I just wanted to point out that I've reached "radical pro-abortonist" status at Dakota (Ellis is crazy) Voice.
I have a feeling I'm in very good company.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Voices (big fat liar) Crazy
Remember that August 10 Voices Crazy post about Rapid City anti-choicer Michael Bell's alleged visit from a Campaign for Healthy Families canvasser? He claimed the canvasser told him: “Well hopefully your birth mom got either a refund or a rain-check to try again later?” after he advised the canvasser he was voting 'Yes' on IM 11.
Pastor DooHickey of course saw this as evidence of the moral depravity of the No on 11 campaign, and posted the letter on his blog. Fine, whatever.
But did anyone see the Aug. 27th issue of the RC Journal? I did. Bell gave a specific date - Aug. 4 - as the day the canvasser appeared at his home, and it turns out the campaign wasn't canvassing at all that day, and has never stopped at Michael Bell's home. Here's my transcription of the letter:
Ohhhh, snap.
Pastor DooHickey of course saw this as evidence of the moral depravity of the No on 11 campaign, and posted the letter on his blog. Fine, whatever.
But did anyone see the Aug. 27th issue of the RC Journal? I did. Bell gave a specific date - Aug. 4 - as the day the canvasser appeared at his home, and it turns out the campaign wasn't canvassing at all that day, and has never stopped at Michael Bell's home. Here's my transcription of the letter:
I write as an organizer for the S.D. Campaign for Healthy Families, who has been overseeing our grassroots education efforts in Rapid City.
It was unfortunate to see a letter recently published by someone claiming to have received folks from our campaign at his home on Monday, Aug. 4. Not only would our campaign's staff and volunteers never speak to anyone in the awful manner claimed in that letter, but we actually did not knock on any doors on the day claimed. And our records show that this gentleman's address is not one that we have visited. If the visit did happen as he claims, I apologize, but please know that it was not the campaign's doing.
When we do visit the author of this letter, however, he will receive the same message of compassion that we bring to every door we knock on: I cannot walk a mile in your shoes. I don't know what you and your family are going through. We don't know what unique circumstances are guiding some of the toughest decisions you will face in your life, which is why we trust you and your family to make those personal moral decisions without government intrusion.
MELISSA KRAUSE
Rapid City
Ohhhh, snap.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin, "Feminist" for Life
Or, how Sarah Palin turned me into an Obamamaniac (kind of).
All I can say is that if both Bob Ellis *and* VoteYesForLife.com are happy with Palin on the ticket, there's a 99.9% chance she's f'in crazy.
Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, an organization whose anti-woman agenda was pretty clearly spelled out in the article linked above. Really, folks, it's a pretty withering critique of the group, based on Katha Pollit's interview with their then-president. They embrace the same kind of "science" that Ellis and Hickey are so fond of, and, Pollitt argues, they aren't actually feminists at all:
And though Palin had nice things to say about my girl Hillary today, she dissed her not too long ago (from Badlands Blue):
I thought the timing of this pick was kind of gross - it just seemed odd, and made me feel kind of sick to my stomach - and I think Melissa MacEwan at Shakesville does a good job of getting at why I thought this was so distasteful:
Cory's right - Obama's speech last night will go down in history, as it should. The Republicans couldn't even give Americans a day to celebrate that. Disrespectful.
McCain and Palin aren't good for women, and they aren't good for the country, for all the reasons Obama outlined in his speech last night. Apparently Palin is going to be charged with winning over Hillary supporters this fall, but she pushed this die-hard Hillary backer firmly into Obama's camp for the first time.
All I can say is that if both Bob Ellis *and* VoteYesForLife.com are happy with Palin on the ticket, there's a 99.9% chance she's f'in crazy.
Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, an organization whose anti-woman agenda was pretty clearly spelled out in the article linked above. Really, folks, it's a pretty withering critique of the group, based on Katha Pollit's interview with their then-president. They embrace the same kind of "science" that Ellis and Hickey are so fond of, and, Pollitt argues, they aren't actually feminists at all:
Exposing the constraints on women's choices, however, is only one side of feminism. The other is acknowledging women as moral agents, trusting women to decide what is best for themselves. For FFL there's only one right decision: Have that baby. And since women's moral judgment cannot be trusted, abortion must be outlawed, whatever the consequences for women's lives and health--for rape victims and 12-year-olds and 50-year-olds, women carrying Tay-Sachs fetuses and women at risk of heart attack or stroke, women who have all the children they can handle and women who don't want children at all. FFL argues that abortion harms women...[b]ut it would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer, filled every woman's heart with joy, lowered the national deficit and found Jimmy Hoffa. That's because they aren't really feminists--a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm. They are fetalists.
And though Palin had nice things to say about my girl Hillary today, she dissed her not too long ago (from Badlands Blue):
I thought the timing of this pick was kind of gross - it just seemed odd, and made me feel kind of sick to my stomach - and I think Melissa MacEwan at Shakesville does a good job of getting at why I thought this was so distasteful:
We should never forget that this announcement, made when it was and how it was, was in no small part because John McCain and Karl Rove and the GOP are hostile to genuine progress and have not the slightest modicum of respect for the history Barack Obama has made.
Cory's right - Obama's speech last night will go down in history, as it should. The Republicans couldn't even give Americans a day to celebrate that. Disrespectful.
McCain and Palin aren't good for women, and they aren't good for the country, for all the reasons Obama outlined in his speech last night. Apparently Palin is going to be charged with winning over Hillary supporters this fall, but she pushed this die-hard Hillary backer firmly into Obama's camp for the first time.
Are they freaking kidding?!
Sarah Palin is McCain's VP pick. Sarah Palin--the Alaskan governor who has been in office less than a year and is already embroiled in an ethics scandal--is his big pick?!
