Another "Don't" for 2008: Shantel Krebs

Yesterday's Argus article and the discussion about it over at War College inspired a little something...

Do you like your shoes with a side of women-hating politics? Neither do I. Turns out that’s exactly what you're gonna get if you shop a la The Red Shoe, the posh downtown Sioux Falls shoe-tique. When owner Shantel Krebs isn’t catering to the privileged, upper class aristocracy of the Sioux Falls area, she’s peddling anti-feminist legislation through her position as a State Legislator. Successor to Matt “I heart Leslee Unruh” McCaulley and BFF to Governor Mar’ Rounds, her voting record calls for a red shoe’s swift kick to the derrière.

So, WTF? A little background: Shantel started contributing to the objectification of women in her early years as a cheerleader and pageant-goer. That’s right. We’re talking about Miss South Dakota 1997 – barf! From there, she got a degree in business, became the youngest/most disappointing female legislator, (representing District 10 alongside the notoriously disgusting Roger Hunt), and launched her socio-exclusive empire. Makin’ $.77 to the man’s dollar isn’t affording most women the opportunity keep up with the rising cost of birth control, let alone start a champagne-serving, high-end shop – am I right?

The Krebs MO: promoting an agenda of women’s equality in business…not to be confused with just plain women’s equality. True to Republican form, Krebs prefers her poverty (and like issues) out of sight and out of mind. A party superwoman, she’s apparently a-okay laying her own ovaries on the line for the greater political good – yikes. Just because she’s a woman doesn’t mean she gives a damn about the rest of us gals out there.

So, what’s a girl to do? Easy. Buy your shoes elsewhere, as I’m sure you’re doing already. I recommend http://www.zappos.com/ – wider selection, better prices, and you’re not paying to turn back the clock on women’s rights. Oh, and stay out of the Shoe’s sister shop, Le Peacock – Shanny’s co-ownership alone screams “ANTI-CHOICE!” And if you’re so moved, I recommend writing a letter, calling, or popping into The Shoe to say to Ms. Krebs, “Sister – real women need access to reproductive health care. I’d rather go barefoot!”

The Krebs Q&A

Q: Should sexual assault survivors receive information on preventing pregnancy with emergency contraception?
A: Like, no way!

Q: Are women capable of making decisions about their own bodies?
A: Sorry, no.

Q: Should we help fund clinics that provide low cost birth control to women who otherwise can’t afford it (i.e. Planned Parenthood)?
A: No business, no birth control!

Q: Should women who might go blind, suffer paralysis, or incur brain damage as a result of carrying a pregnancy to term be legally forced to do so?
A: Totally!

Q: Should abortion be illegal in all cases including for survivors of rape or incest?
A: Hells yes!

December in the News

Stories of interest in North and South Dakota newspapers. Have a few oldies below from when I couldn't post that I found in the google cache.

DECA gift ‘huge’ for YWCA: Fargo Forum feel good story noting "The group gave a check for $4,000 to the YWCA Cass Clay on Tuesday to help the women’s shelter buy a van to transport children to and from schools. The money came from ticket receipts and donations collected at the mock male beauty pageant."

Pro-life activist suing Fargo over ‘Truth Van’ ticket: A Fargo Forum story about a recently filed lawsuit noting "The civil complaint, filed Dec. 6, refers to the vehicle as a “Truth Van.” Pictures of aborted fetuses covered the rear-side windows and back window of the 1990 Oldsmobile Silhouette minivan."

YWCA Cass Clay seeking new leader: Fargo Forum story stating "The 16-person YWCA board of directors has put together a search committee to find a new executive director, a process that is expected to take about 20 weeks, Associate Executive Director Rachel Clarke said Tuesday."

S.D. abortions drop for fifth year in a row: A Sioux Falls Argus Leader story about decreasing abortion numbers.

Three courageous women lead Indian newspapers: Column by Tim Giago in the Mitchell Daily Republic noting "The Lakota Times was the only independently owned Indian weekly newspaper in America in 1981. Now there are several. Ironically, the three most read, most influential of these independent newspapers are owned and published by Indian women."

Domestic violence on rise: Story in the Huron Plainsman on increasing domestic violence numbers in Beadle County.

Help most needed after birth: Letter to the Editor in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader disputing the amount of Medicaid funds for pregnant women in South Dakota.

Pharmacist's beliefs to limit birth-control access: Story in the Rapid City Journal quoting: "Pharmacist John Lane believes he has a responsibility to serve humankind through his profession. Lane, who converted to Catholicism 10 years ago, also believes the "humankind" he pledged to protect includes fertilized eggs that, because of oral contraceptives, are not able to implant in a woman's uterus and grow into a baby." A related RCJ story on this issue here. Also, see the blog post below on this topic.

Rape, incest, health exceptions in new ban: Sioux Falls Argus Leader story about the new petition for South Dakota. Related stories in the Bismarck Tribune, Yankton Press & Dakotan editorial and a letter to the editor in response to the editorial. Also, an anti-choice letter here and a pro choice letter here.

