Shakesville

Photos of the Day

Below, some of my favorite photos from the Benghazi hearing today, during which Secretary of State was ON FIRE. (If you haven't already seen it, here is the video, with partial transcript, of Clinton tearing that nightmare Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) a new sense of decency.) Zerlina Maxwell and Captain Awkward pretty much summed up the awesomeness in this Twitter exchange:

@zerlinamaxwell YES. I want to study that and bottle it.
— Captain Awkward (@CAwkward) January 23, 2013

To the pictures!

She's not offended; she's contemptuous:

image of Clinton looking contemptuous at the hearing

image of Clinton looking contemptuous at the hearing

[Linda Davidson/The Washington Post]

image of Clinton looking pissy and adjusting her glasses

image of Clinton looking pissy and adjusting her glasses

[Alex Wong/Getty Images]

image of Clinton angrily pounding her fist on the table while speaking

image of Clinton angrily pounding her fist on the table while speaking

[Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP]

image of Clinton with her chin resting in her hand, looking bored

image of Clinton with her chin resting in her hand, looking bored

[AP via jbendery; H/T to Shaker Thunderbird for this one]
Those are just my faves. Here are a few more great ones for your enjoyment: One, two, three, four.

[Photos via The Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Daily News, and SFGate.]

Daily Dose of Cute

Jack. Stretchy.

This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.

[Content Note: Fat hatred; disordered eating; bullying.]

My pal Erica Barnett sent me the link to this piece at The Atlantic (note that author Lindsay Abrams is writing critically about this approach): A Case for Shaming Obese People, Tastefully. Subhead: "One bioethicist's modest proposal to combat obesity through socially motivated self-hatred."

People don't hate being fat enough, basically, according to Hastings Center bioethicist Daniel Callahan. In an editorial published in the Hastings Center Report, he argues that nothing -- not diets, drugs, sugeries, nor appeals to our health -- is working, and goes on to make the case for fat-shaming people until they start eating more salad.

"An edgier strategy is needed," is his (earnest and entirely devoid of irony) way of putting it.

HA HA HA. Yes, good call, Callahan. The one thing I don't hear enough is how ashamed of myself I should be for being fat! You are a genius, sir!

I have been down this well-tread path many times before, so I won't spend another afternoon detailing all the many ways in which presuming that fat people are all fat for the same reason, that fat people are axiomatically unhealthy, that diets work, etc. is ignorant bullshit.

I will simply observe that what Callahan is proposing is bullying. Not "an edgier strategy," but the same strategy to which most fat people have been subjected for most of our lives, whether it's straight-up shaming directly to our faces by people who purport to care about us and doctors and perfect strangers, or our experience of virtually never seeing bodies like ours in popular culture except as objects of ridicule.

Leaving aside the discussion that fat is not a behavior for many fat people (and for many more, it is the result of disordered eating started as a behavior responsive to the very sort of fat-shaming Callahan suggests), bullying is not an effective strategy to address self-harming behavior.

Bullying encourages self-harm.

For those fat people whose fatness is a direct and exclusive result of lack of self-care even despite access to food that fulfills their individual needs and capacity for sufficient exercise, shaming them about their bodies and habits—bullying them—is only going to make them hate their bodies even more.

I have been a fat person who hates her body, and let me put this as bluntly as I can: There is no incentive to take care of a body you hate.

How good I feel about my fat body is absolutely and inextricably related to how well I take care of it, from the food I put in it to whether I go see a doctor when there's something wrong. That's not a fat issue: That's a human issue. Many of my thin and in-betweenie friends and colleagues have the same experience around their body image and self-care, because we all live in a garbage culture of judgment that conspires to make everyone feel flawed and inadequate in some way.

If you want fat people—or any people—to treat their bodies well, then encourage them to love their bodies, no matter what they look like.

I say again: No one has ever gotten healthier, in any way, by being constantly treated like garbage. And no one has ever gotten bullied into feeling better about themselves.

Acceptance is only a dangerous idea to those who are hiding aesthetic distaste for fat bodies behind sanctimonious concern trolling about fatties' health. If you want us to be healthy, not fucking bullying us would be a great place to start.

Coercive Patriotism

If you've read this blog for some time, you may recall that I am against the ritual rote recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. In short: I do not believe it should happen. Ever. I haven't changed my opinion that it's "a propagandic form of subtle brainwashing when children are made to pledge themselves to [the flag, the country] in a ritual manner."