If he thinks this is going to sway any Democratic Hillary supporters, he's got another thing coming. If McCain thinks smart, feminist Hillary supporters are going to jump onto the Straight Talk Express, he's got another thing coming.
McCain's pick does NOT indicate that he's "pro-woman," any more than creepy old men in Hooters talking about how much they love the waitresses are "pro-woman." Sarah Palin is barely even "pro-woman," as she's about as anti-choice as Leslee.
Most hilariously, I didn't think John "Hey, you kids get out of my yard!" McCain could do anything to make himself look older....but it looks like he's found it. And with that, I present to you, the 2008 Republican ticket:
If he thinks this is going to sway any Democratic Hillary supporters, he's got another thing coming. If McCain thinks smart, feminist Hillary supporters are going to jump onto the Straight Talk Express, he's got another thing coming.
McCain's pick does NOT indicate that he's "pro-woman," any more than creepy old men in Hooters talking about how much they love the waitresses are "pro-woman." Sarah Palin is barely even "pro-woman," as she's about as anti-choice as Leslee.
Most hilariously, I didn't think John "Hey, you kids get out of my yard!" McCain could do anything to make himself look older....but it looks like he's found it. And with that, I present to you, the 2008 Republican ticket:
Thursday, August 28, 2008
I Used to Threaten to Move to Canada...
...but Mexico is warmer. Good news out of Mexico City: the Supreme Court has voted to uphold legal first trimester abortion. This is so important -- death and injury from illegal abortion is a huge issue in Latin America.
That Girl and I were lucky enough to see Dr. Manuel Mondragón y Kalb, the Mexico City Health Secretary, speak at the Nation Abortion Federation annual meeting this year, and honestly, at least for first trimester procedures, the women of Mexico City are actually better off than women here. It's free, it's accessible, and it's safe.
So way to go Mexico City! May the rest of the country follow your lead!
Voices Crazy Provides Thursday Laughs
Steve Whackjob's latest Voices Crazy post, "Social Justice Begins in the Womb" is a real treat.
If you're not familiar with The Survivors of the Abortion Holocost, check out their website. It's full of the classics: a fetal skeleton logo, a ridiculous and offensive name, a mission full of 'godliness,' and a belief that all children born after 1973 were to pro-life mothers.
I think we found someone who makes Stevie's blood boil almost as much as abortion: Barack "Barry" Obama. Yeah, Steve has been trying (and clearly failing) to emulate the DakotaWomen's style of hilarious nicknaming lately. It's sad. Another flop: DNC standing for DO NOT CARE...about black genocide. In his post, Steve once again displays a real pastorly attitude with more talk about how Barack needs to get hit in the face by the issue of abortion -- whatever the hell that means. You might recall my recent post about this. And just when you think it can't get crazier, it does. There's talk about hallelujahs, the Temple of Obama, umbrellas, killing God's dream, and the list goes on. This guy belongs in a nuthouse before he seriously does something dangerous.
And to add, I'm going to go ahead and say that Barack Obama has a far better understanding of civil rights, slavery, and social justice than Steve "Abortion is my reason to go on" Hickey.
And to conclude: A swing at SouthDacola? I guess you're not a legit SD political cartoonist unless you fixate on the 'Abortion Holocost' and the Rapture. Duh.
If you're not familiar with The Survivors of the Abortion Holocost, check out their website. It's full of the classics: a fetal skeleton logo, a ridiculous and offensive name, a mission full of 'godliness,' and a belief that all children born after 1973 were to pro-life mothers.
I think we found someone who makes Stevie's blood boil almost as much as abortion: Barack "Barry" Obama. Yeah, Steve has been trying (and clearly failing) to emulate the DakotaWomen's style of hilarious nicknaming lately. It's sad. Another flop: DNC standing for DO NOT CARE...about black genocide. In his post, Steve once again displays a real pastorly attitude with more talk about how Barack needs to get hit in the face by the issue of abortion -- whatever the hell that means. You might recall my recent post about this. And just when you think it can't get crazier, it does. There's talk about hallelujahs, the Temple of Obama, umbrellas, killing God's dream, and the list goes on. This guy belongs in a nuthouse before he seriously does something dangerous.
And to add, I'm going to go ahead and say that Barack Obama has a far better understanding of civil rights, slavery, and social justice than Steve "Abortion is my reason to go on" Hickey.
And to conclude: A swing at SouthDacola? I guess you're not a legit SD political cartoonist unless you fixate on the 'Abortion Holocost' and the Rapture. Duh.
We need a good political cartoonist in South Dakota. (One who will use their gift to expose the greatest social injustice in our nation since civil rights/slavery.)
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC madness
SD Watch has been blogging pretty heavily on the Democratic National Convention since it began Monday.
As regular readers of the blog know, I was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter in the primaries, and I worked very hard for her campaign in April, May, and June. I've always said that I would vote for Obama were he the nominee. Even though his positions on things like the Iraq War, privacy rights, faith based initiatives, and abortion rights have drifted to the right since he's been the presumptive nominee, I've never gotten to a point where I've felt that I won't or can't vote for him. I've been really indifferent toward his candidacy throughout the summer, however.
Hillary Clinton's speech last night got me about 90% of the way toward feeling both enthusiastic enough to follow the campaign season, and somewhat invested in Obama winning the election. I really don't understand why posts like Hillary Supporters: Do You Get It Now are necessary, particularly from people who demand "party unity." Like a scolding from Todd Epp is going to get me super interested in getting on the Obama train, where people like Epp will condescend to me all day long with shit like "Do you get it now?" like I'm a stupid child because I had the temerity to support another candidate in the primary.
I think Hillary's speech last night stands as proof of why I supported her so strongly. She is funny and whip smart, and I have always had the sense that she was in public life because she cared about making people's lives better and felt the federal government was often the best way to do that. She's not perfect, and I've never though she was, but she would have made a hell of a president. She proved that last night.