The Abstinence Code

Can anybody figure out what's going on with the posts by 'J-Unit' over at The Abstinence Clearinghouse blog? Is this some kind of code? If I jumble the letters, will I find a hidden message?

Pharmacists and conscience

A number of South Dakota blogger types have been posting today about our state's conscience clause for pharmacists. Apparently, Thune likes this law, while Herseth Sandlin and Johnson don't really know what to think of it.

I'll remind Jon Schaff, Bob Ellis, and the others of the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale's words on the topic from this summer, since she said it better than I ever could:

When doctors and pharmacists try to opt out of providing medical care, claiming it’s an act of conscience, our work is not done.

Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.

But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.

This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them!

Deja Vu

Here's a little excerpt from a guest blog I did over at Plain(s)Feminist on January 31, 2007:

Some people who feel like we had some giant pro-choice victory on November 7 might not like my suggestion that this newest abortion ban is chickens coming home to roost. This week, I've had a number of people tell me that they cannot believe another abortion ban has been introduced. Honestly, I would've been pretty surprised if it hadn't. For months, all we talked about was exceptions. Lawns all over South Dakota screamed, "No Exceptions! No Exceptions!" We were told we couldn't go out on a corner with signs that said "Honk for Choice." No, hold this "Honk for No Exceptions" sign instead. And now we're surprised that the other side is claiming that the election was not a mandate on a woman's right to choose, but a mandate on exceptions. Gee whiz, who saw that coming? I'll tell you who: everyone. I can't even count how many conversations I had where someone was like, "I'm sort of worried that all this talk about exceptions is going to lead to the antis introducing a ban with exceptions next session." Good call, guys. Now, I know it seems a little counter intuitive; a ban with exceptions kind of defeats a lot of the arguments the antis trotted out during the election (weren't they moaning that you could 'drive a truck through' a health exception?). But they feel like they've got something to prove now, so they're going to go through with it, regardless.
...
The disbelief I'm hearing right now makes me worry that people think the fight's over and believe me, it's not. A lot could happen in the months to come and we need to stay, dare I say, vigilant. And next time (no doubt, there will be a next time), can we come up with something a little more ballsy than "No Exceptions"?

Just something to think about. Remember, they're never conceding.

Abortion ban, part one zillion.

Here's the a new abortion ban that we'll be voting on next November.

This is probably the fifth ban we've dealt with here in the last few years, and I still become outraged when I read them. Read the text of the initiative very carefully. You'll find contempt for and mistrust of women and the decisions we make - a total disregard for a woman's life and health (which they define as "substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ" - isn't that more like a 'disability' exception than a health exception?). Outrageous.

Boo hoo.

Jon Schaff and Jason Heppler have been complaining lately about the liberal bias in academia. Heppler in particular seems to be demanding some form of political affirmative action within academia, as though just because one is a registered Democrat, that also makes that person a raging liberal, and, more importantly, a person who can't or won't engage with conservative scholars. Neither of these are necessarily correct.

I find it interesting, the way Schaff and Heppler word their complaints about the lack of conservatives in academia - Heppler criticizes "the more personal aspect of ideological bias -- the assumption that all the strangers in the room are liberals." Has it ever occurred to either of them, I wonder, that women feel the same way? People of color? GLBT people? People with disabilities? Why is it that only political conservatives ought to be better represented?

OUR FAITH IN CHOICE - North Dakota Event

LET’S TALK: OUR FAITH IN CHOICE

Thursday, December 6th
7:00 p.m. Free and Open to the public

Rev. Shawnthea Monroe-Mueller of First Congregational United Church of Christ and author of Not-so-desperate: Fantasy, Fact and Faith on Wisteria Lane leads a community dialog about the relationship between religion and reproductive choice; where some may see irreconcilable disagreement and where the come together.

Location:
Women’s Wisdom Center
411 11th Street North Fargo
(1 block NE of Woodrow Wilson High)

Sponsored by: The committee on Health Care Accountability and Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD

For more information please contact Amy Jacobson at 701-526-0726 or ajacobson@ppmns.org

Stand Up for Women in South Dakota January 31, 2008

Received this via email:
Men and Women from across the state are invited to participate in this exciting and FREE day to rally, lobby and be visible to the South Dakota Legislature.

We want our voices to be heard on important women's issue such as:
* Reproductive Rights
* Violence Against Women
* Equal Opportunity
* Education

The day will begin at 10 am at the Capitol in Pierre. Take the bus for free from Rapid City or Sioux Falls! Each participant will be given a newly designed Women 4 Women t-shirt, a participant pack which includes talking points on the 4 issues and tips on how to speak with your legislator. We will rally on the Capitol steps, hold a visibility event outside and observe the Senate and House chambers in action. We will show the South Dakota Legislature that we care about the laws they are passing, which affect our lives, our bodies and our families! Our voices need to be heard now more than ever! Please join us in Pierre!

The lobby day also features a free luncheon with guest speaker, Sally Roesch Wagner.