So you just know that I am, shall we say, less than pleased to learn about this new proposed legislation in Arizona--HB 2467--that will require students to swear an oath to God to uphold the Constitution and defend the country so they can graduate. Oh yes, that's right:

Beginning in the 2013‑2014 school year, In addition to fulfilling the course of study and assessment requirements prescribed in this chapter, before a pupil is allowed to graduate from a public high school in this state, the principal or head teacher of the school shall verify in writing that the pupil has recited the following oath:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

SO MUCH WRONG.

If a public school student has fulfilled all other graduation requirements, they should not be required to swear a fucking oath to defend the country in order to get their diploma. No. Just NO. Also, since this is a compelled oath in order to graduate from high school (and presumably move on with life), it cannot inherently be "taken freely without reservation". It will be coerced, not given of freewill as one might when, say, elected to office or joining the military.

And "So help me God"? Um, what the fuck now? Which god would that be? Anyway, nope, public school students cannot and should not be forced appeal to any deity. Ever.

As I said in my post regarding the Pledge, there isn't anything inherently wrong with pledging your own allegiance to a particular country but it should be done of one's own free will. There's also nothing inherently wrong with swearing to uphold and defend the constitution of this country, either. There's a whole fucking lot wrong with compelling students to do so in order to get their high school diploma. It's blind, arrogant nationalism to coerce oaths of "loyalty" to country from kids in order to graduate from high school.

Mods Get to See the Darnedest Things

[Content Note: Rape culture.]

Left in response to Aphra's post about rape culture and campus security:

Rubbish, look at the levels of false rape allegations

That's it. The whole comment.

I will never fail to be amused by colossal dipshits who really think they've "got us" by dropping a reference to "false rape allegations" into comments," as if we might have failed to notice that "false rape allegations" (which are often not even actually false) are more infrequent than false reports of car theft, which is itself rare—and that the percentage of "false rape allegations" is based on reported rapes. If nonreported rapes were included, the percentage of "false rape allegations" would be even smaller.

Look at the levels of false rape allegations. I have, sir. Have you?

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Fleshtones: "The Girl From Baltimore"

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Guns; racism.]

"I urge our president to use caution when attacking clearly defined absolutes in favor of his principles. When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone's graffiti."—Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association and professional jackass, in response to President Obama having said in his inaugural address that USians should not "mistake absolutism for principle," despite the fact that the President only obliquely referred to gun reform by saying: "Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm," which obviously entails much more than preventing gun death, as his address made abundantly clear.

Aside from the fact that LaPierre is a rank liar and a tedious hyperbolist, I wonder how many of our white presidents have been accused of spraying "graffiti" on the Constitution.

In The News

[Content note: Gun culture, homophobia]

Wednesday!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifying about Benghazi, choked up saying this was a "personal" issue for her.

Nepal to issue third gender IDs.

Headline of the Day: "Norway Goat Cheese Fire Closes Tunnel". Oh, the humanity!

Flamethrowers! Grenades! RPGs! Tactical nuclear warheads! Congressman Ted Yoho (R-esponsible) says citizens should have the same weapons as the military.

Homegrown terrorist douchebag Ted Nugent is looking to start an armed revolt.

July is Heterosexual Awareness Month! (Also, this is fake, right?)

Valentine's is just around the corner! (NSFW.)

Didn't the villain in a James Bond movie do the exact same thing?

Image: Nerdfap dreamboy Benedict Cumberbatch as rapist Julian Assange. Neat! (By which I mean "barf!")

Rape Culture and Campus In-Security

[Content note: Rape, rape culture, law enforcement.]

If you've ever studied or worked at a university, then you know just how much power campus security has over the way crimes are interpreted, investigated, and punished on campus.

And I'm sure no rape survivor ever wants to see a university campus security's Twitter account publicly suggest that survivors are responsible for their rapes. But on January 15, that's exactly what the University of New Brunswick Security's account did, tweeting "alcohol overconsumption= sexual assaults" and linking to a short film at http://www.whoareyou.co.nz/ [Content Note for the portrayal of the leadup to a rape].The Tweet received pushback, and seems to be gone now. But here's a screen capture:

Now, while the linked film is not without room for criticism, its message is certainly not that "alcohol overconsumption= sexual assaults." In fact, the film focuses on the actions of bystanders and how their intervention can make a difference. It's pretty puzzling as to how anyone could interpret it as the UNB Security account did...unless you are working from the logic of rape culture.