I really wonder how Obama supporters like Todd are any different from the die-hard Hillary fans they claim are responsible for all of the problems Obama has had in the election thus far. Most of the Hillary supporters I know are unenthusiastic about Obama's candidacy because Obama has given us very little reason to vote for him. None of us are bad people, and I think nearly all of us have come to our opinion of Obama honestly, after seriously evaluating what he says he'll do if he's elected. Hillary made a compelling argument for his candidacy last night, and I'll be listening to what Biden and Obama have to say during the rest of the week, in the hopes that I can become enthusiastic about an Obama/Biden ticket. If I become an enthusiastic Obama supporter, it will be despite posts like Todd Epp's.
As regular readers of the blog know, I was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter in the primaries, and I worked very hard for her campaign in April, May, and June. I've always said that I would vote for Obama were he the nominee. Even though his positions on things like the Iraq War, privacy rights, faith based initiatives, and abortion rights have drifted to the right since he's been the presumptive nominee, I've never gotten to a point where I've felt that I won't or can't vote for him. I've been really indifferent toward his candidacy throughout the summer, however.
Hillary Clinton's speech last night got me about 90% of the way toward feeling both enthusiastic enough to follow the campaign season, and somewhat invested in Obama winning the election. I really don't understand why posts like Hillary Supporters: Do You Get It Now are necessary, particularly from people who demand "party unity." Like a scolding from Todd Epp is going to get me super interested in getting on the Obama train, where people like Epp will condescend to me all day long with shit like "Do you get it now?" like I'm a stupid child because I had the temerity to support another candidate in the primary.
I think Hillary's speech last night stands as proof of why I supported her so strongly. She is funny and whip smart, and I have always had the sense that she was in public life because she cared about making people's lives better and felt the federal government was often the best way to do that. She's not perfect, and I've never though she was, but she would have made a hell of a president. She proved that last night.
I really wonder how Obama supporters like Todd are any different from the die-hard Hillary fans they claim are responsible for all of the problems Obama has had in the election thus far. Most of the Hillary supporters I know are unenthusiastic about Obama's candidacy because Obama has given us very little reason to vote for him. None of us are bad people, and I think nearly all of us have come to our opinion of Obama honestly, after seriously evaluating what he says he'll do if he's elected. Hillary made a compelling argument for his candidacy last night, and I'll be listening to what Biden and Obama have to say during the rest of the week, in the hopes that I can become enthusiastic about an Obama/Biden ticket. If I become an enthusiastic Obama supporter, it will be despite posts like Todd Epp's.
Voices Crazier -- and we thought it couldn't be done!
I'm super excited that DakotaWomen is (are?) famous, thanks to the mention from the "third most influential blog in South Dakota".
In celebration of our recently-acquired fame, I would like to point out that it's clearly not just Steve Dickey whose crazy rants have made our fame (indirectly) possible. His commenters are TOP NOTCH, and don't deserve to be lost in comment-land any longer:
From "Complete Faith" (in whatever Pastor Crazy says...yikes)
If you support abortion then you in fact support “Killing Babies”, are a part of the “Death Camp” and are “Complicit of human sacrifice”.
...really? Human sacrifice?! Well, the anti's are nothing if not ridiculously dramatic.
From the same thread, and the same commenter:
I personally want every young girl either drawing near, or already in her early child bearing years to be fully aware of two facts, and every young man who is in the same age bracket.
1. Being sexually active can lead to pregnancy
2. Abortion Hurts Women
Thanks for the crappy sex-ed lesson. Guess that's par for the course for South Dakota.
From "Amy:"
"Thank God that we live in a country where religion does not determine public policy." Really - and what country is that?
...apparently, Amy missed that part where we don't base laws on religion in America, like they do in Iran. Tricky...
Here's my personal favorite. According to Pastor Crazy, it's from an email he received:
Kids were showing up [at the Sioux Empire Fair] with buttons that said “I (heart) pro-choice girls or I (heart) pro-choice boys.” Made me sick. When I spoke to these children, they had no idea what they were wearing even meant. I was able to explain to them, and every single child I talked to (probably
12 of them) let me take their buttons from them, which I replaced with a Vote Yes on 11 sticker….
Usually, the antis are a *little* more subtle with their hypocrisy. But apparently, the author of this email is OUTRAGED that TEH CHILDREN are wearing stickers of which they may or may not understand the meaning. THANKFULLY, the author saved the day....and gave them *new* VoteYesForBeatingADeadHorse.com stickers. Yikes.
This is the first in what will probably be a weekly feature here at DakotaWomen. The comedic gold that is Voices Crazy demands it!
Leslee Unruh and the Abstinence Factory
This is just too rich!
Well, don't ya know, the Abstinence Clearinghouse Conference took place semi-recently. Missed it? Don't you fret! Allow me to catch you up...
It was held in a lovely (and likely very expensive) locale. I can just hear the tax payer dollars wither when I look at Exhibits A and B of Floridian paradise and fancy banquet dinners.
The first night was reserved for registration...and, oh, Abstinence Idol Tryouts.
And you'll never guess who was the opening speaker the next day -- Leslee Unruh (as if you didn't see that one coming)!
I found her bio on the website especially interesting. At one point it says "Because of her expertise and concern for the health and well-being of children...blah blah blah." Ah, excuse me? Expert? I guess I didn't know that if you became a professional nutcase, media whore, and guilt profiteer, you're suddenly an EXPERT. Good to know. In that case, I might have to forego grad school.
And as you could have guessed, Leslee's participation in the conference didn't stop there. Per usual, she monopolized the microphone and the camera.
All the while, she couldn't keep the crazy from coming out...
Too much champagne?
