever more clear that this isn't about "helping women" it's about power and control and political game playing:
"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.
"And it's impact on the national scene". What about those women in South Dakota who are victims of rape? Of incest? Whose health will be gravely affected by pregnancy (but not die)? Fuck 'em, eh? They're just unfortunate losses in a game of power-playing for control, right? Disgusting. And these people dare call themselves moral.
Anyway, yesterday when I first heard of the proposed bill, I asked:
Really, what is next? The birth control that the same group of anti-choicers call “abortificants” because they can prevent implantation? That’s all hormonal birth control.
And emergency contraception. Lest we forget:
[T]he American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explains, ‘the primary contraceptive effect of all the non-barrier methods, including emergency use of contraceptive pills, is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. Additional contraceptive actions for all of these also may affect the process beyond fertilization but prior to pregnancy.’
EC is just a high dose of birth control pills, given in hopes of stopping ovulation or implantation. A woman does not need EC pills to do this, she can take more than one birth control pill to achieve the same function.
What does this have to do with the South Dakota legislation? Why this, taken from the text of the law:
No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.
That succesfully takes care of emergency contraception and mifepristone (commonly known as RU-486). A woman may not be pregnant but if she or a doctor believes she may be due to rape or regular ol' unprotected sex, EC cannot be given because the intent is to not continue a pregnancy (as it would prevent implantation if fertilization occured). It's a Class 1 Felony to do so.
BTW, this is oficially called "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act". What a crock of shite. It's no more about protecting women's health than "No Child Left Behind" is about genuinely helping children and public schools.