Lee Thomas, who kindly provided me with the capture of this exchange, also wrote a response in The Brunswickian:

For alcohol to “= sexual assaults”, one of two things would have to be true: Either having a few drinks makes victims more vulnerable to attack, or having a few drinks makes perpetrators more likely to commit rape.

If you chose the latter, then you’re wrong. Anyone who would commit sexual assault while intoxicated is a shitty enough person to commit sexual assault while sober.

If you chose the former, then you’re also wrong! Congratulations, you have fallen into the trap of VICTIM-BLAMING. What you’re essentially saying is, “It’s your job to protect yourself from rape, ergo it’s your fault if it happens to you.” Nope, uh-uh, full stop.

... That’s rape culture. It is not the victim’s responsibility to ensure that they don’t get attacked; it’s the rapist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she does not rape. And if the decision to do that relies entirely on whether or not he or she drinks… well, that’s not the victim’s responsibility, and UNB Security shouldn’t be perpetuating the archaic notion that it is.

And that is the problem right there. When campus security forces are actively reinforcing the time-worn myths of rape culture, what confidence can survivors have in them? If you can watch a pro-intervention film and come away with the idea that the problem is alcohol overconsumption, then how am I supposed to trust that you understand the first thing about rape and how it happens? How am I supposed to believe that you will fairly interpret the report of a survivor?

Answer: I don't. And a security force that only serves to make its community more insecure is of absolutely no use. The members of the UNB campus community (and EVERY community) deserve better than to be blamed for crimes that others perpetrate upon them.

.

It's Delightful, It's Delicious, It's De-Lovely...

...it's De-lurk Day! We haven't had one of these since last summer (!), so all you Shaker lurkers who rarely or never pipe up, don't be shy; say hi!

Cheeky devils!

Republicans Do Not Live on Planet Earth

[Content Note: Guns; disablism.]

Republicans do not live on the same planet we do. That is the only explanation I have left for shit like this:

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), the fifth-ranking House Republican, laid the blame for gun violence at the feet of an unusual suspect: the children of "welfare moms" who commit fraud.

In a meeting with constituents earlier this month in Oklahoma City, a woman asked the GOP congressman what he was doing to combat all the children who were committing gun violence because they were high on psychotropic drugs. Lankford replied that he "agree[s] with that" and then went on to blame Social Security disability fraud for the rash of gun violence around the country.

..."I agree with that. I think there's a bunch of issues that, quite frankly, most liberals are afraid to talk about. [...] Where are we on all those psychiatric drugs? We've overmedicated kids. Quite frankly some of the overmedication of kids are because welfare moms want to get additional benefits and if they can put them on SSI through maintenance drugs, they can also put them on Social Security disability and get a separate check. That is wrong on every single level. Not only is it fraudulent to the government, but it also tells a kid with great potential, 'don't try because you're disabled.'"

Moms are diabolical, y'all. Especially "welfare moms," who are always stealing the stick-figure family decals off the rear windows of soccer moms' minivans, when they're not drugging up their kids and giving them guns to play with while Mommy defrauds the government.

Suffice it to say: Social security fraud is not even remotely to blame for gun violence.

In Fiscal Year 2011, the Inspector General's office opened up 4,600 fraud cases related to Social Security disability programs. This number includes a wide variety of fraud, including lying about one's marital status, stealing money from someone who has died, or unreported income. The actual number of people committing the type of fraud Lankford describes is a minuscule fraction. Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 people are gunned down in an average year.

Situations like this beg for an application of Occam's Razor. Which seems more likely to contribute to gun violence: "welfare moms" overmedicating their kids in order to commit Social Security fraud, or the vast proliferation of guns and how easy it is to obtain one?

WELFARE MOMS!

So this is the Republicans' current working theory: Anyone who uses guns to kill people is crazy. (Except, of course, ~~vile nightmares~~ fine upstanding citizens like George Zimmerman.) And it's either their mothers' fault because they made them crazy by medicating them for welfare fraud, or their mothers' fault because they failed to get them treatment for the crazy they already had.

The one thing we know for sure is that it's definitely women who are to blame.