Leslee goes gangsta? Holy crap.
Look close. This guy's shirt says "Pet Your..." with a picture of a dog. Where can I get me some of these fabulous abstinence fashions?!
Throughout the conference, there were a lot of booths and tables for the attendees to peruse like this one...
And many interesting presentations, like this one on Madonna: Then and Now -- huh?
And the best part of the event? (Drumroll, please!) The Abstie Awards! No, seriously. The Abstie Awards! It's a real thing! I couldn't make something like this up if I tried!
A complete list of the winners and can be found here
So, that wraps it up (no pun intended).
Well, don't ya know, the Abstinence Clearinghouse Conference took place semi-recently. Missed it? Don't you fret! Allow me to catch you up...
It was held in a lovely (and likely very expensive) locale. I can just hear the tax payer dollars wither when I look at Exhibits A and B of Floridian paradise and fancy banquet dinners.
The first night was reserved for registration...and, oh, Abstinence Idol Tryouts.
And you'll never guess who was the opening speaker the next day -- Leslee Unruh (as if you didn't see that one coming)!
I found her bio on the website especially interesting. At one point it says "Because of her expertise and concern for the health and well-being of children...blah blah blah." Ah, excuse me? Expert? I guess I didn't know that if you became a professional nutcase, media whore, and guilt profiteer, you're suddenly an EXPERT. Good to know. In that case, I might have to forego grad school.
And as you could have guessed, Leslee's participation in the conference didn't stop there. Per usual, she monopolized the microphone and the camera.
All the while, she couldn't keep the crazy from coming out...
Too much champagne?
Leslee goes gangsta? Holy crap.
Look close. This guy's shirt says "Pet Your..." with a picture of a dog. Where can I get me some of these fabulous abstinence fashions?!
Throughout the conference, there were a lot of booths and tables for the attendees to peruse like this one...
And many interesting presentations, like this one on Madonna: Then and Now -- huh?
And the best part of the event? (Drumroll, please!) The Abstie Awards! No, seriously. The Abstie Awards! It's a real thing! I couldn't make something like this up if I tried!
A complete list of the winners and can be found here
So, that wraps it up (no pun intended).
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
DakotaWomen's Libbers, perhaps?
Perhaps irritated by the frequent use of "Voices Crazy," Pastor Hickey has decided to refer to the contributors of our humble blog as Dakota (angry, selfish, and callous) Women, which, let's be honest, just isn't nearly as funny. Have no fear, however. I plan to immediately start brainstorming with the other DakotaWomen to come up with a more humorous mean nickname for the fundamentalist bloggers to call us. Luckily, there's quite a history of disparaging names for uppity ladies, so I think we can provide a number of good options to choose from.
Underground Abortions Still a Reality
While some in the right-wing blogosphere stomp their feet and deny even the remotest possibility that illegal abortion will take the place of safe, legal abortion in South Dakota should IM 11 become law, researchers are studying underground abortions that seem to occur on a pretty frequent basis.
Women who have "underground" abortions (usually with the aid of misoprostol) are often women who don't know or understand abortion laws in this country, while others take herbs that have been known for centuries to be abortifacients. Researchers want to determine why and how frequently this occurs:
I'd guess, and this is just crazy on my part, I'm sure, that IM 11 will be a barrier to reproductive health that might cause women to seek other ways to terminate a pregnancy.
Women who have "underground" abortions (usually with the aid of misoprostol) are often women who don't know or understand abortion laws in this country, while others take herbs that have been known for centuries to be abortifacients. Researchers want to determine why and how frequently this occurs:
"We want to find what some of the barriers [to reproductive health] are," said Grossman. "I think that's really what this issue is all about."
I'd guess, and this is just crazy on my part, I'm sure, that IM 11 will be a barrier to reproductive health that might cause women to seek other ways to terminate a pregnancy.
Happy 88th.
It's the 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment today. No deep thoughts on this at the moment, just thought it was worth pointing out.
Or hey, wait: maybe after Steve Hickey and Bob Ellis are successful in banning abortions, based on the premise that women are incapable of making difficult decisions, they'll go after the right to vote next. Or maybe they'll ban birth control first. Who knows.
Or hey, wait: maybe after Steve Hickey and Bob Ellis are successful in banning abortions, based on the premise that women are incapable of making difficult decisions, they'll go after the right to vote next. Or maybe they'll ban birth control first. Who knows.
Chick on Chick Hate in MN
Via Kelo
I've heard of some interesting and ridiculous assults in my time, but definitely my first finger-chewing chick fight. Yikes.
A woman is recovering after the tip of her right ring finger was bitten off in a fight at a night club in Willmar, Minnesota.
I've heard of some interesting and ridiculous assults in my time, but definitely my first finger-chewing chick fight. Yikes.
Sioux Falls school board apologizes for Alpha Center ad
I suppose this is about as good an outcome as we could expect after the damage has been done:
Which is precisely what we've said all along.
“We would ... like to apologize for this lapse. We will do better work in the future,” said Darin Daby, president of the board.
...
Daby said it was inappropriate for the district to hand out to students that type of advertising.
Which is precisely what we've said all along.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
"Men's Rights"
I really love this interview with Roy Den Hollander, a "men's rights" pioneer, and plaintiff in unsuccessful lawsuits against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and ladies' nights at bars. He's now suing Columbia University, where he received a degree from the business school, because they have a women's studies department and
He has an ex-wife he hates...she's a "'Russian mafia prostitute stripper' 'mistress to a Chechen warlord'" who "used VAWA to persecute him and/or attain US citizenship." He also goes to hip-hop dance classes in order to meet women in their teens and early twenties because he's only attracted to "girls in their athletic prime."
Quite an interview.