Feeling extra political? This year, W4W is a 2-day event. Are you interested in running for office? What about working on a campaign? The task can seem daunting, but it's really not IF you have the right tools. On January 30th, a special training will be held for anyone interested in getting more involved in the political process. Please email sstevens@ppmns.org if you're interested in attending the training sponsored by the National Women's Political Caucus.

www.standupsd.com

December 5, 2007 in the News

Abortion foes use state referendums to push rights for embryos: National story which mentions efforts in North Dakota to pass such laws during last session.

Lincoln County to hire domestic violence officer: Story in Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Abortion ads marks new, negative phase in race: National story which comments on the Presidential race and the abortion debate.

If women are happy, are men? Follow up to an earlier story (which I can't find in the google cache) which notes "news from a national magazine that women in Fargo-Moorhead are among the nation’s happiest."

South Dakota Abortion Debate: Older Argus Leader story that references the lead up to the 2008 South Dakota Legislative Session. Also anti letters to stir the masses here and here.

Toys make many merry: Bismarck Tribune story noting finally a happy Christmas for a victim of domestic violence.

Abortion Letters in North Dakota papers: Pro choice letters here and here. Anti-choice letter here.

NDSU discusses lack of female faculty: Fargo Forum story notes "NDSU has 13 percent women among tenured faculty, compared with a national average of 31 percent."

Judge dismisses prison lawsuit claiming gender discrimination: The Bismarck Tribune story is here.

Roe v. a load of crap

Man, I wish I had time to just sit around a post a million blogs a day. How do you get a gig like that? Is that something you go to tech school for? Anyway, despite the fact that I'm a little busier than certain members of the SD Blogosphere, I did feel the need to briefly address this Roe IQ Test (I'm rationalizing that this counts as 'studying' for my Constitutional Law final).

Although the site tries to pass itself off as not taking a stand and just 'educating' people about Roe, it's either put together by anti-choicers or complete idiots. It's hard to say which as the creators don't include anything about themselves and have chosen to remain hard-core anonymous by registering their domain with Domains by Proxy. I'm sure that's totally normal for 'educational' groups. Hm. (Edit: Thanks to LL's awesome detective skills, we have our not-at-all-surprising-answer: "The new assessment is being offered by four of the largest pro-family organizations in the nation: the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America." I wonder why thy didn't just come out and say so...)


Anyway, the quiz is a swiz and here's why:

First, the test purports to clarify what Roe "does and does not do." But currently, Roe doesn't really DO much of anything. While some of its fundamental holdings have been upheld, putting Roe out there like it's controlling is completely misleading. A bunch of subsequent decisions, from Webster to Casey to the most recent Carhart have completely changed the status of the law, so looking at Roe, while somewhat interesting historically, isn't really relevant. But I suppose if you're trying to trick people into thinking that abortion laws are exactly the same today as they were in 1973, it makes sense.

Second, the whole thing treats Roe like it was a piece of legislation instead of a judicial decision. Like many decisions, it says what states constitutionally CANNOT do, not what they must do. Take, for instance, questions like "At what age does Roe require minor girls to have parental notification before an abortion?" "True or False. Roe allowed sex-selection abortions – abortions performed because of the sex of the baby." "Under Roe, which of these are allowed to perform abortions? Licensed physician, Nurse practitioner, Resident assistant, Registered nurse, All of the above." It's true, Roe doesn't address these issues at all. It also doesn't address dog racing, auto safety, or the price of tea in China. Because they had nothing to do with the case. (In case your wondering, under Brown v. Board of Education, strangling kittens is not prohibited. Can you believe it???)

Also, interestingly, for a quiz about a specific case, it includes questions like, "Which country's laws make it easiest to have an abortion?" "Which of our nation's founding documents contains the phrase "right to an abortion"?" "What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest?" But they're just educating citizens about U.S. history right? Suuuuuuure...

Finally, they just out and out lie. "Abortion in the United States is legal for practically any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy." I wish. And the people behind this thing probably do too, as I'm sure they're some crazy anti-choice organization that makes big bucks by scaring people with the "Abortion On Demand" bogeyman.

The quiz ends with a bunch of fun data mining questions about you, the test taker. I encourage you all to go over there, lie your pants off and skew their stats.

Alright, back to studying for actual tests with questions and answers at least somewhat rooted in the law.

Ken Blanchard vs. the Language Police

It's the Christmas season, so I will start this response to Ken's recent post about Tim Johnson by saying that, in my limited interaction with Ken, I do find him to be a genuinely nice person who would not purposely say something nasty about people with whom he doesn't agree politically. So I accept his explanation for his somewhat off-putting comments about the senator earlier this week (ON MY BIRTHDAY, p.s.)

Ken turns this into an opportunity to harangue the language police who are apparently contacting him via email to ask him to stop referring to people as "cripples." The problem with using outdated and slightly insulting words like cripple, as Ken discovered, is that they make you seem like a jerk, even if maybe you're not.

I do take issue with how Ken closes his post:

What the movement for people with disabilities really wants is to convince us that persons with disabilities are not really disabled.

Incorrect, my friend. What the movement for people with disabilities really wants is to convince us that persons with disabilities are persons, first, who as persons deserve to be discussed in a respectful manner, second, who happen to have disabilities, third. Big difference there.