Take Your Boobs to the White House Watch

The one glitch in the Take Your Boobs to the White House, Hillary Clinton! campaign is that Vice President Joe Biden wants the presidency, too. Ha ha did I say glitch? I meant the BEST THING EVER because without Joe Biden's presidential ambitions, how will the media be able to wind back around to the narrative that Hillary Clinton is trying to steal the presidency from a man who deserves it?!

So let the the horserace begin!

ABC News—Clinton More Popular than Biden:

Of two potential Democratic successors to Barack Obama, one has a clear advantage in personal popularity: Hillary Clinton, whose favorability rating exceeds Joe Biden's by a hefty 19 percentage points in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

...Clinton is more popular than Biden across groups – notably, in partisan terms, among independents. She's seen more favorably than the vice president by 13 and 17 points among Democrats and Republicans, respectively, but by 23 points among independents, 65 percent vs. 42 percent for Biden. This gap reflects both more negative opinions of Biden and greater indecision about him.

Clinton's intensity advantage is apparent among partisans as well. Six in 10 of her own party's supporters see her strongly favorably, while 44 percent say so of Biden.

Politico—Joe Biden 'Intoxicated' by 2016 Run:

Joe Biden summoned more than 200 Democratic insiders to the vice presidential residence Sunday night to chat about the 2012 triumph — but many walked away convinced his rising 2016 ambitions were the real intent of the long, intimate night.

..."He's intoxicated by the idea, and it's impossible not to be intoxicated by the idea," said a Democrat close to the White House. And the intoxication is hardly new. Officials working on the Obama-Biden campaign last year were struck by how the vice president always seemed to have one eye on a run, including aggressively courting the president’s donors. Obama aides at times had to actively steer Biden to places where he was needed — like Pennsylvania — because he kept asking to be deployed to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states.

...Biden, according to a number of advisers and Democrats who have spoken to him in recent months, wants to run, or at least be well positioned to run, if and when he decides to pull the trigger. Biden has expressed a clear sense of urgency, convinced the Democratic field will be defined quickly — and that it might very well come down to a private chat with Hillary Clinton about who should finish what Barack Obama started.

And, you know, whether Hillary Clinton wants to run. THAT LITTLE THING.

Even if she doesn't, Biden may face other challengers. Which includes the Democratic Party Establishment. They have to want him to run. And I'm not so sure they will, given that his original selection for the veep slot was reportedly predicated on Biden's assertion that he would make way after his vice-presidency.

Party politics can be ugly business, and the Democratic Establishment has a big bit of leverage in the political future of his son, Beau Biden—Iraq veteran, current Attorney General of the state of Delaware, and emerging presence on the cable news shows. Given the option to step aside for another candidate, in exchange for his son's appointment to US Attorney General, or run and risk tanking his son's trajectory, he might suddenly find himself less enthusiastic about a presidential run after all.

It matters whether Clinton wants to run. It also matters whether the party wants Biden to run, if she doesn't.

Open Thread

image of a happy galloping rhino calf

Hosted by a rhino calf.

Question of the Day

We have done this one before, but not for a while: Is there a story behind your screen name? Why did you choose your handle?

Photo of the Day

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama greet each other warmly in a crowd at the inaugural, while Former President Bill Clinton stands nearby

Washington, D.C. — U.S. President Barack Obama greets Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton during the presidential inauguration on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol Jan. 21, 2013 in Washington, DC. [Win McNamee/Getty Images; via.]

I am going to miss pictures of President Obama and Secretary Clinton together.

Downton Abbey Open Thread

image of Bates (Brendan Coyle) reading a letter in jail and smiling

Dear Bates: How is gaol? Everything still gray? Love, Anna.
[Spoilers are telling secrets downstairs herein.]

Oh the goings-on at Downton this week! And at Gray Gaol! ("Gray Gaol—where everything is gray and the gruel is gray-flavored!") Anna is sad because Bates isn't writing her. And Bates is sad because Anna isn't writing him. Immediately, I suspect that Thomas is somehow intercepting their letters and using them as smoking papers, but it turns out there's some non-Thomas-related gaol intrigue that I don't totally understand because I'm not fluent in gaolmumble. Something something shiv in a loofah, and the letters start flowing again. Yay!

Meanwhile, back at Downton, Lord Whoops thinks that Matthew should take a look at Downton's finances, because Matthew "might have some good ideas." Maybe! Like: Don't invest all your money in one place! Or: Mayhaps we don't ALL need to wear diamond-encrusted tiaras to dinner! Matthew is lucky there's a violent revolutionary in the family, so his dirty red communism is only a blushing pink by comparison!