[t]he whole program is about benefiting females and teaching that guys are evil and that guys are responsible for all the world’s evils. And it isn’t so much the courses, but the program itself is a networking system for these women. It helps girls get jobs afterwards. It allows them get a degree in Women’s Studies, allows them to get fellowships and scholarships, allows them to become professors.
He has an ex-wife he hates...she's a "'Russian mafia prostitute stripper' 'mistress to a Chechen warlord'" who "used VAWA to persecute him and/or attain US citizenship." He also goes to hip-hop dance classes in order to meet women in their teens and early twenties because he's only attracted to "girls in their athletic prime."
Quite an interview.
Barbara Jordan in 1992
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, I've been listening to some past DNC speeches that have stood out to me through the years. Barbara Jordan's 1992 address to the DNC is among the first political speeches that I remember paying any attention to, partly because my mother, not a particularly political person, was a great admirer of Barbara Jordan's and demanded that we sit and listen to what Jordan had to say.
Though this is a loaded term in 2008, I think Barbara Jordan is one of the great patriots of the twentieth century. It's surprising to me how relevant her 1992 speech remains today, for many reasons - but I'm posting about it here on DW because of the following passage:
One overdue change, which you have already heard a lot about, is already underway. And that is reflected in the number of women now challenging the councils of political power. These women are challenging those councils of political power because they have been dominated by white, male policy makers and that is wrong. That horizon of gender equity is limitless for us. And what we see today is simply a dress rehearsal for the day and time we meet in convention to nominate Madame President. This country can ill afford to continue to function using less than half of its human resources, less than half its kinetic energy, less than half its brain power.
The speech is worth a listen - if only because I doubt we'll hear anything like it this week.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
SD Watch on Biden
Yipes.
Well THAT'S a relief, I guess.
I just hope his vote for the Iraq War will stop the Obamaites from squawking about how the same vote on Hillary Clinton's part made her an unacceptable candidate for life on this planet, much less for president or vice-president.
Joe Biden grew up poor and tough in Scranton, PA. He ain’t no pussy.
Well THAT'S a relief, I guess.
I just hope his vote for the Iraq War will stop the Obamaites from squawking about how the same vote on Hillary Clinton's part made her an unacceptable candidate for life on this planet, much less for president or vice-president.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Good question!
"i'm sorry...did feminism not happen?"
--Title of thread from the IMDb Message Board for The House Bunny.
Hot Mamas for Abstinence?
Read it and weep.
"HotMama247" (LOL) directs readers to this guide for college girls (pdf) which includes useful advice like "The rectum is an exit, not an entrance."
There are actually far worse abstinence guides out there, but the one linked above is essentially more of the same - it's all about trying to scare the hell out of women, instead of giving them the tools to make good choices.
"HotMama247" (LOL) directs readers to this guide for college girls (pdf) which includes useful advice like "The rectum is an exit, not an entrance."
There are actually far worse abstinence guides out there, but the one linked above is essentially more of the same - it's all about trying to scare the hell out of women, instead of giving them the tools to make good choices.
Your Friends Say A Lot About You
Isn't that right, Joel?
Leslee No.3, Nicole Osmondson
The notoriously disgusting Roger Hunt and Mucinex, mucus stunt double, Gene Abdallah
Non-Dr. Allen Unruh...in a wanna be zoot suit.
Leslee No.3, Nicole Osmondson
The notoriously disgusting Roger Hunt and Mucinex, mucus stunt double, Gene Abdallah
Non-Dr. Allen Unruh...in a wanna be zoot suit.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
More LOLs from Dakota Voice
Bob is really upset by a recent California Supreme Court ruling stating that doctors in California can't deny medical treatment to patients because of doctors' personal religious beliefs. Outrageous, right?
He's particularly upset about the plaintiff in the case, a lesbian who wants to be artificially inseminated, and so here we get to the hilarious part:
Geez, Bob, when you make it sound THAT appealing, I don't know why women wouldn't use "the legitimate manner" to have children.
He's particularly upset about the plaintiff in the case, a lesbian who wants to be artificially inseminated, and so here we get to the hilarious part:
If these women want a child this badly, they should seek children in the legitimate manner: marry a man and have him impregnate them.
Geez, Bob, when you make it sound THAT appealing, I don't know why women wouldn't use "the legitimate manner" to have children.
Who Would Jesus Knock Out?
Futher proof that the Christian Right is an oxymoron over at Voices Crazy today. Steve Whackjob draws a connection between the presidential race and the below video, "the 'fist to the face' being abortion." Yeah, I'm not sure if he's off his meds over there or what... but it's certainly a nice Christian attitude!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Alpha Center PEDDLING PROPAGANDA TO CHILDREN!!!11!
OMG YOU GUYS THE CHILDREN.
Todd and Bob beat me to the punch on the Alpha Center ad in the Sioux Falls School District circular ruckus, so I'll direct you there to get a sense of what's going on.
Commenter "AMS" at SD Watch hits the nail on the head:
Pretty convenient that they just so happen to have an ad in a circular going to thousands of households that just so happens to contain the talking points for the Yes on 11 campaign. Fishy.
Guess it's time to raise some hell, ladies. (Again.)
Todd and Bob beat me to the punch on the Alpha Center ad in the Sioux Falls School District circular ruckus, so I'll direct you there to get a sense of what's going on.
Commenter "AMS" at SD Watch hits the nail on the head:
Sure the "Alpha Center had the same right to advertise as any other organization." However, the point is that the Sioux Falls School District had the discretion to choose whether or not to accept this full-page ad that clearly is more than just about the services the Alpha Center provides, but instead takes an ideological approach that "abortion hurts women." If the SF School District had called up Planned Parenthood and given them an opportunity to put an ad in the directory, that would've been fine by me. But instead, they let this ad go in when there also just *happens* to be an abortion ban on the ballot this fall.