Speaking of: Tom Branson shows up at Downton's door seeking refuge after he helped burn down a castle in Ireland, but then got sad when he realized it was actually someone's home. Looks like we've got a solid contender for the title of Lord Whoops once ol' Robert kicks the gold-plated bucket (which is also full of rubies and emeralds)! Everyone is mad that T-Bone left Sybil, who is a PREGNANT LADY, to fend for herself at their flat and then make her way back to Downton on her own. There is so much yelling about how shitty T-Bone is to abandon Sybil that everyone forgets to yell at him for being a hypocrite who seeks refuge in the privilege and influence of Downton to protect him from being sent to O'Gray Gaol for violently revolutioning against privilege and influence. This guy. Ugh.

The only thing worse than violent revolutionaries is electric toasters, amirite?

Something something Ethyl. I'm sorry, Ethyl! Your story is very sad, but I can only be invested in so many sub-plots, and I spent all my energy on Daisy and her surrogate dad!

Because Carson's precious toaster-hating time is being taken up with duties that are beneath him, Lord Whoops, to the sound of Matthew's grinding teeth, consents to let Carson hire a new footman, who will be competing against Alfred in a nail-biting round of Footmen: Beyond Thunderdome! to see who gets first footman. The new guy is very handsome, and Alfred can't identify a bouillon spoon. COME ON, ALFRED! That's the easiest of ALL THE SPOONS!

If Carson asked me to identify all those spoons, I would've looked at him with wide eyes and a stoic face and said: "There is no spoon." And he would've said, "Nice Matrix reference, dipshit. That movie won't come out for seven decades."

ANYWAY.

Finally, Lady Edith wants the vote, and she pens a stern letter to the editor about it, which is obviously a huge scandal, because Lord Whoops is tiresome. But Matthew is proud of her, and she is definitely proud of herself, which makes me so happy! And she gets great advice from the Dowager Countess, who obviously had like 200 great sassy lines in this episode: "Edith, you're a woman with a brain and reasonable ability. Stop whining and find something to do!"

And that's when Lady Edith invented blogging! Discuss.

[Please proceed to talk about all things Downton Abbey, but only through the third episode of Season 3. Please don't share things from later in the season, even with a spoiler warning, because I've got to mod the thread, which requires reading everything. So be kind, if you're elsewhere in the world where the whole season has already aired.]

Remembering a Country Without Roe

by Shaker Anitanola

[Content Note: Hostility to agency; sexual violence; misogyny.]

After the pill arrived in 1960 and Roe in 1973, there really was a liberation. But that liberation came with a backlash that continues to this day.

The leaders of this war on agency are men who were brought up to believe they should be controlling women—and the fact that women (at least the women who are able) are making use of their reproductive rights to avoid that control is intolerable to them.

Many feminist and womanist writers have connected the dots between the religious and cultural imperatives that treat the control of women's bodies as a birthright, and the pitiful justifications for this straight-up war against women (and, collaterally, other people with uteri) and women's agency over their own sexuality and reproductive choice. Many feminist and womanist writers have exposed the ways in which claims to want to end abortion are not supported by attacks on contraception, and the ways in which justifications of religious freedom are nonsense: If the leaders of the war on agency cite religious grounds for their desired control of my body, they are violating my constitutional right to be compelled by religious beliefs not my own.

The war on agency, being waged in state legislatures all over the country, is an especially distressing trend to witness as I remember how it was during the twenty-one years before Roe.

This is how it was for me: I was seventeen in 1952 when I was raped and got pregnant. Fortunately, I was in New York City, and a relative found a doctor who would perform a safe albeit illegal abortion. I took a long subway ride with the cash held tightly in my bag under my coat and walked up to the door of the address I had been given. I was met, interviewed, and sworn to secrecy—I could never tell anyone about this or divulge the doctor's name or address. I was then told there would be no anesthetic so I was to leave and go down to the corner bar and drink two shots of whisky and return.

I'd never drunk alcohol (an omission I later remedied a bit too thoroughly), so I chose brandy because I'd read of people giving it to distressed women. It was 11 in the morning and the bar was almost empty; I remember being glad of that and thinking that one day I could write in a story about drinking brandy in a bar.