Ads about churches or the National Guard do not even compare to this ad, so that's a ridiculous assertion. The ad for the Alpha Center presents information to young girls in a way that appears factual, but in reality is only a very biased opinion.
Pretty convenient that they just so happen to have an ad in a circular going to thousands of households that just so happens to contain the talking points for the Yes on 11 campaign. Fishy.
Guess it's time to raise some hell, ladies. (Again.)
Oh, Ken
I've missed him so.
Today, Ken gets his Hillary Clinton hate on one last time before the DNC (though, to his credit, I can think of a couple of left-wing bloggers who actually hate Hillz far more than Ken could probably imagine). Here's Ken on the now semi-infamous Atlantic article about the Clinton campaign memos:
I love this. I've been listening to cable news go on for weeks about the "dysfunction" within the Clinton campaign, and they always use that word. And I'm like, right, because the Hillary Clinton campaign's finance chair was paying off the father of her love child? Oh wait, no.
I mean, I know it's impossible to argue with people who suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, but seriously? Probably not that dysfunctional, folks.
Today, Ken gets his Hillary Clinton hate on one last time before the DNC (though, to his credit, I can think of a couple of left-wing bloggers who actually hate Hillz far more than Ken could probably imagine). Here's Ken on the now semi-infamous Atlantic article about the Clinton campaign memos:
That such materials were kept at all suggests the degree of "paranoid dysfunction" that set into the bones and sinews of Hillary. Inc.
I love this. I've been listening to cable news go on for weeks about the "dysfunction" within the Clinton campaign, and they always use that word. And I'm like, right, because the Hillary Clinton campaign's finance chair was paying off the father of her love child? Oh wait, no.
I mean, I know it's impossible to argue with people who suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, but seriously? Probably not that dysfunctional, folks.
(Sy)Phyllis Heineman?
So, apparently I'm the new kid on the block at DakotaWomen. I've been a groupie for a while...and now I guess I'm legit.
Anyway...
As you may or may not have seen, some of South Dakota's right-wing candidates have delved into the hipness that is Facebook.
Interestingly, Phyllis Heinemann in District 13 (the Unruh's BFF) has a Facebook ad for her website, WhyPhyllis.com.
I was curious about Why-WouldAnyoneVoteFor-Phyllis.com, and typed the URL into my browser. Unfortunately, a little typo meant the page wasn't able to be displayed. Google, being super helpful, asked me if I meant Syphilis.com instead.
Yup...syphilis. Like, that syphilis. It's okay, Google...I get them confused all the time, too!
Anyway...
As you may or may not have seen, some of South Dakota's right-wing candidates have delved into the hipness that is Facebook.
Interestingly, Phyllis Heinemann in District 13 (the Unruh's BFF) has a Facebook ad for her website, WhyPhyllis.com.
I was curious about Why-WouldAnyoneVoteFor-Phyllis.com, and typed the URL into my browser. Unfortunately, a little typo meant the page wasn't able to be displayed. Google, being super helpful, asked me if I meant Syphilis.com instead.
Yup...syphilis. Like, that syphilis. It's okay, Google...I get them confused all the time, too!
"A Blog To Convey To The Nation The Common Sense Values From The Great State Of South Dakota?"
While Madville Times Recently Addressed The Issue Of Misused Semi-Colons, I Think There’s An Even Bigger Grammatical Problem That’s Been Lingering In The Blogosphere. Got A Guess? Yep, That’s Right: Dakota Values And His (Although Gender Is Unclear, I’m Going To Assume That Like Most Of The Anti-Abortion, SD Blogging Zealots, DV’s Sans Uterus) Obsession With Capitalization.
Does the above look familiar? What the hell is going on there?
Not only does typing like that put huge strain on the left-hand pinky finger for the repeated SHIFT button motion, but it’s also wrong on so many levels, not to mention visually confusing.
So, let’s break it down for the “life long Citizen Of South Dakota.” I’ll just throw out a couple of basics, because, well, let’s be honest: while semi-colons might somewhat reasonably scare people, I'd think we'd all be pretty comfortable with capitalization after the 4th grade. Maybe this will help:
Rule #1: Capitalize the beginning of the sentence.
Example: The blog is painful to read.
Rule #2: Capitalize proper nouns (people, places, or things) as they appear in the sentence.
Example: Leslee Unruh, who lives in Sioux Falls, is bat shit crazy.
Rule #3: Prepositions (i.e. a, an, or, nor) are almost never capitalized, especially in a title.
Example: Dakota Values is a lifelong citizen of South Dakota.
Does the above look familiar? What the hell is going on there?
Not only does typing like that put huge strain on the left-hand pinky finger for the repeated SHIFT button motion, but it’s also wrong on so many levels, not to mention visually confusing.
So, let’s break it down for the “life long Citizen Of South Dakota.” I’ll just throw out a couple of basics, because, well, let’s be honest: while semi-colons might somewhat reasonably scare people, I'd think we'd all be pretty comfortable with capitalization after the 4th grade. Maybe this will help:
Rule #1: Capitalize the beginning of the sentence.
Example: The blog is painful to read.
Rule #2: Capitalize proper nouns (people, places, or things) as they appear in the sentence.
Example: Leslee Unruh, who lives in Sioux Falls, is bat shit crazy.
Rule #3: Prepositions (i.e. a, an, or, nor) are almost never capitalized, especially in a title.
Example: Dakota Values is a lifelong citizen of South Dakota.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Can't let it go.
Dakota Voice keeps reposting press releases from anti-choice organizations in which anti-choice activists like Rachel MacNair talk about how biased the APA's report was.
Melissa MacEwan, of the feminist blog Shakesville, commented on the APA's report in The Guardian
I think MacEwan hits the nail on the head, here. Ellis, Hickey, and their followers really actually DO think women aren't capable of holding "two thoughts in one's head at the same time."