When I returned, the abortion was not as bad as I had expected. After a minimal recovery time, I was firmly instructed that I must leave, walking normally and steadily, and go straight home—no taxi. If I had any bleeding or problems, which I was assured was unlikely, I was to go to the emergency room.

I took the long subway ride back and I was fine. I had no problems, no complications. This doctor had a regular general practice, but was compassionate and believed women should not be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies, so he would accept a few such patients. Clandestinely. Illegally. It was shaming and dangerous.

A few months later, a family friend, whom a relative had asked to escort me home, raped me. He overpowered and forced me. It never occurred to me to fear or mistrust this man; I was very naïve—I knew only what the rape culture had taught me about rapists, which had been confirmed by my previous experience.

I got pregnant. This time, the only abortionist to be found was a woman who was not a doctor. She had no office, and performed the procedure in suboptimal circumstances. She spoke little English, and we communicated through an interpreter. She came and performed the operation on the kitchen table.

I was terrified throughout, acutely aware in a way I had not been in a doctor's office that what we were doing was illegal and dangerous. It was painful. I was told to go a doctor in a few days and get checked out, saying, if asked, that I had spontaneously aborted. I did as I was told.

I am sure the lie was visible on my body, but I was treated, given medicine and eventually got better, although it was years before I was completely free of infection and pain. There was scarring and some question about whether I would be able to have children. I found a very good family doctor, and I was lucky.

Although personally naïve and penniless, I had family resources and a comparatively vast amount of privilege. For anyone who did not live as a woman through those years, for all the women who still have access to safe and legal abortions (or assume that they have it, and may continue to believe so until they need it and bump up against a lack of providers or slew of restrictions), it is nearly impossible to understand how important Roe is to women's lives. How liberating it is to have reproductive choice. How many lives it saves. How many children don't lose their mothers to forced childbirth or botched abortion. How many young women don't lose their goals and dreams because of an unplanned pregnancy.

Access to abortion has already been so eroded that many abortion-seekers can only access abortion if they have the hundreds or thousands of dollars it would cost to go to a city (or another state) hundreds of miles from home, to jump through the hoops and wait out the time mandated in order to have an abortion. I particularly care that young women are being bullied by the coalition that is the Religious Right and the Republican Party at an age before many of them even know what politics has to do with their dilemma.

Many do not have the resources and have no one to help them. Many have no one they can tell. Having a dependable support network is a privilege as sure as having the financial resources to pay for an abortion.

Women and men who were born post-Roe have also never known abortion to be illegal or birth control to be unavailable, by federal law. It is easy, post-Roe to be unaware of how fundamentally our society depends on these rights, and what it will do to all of us to lose this progress. It is hard to imagine those rights disappearing, even as they are being surely eroded every day.

What I have seen having lived through this particular arc of the American story is that there has been a relentless, organized push back against women's rights in large and small ways and that it is actually working to take away a constitutional right upon which our society now depends.

To repeat: Forty years after Roe, what we know more clearly than ever is that Roe is still necessary, and that Roe is not enough.

Daily Dose of Cute

Potter, my best buddy.

Quote of the Day

"This is like a good ground game in football. I don't believe that we have finished fleshing out every law that we can that is currently constitutional." -- Mary Kay Culp, Executive Director of Kansas for Life, discussing anti-choice strategy and anti-choice legislation last year.

Roe is and will always be important but it is not a finish line. Anti-choicers have long figured out that without true access, there is no true choice or autonomy.

Tuesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Tuesday.

Recommended Reading:

To mark the 40th anniversary of Roe, this week at Flyover Feminism we are featuring a bunch of amazing pieces about reproductive justice. The week so far:

The Editors: Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Today: Our Series This Week

Ezekiel Reis Burgin: So That One Day I May Become A Father: On Abortion Rights

Jazmine Walker: Happy 40th: 5 Ways Roe v. Wade Is Undermined in Mississippi

Veronica I. Arreola: Reproductive Justice for All Daughters

Lutze B.: Reproductive Rights Through An Intersectional Lens

* * *

Other stuff:

Pam: For Reproductive Justice…

Shanelle: The Story That's Taken Ten Years to Tell: On Abortion, Race, and the Power of Story

Samara: Five Things I Learned about Abortion by Checking My Assumptions at the Door

Jess: My Worth

Fannie: On Politically Correct, Again

Anna: The Feministing Five: Reshma Saujani

Mike: All of Us Need to Learn the Lessons From Organized Labor

Leave your links and recommendations in comments...