A sampling from the comments at Voices Carry:
This, to a commenter who stated she did not regret having an abortion:
So if you don't feel bad they're going to try to make you feel bad.
Melissa MacEwan, of the feminist blog Shakesville, commented on the APA's report in The Guardian
Thing is, not all women do suffer distress after an abortion. Some women feel distress at a pregnancy, which is why they seek out abortions. Plenty of women surely feel a combination of sadness and relief after an abortion, given that, to my understanding, abortions don't eliminate the ability to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time.
I think MacEwan hits the nail on the head, here. Ellis, Hickey, and their followers really actually DO think women aren't capable of holding "two thoughts in one's head at the same time."
A sampling from the comments at Voices Carry:
A woman's judgment is VERY impaired when she is faced with a crisis pregnancy.
I really don't think most women of child bearing age that choose to abort truly understand the consequences of their actions, at least until after the act...I tend to view most women that have abortions as victims.
This, to a commenter who stated she did not regret having an abortion:
I urge you to put down your defensive mode for a second and turn your heart to Him. He will forgive you if you ask him, and He will lead you to the Truth. HE has never given us the right to kill the gift of life He places within us. To throw away these lives is to steal from God the destinies He has created for these children.
So if you don't feel bad they're going to try to make you feel bad.
being faced with a crisis pregnancy takes away the ability to think rationally which can lead to "stupid" decisions.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Task Force memories
Anna's post below made me think back to the craziness that was the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion and I thought I'd share this excerpt from an article That Girl and I wrote for an upcoming pro-choice anthology.
Step through the looking glass.
BONUS: Enjoy some of my favorite Allen Unruh quotes from the Task Force.
"[S]ometimes I think with the attitude that if just everybody had enough latex from the cradle to the grave, womb to the tomb, and everybody in America had all access to free latex and free abortion it would be a step in the right direction, we'd be a perfect world. ... I mean, that would be a step in the right direction from the attitude that I'm kind of hearing."
"In South Dakota, we value a hen pheasant. It's like a $200 fine if you kill a hen pheasant, but no fine if you kill an unborn child."
Step through the looking glass.
Legislation was passed in 2005 establishing a task force that would study abortion. The motive for establishing the task force – to gather information that would be used to fuel further anti-choice legislation – was clear, but at the time there was still some hope that the truth would win out. Instead, the task force turned out to be a set up from the very beginning. The make-up of the task force was to be decided by the Speaker of the House, the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, and the Governor, all stridently anti-choice. And while the bill required some diversity in the party affiliation of its members, it didn’t seem out of the realm of possibility that there would be a task force without any pro-choice representation at all.
As it turned out, there was actually minimal effort made to make the task force seem legitimate. Of the seventeen members, six (Planned Parenthood State Director Kate Looby, Sen. Stan Adelstein, Sen. Theresa Two Bulls, Dr. Maria Bell, councilor Linda Holcomb, and USD law professor David Day) were pro-choice and the chair, Dr. Marty Allison, was fairly moderate. However, the rest of the roster looked like a Who’s Who of Anti-Choice Loons: Sen. Julie Bartling, who would go on to introduce the abortion ban during the next session; Travis Benson, lobbyist for the Catholic Diocese of South Dakota; Sen. Jay Duenwald and Rep. Roger Hunt, two men who had campaigned against abortion since before Roe v. Wade (and perhaps before South Dakota became a state); Rep. Brock Greenfield, president of South Dakota Right to Life; crisis pregnancy center champion Rep. Elizabeth Kraus; Rep. Kathy Miles, who famously said that bearing a rapist’s child could be healing for the victim; family practitioners Dr. John Stransky and Dr. David Wachs; and, finally, the wackiest of the wackjobs, 'Dr.' Allen Unruh. Allen is a chiropractor, not an MD, but he must have felt that using the title gave him an air of authority he was desperately lacking. Allen is married to the notorious Leslee Unruh, a long-time anti-choice personality and founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse and a local crisis pregnancy center. Not satisfied toiling away in obscurity, Allen styled himself as an anti-choice demagogue, a favorite pundit of local right-wing talk radio and frequent keynote speaker wherever nuts gathered to mix and plot.
The circus that was the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion would almost have to have been experienced to be believed. To attend the meetings of the task force was like stepping through the looking glass. Landing in Oz. Being locked in the zoo. Choose your own metaphor here, but be assured, it was absurd and insane in a way that few of us who attended had experienced before or since. Unsubstantiated written testimony from all over the country was allowed to be entered as evidence. Out-of-state 'experts' whose testimony consisted of anecdotal stories were allowed to testify before South Dakota constituents who had traveled for hours to appear before the task force. “It's interesting to me how the rules keep changing. And that's made it very, very difficult. They keep changing and there's no consistency,” complained task force member Linda Holcomb. "I hope someone from the media is here to hear that we voted that South Dakota residents do not take precedence."
One woman considered an 'expert' by the task force claimed she had blocked out the name of the doctor who had performed her abortion until appearing before the task force dislodged this buried memory. Carol Whalon, a white woman from the Pine Ridge Indian reservation (again, an 'expert'), assured the task force that, "Lakota people are strongly pro-life." Other Lakota people in the room were surprised to hear this. She also shared a story about a medicine woman who gave an abortifacient herb to women in a village and eventually went crazy from the voices of the spirits of the children she had helped kill. Dr. Donald Oliver of Rapid City suggested that, “just as two bad genes might pair up and lead to an unfortunate outcome, two good genes can pair up and the infant of this incestual relationship may be the brightest person in the family, sometimes in the genius range of intellect.”
Kate Looby was incredulous. "I wonder if you could clarify, a little bit, your testimony regarding incest. I'm assuming that you're not in any way advocating incest as it could possibly lead to some sort of brilliance."
"Of course not," Dr. Oliver answered. "The point primarily of my testimony is to say that even in incest, the overwhelming majority of these infants, in the nineties – perhaps high nineties – are perfectly normal children. Some of them turn out to be geniuses."
Person after person got up to testify, some tearfully telling how abortion had screwed up their lives, others begging the members of the task force to understand that women needed safe, legal options to end an unintended pregnancy. Those serving on this 'fact finding' body, as Roger Hunt often called it, acted as was to be expected, being kind to those who said things they agreed with and being rude to those who didn't (going so far as to interrupt a rape victim multiple times during her testimony). And in the end, it was only the testimony of the parade of dishonest, inaccurate, and sometimes mentally ill anti-choice witnesses that would eventually inform the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion’s final report to the governor and the legislature.
BONUS: Enjoy some of my favorite Allen Unruh quotes from the Task Force.
"[S]ometimes I think with the attitude that if just everybody had enough latex from the cradle to the grave, womb to the tomb, and everybody in America had all access to free latex and free abortion it would be a step in the right direction, we'd be a perfect world. ... I mean, that would be a step in the right direction from the attitude that I'm kind of hearing."
"In South Dakota, we value a hen pheasant. It's like a $200 fine if you kill a hen pheasant, but no fine if you kill an unborn child."
Monday Head-Scratcher: Austrailian Town Mayor Pleads for 'Ugly Women?'
From CNN:
Seriously, wha? The mayor declined providing the AP with an explanation, but did take a sec to insert the desperate "It was taken out of context, blah blah blah" defense before hanging up the phone.
But the story does end on a humorous note:
Ha!
Mayor John Molony found himself under attack Monday over comments he made to a local newspaper that read: 'May I suggest if there are five blokes to every girl, we should find out where there are beauty-disadvantaged women and ask them to proceed to Mount Isa.'
Seriously, wha? The mayor declined providing the AP with an explanation, but did take a sec to insert the desperate "It was taken out of context, blah blah blah" defense before hanging up the phone.
But the story does end on a humorous note:
And several local women said there aren't a lot of gems to be found among Mount Isa's men, either.
Ha!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Task Force
You gotta love Dakota Voice. Just a few days ago they were outraged by the bias in the APA's report about the lack of a connection between abortion and mental health. Now they're reviewing the report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, a committee whose bias was clearly evident throughout the proceedings. Once again, Ellis proves that it's not bias that bothers him - it's coming to a conclusion that doesn't match his moral monitor view of the world.
Something interesting from the testimony: what do South Dakota doctors think about making abortion illegal?
My own doctor, who was not one of the physicians called to testify, told me this as well. He would stop practicing medicine in South Dakota and move elsewhere if abortion was illegal. Most of the anti-choice side's own doctors testified that "it was not medically advisable to create an environment where abortion was illegal."
Oh, and by the way: some fun misogyny in the comments at Voices Carry...
Awesome.
Something interesting from the testimony: what do South Dakota doctors think about making abortion illegal?
Of the nine physicians who testified, eight claimed it was not medically advisable to create an environment where abortion was illegal.
My own doctor, who was not one of the physicians called to testify, told me this as well. He would stop practicing medicine in South Dakota and move elsewhere if abortion was illegal. Most of the anti-choice side's own doctors testified that "it was not medically advisable to create an environment where abortion was illegal."
Oh, and by the way: some fun misogyny in the comments at Voices Carry...
, I really don't think most women of child bearing age that choose to abort truly understand the consequences of their actions, at least until after the act.
Awesome.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Some losing questions for anti-choicers
Steve and Bob are trying to change the terms of the debate over IM 11 in the local blogosphere since they got nowhere with the "abortion hurts women" line. Now, starting in the comments at Madville Times, they're asking whether abortion is right or wrong. (There's a great response to the question at Flying Tomato Farms, too.)
Incidentally, Cory is absolutely right about one thing: the question facing South Dakotans in November is not whether abortion is right or wrong. It's whether abortion should be legal with some restrictions like parental notification, waiting periods, and paperwork requirements, or whether it should be largely illegal. It's about the role the government ought to play in the relationship between a doctor and a patient, and, in my mind, it's ultimately about the role women ought to play in our society. Women are either capable of making these decisions ourselves or we aren't, and Bob and Steve definitely think we aren't. However, if the anti-choice crowd wants to make this about whether abortion is right or wrong, I'm okay with that, because they aren't going to win people over by saying it's wrong. We saw that in 2006 with RL 6 - a solid majority of South Dakotans refused to buy into that rhetoric. During the countless hours I spent working on the No on 6 campaign (and the more limited time I spent volunteering for the campaign against 11) people's overwhelming response was "this is not a black and white issue." Most people don't see it as an issue of right or wrong. Most people consider it gray - between right and wrong.
Pastor Steve's response to this question truly lets us into the mind of a zealot. I wouldn't normally bother to dissect it line by line, but I had to respond directly to the following:
Because, um, such studies do exist and you need to educate yourself about the real-life consequences of your world view. Here are some other studies: four million Latin American women seek illegal abortions each year, 25% of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in Ireland end in abortion (pdf alert). The callous disregard Pastor Steve displays in the quote above for the tens of thousands of women who die each year as a result of laws like IM 11 puts the lie to the notion that he, or any of the anti-choicers in the local blogosphere, actually care about women.
If IM 11 were to become law in South Dakota, it would not be a question of if women would die or be permanently maimed by illegal abortion, but how soon it would happen and under what circumstances it would happen. There would not be a question of if an illegal abortion racket would begin in South Dakota, but of how quickly it would begin and who would run it.
This is something I'll come back to a lot between now and November - because we've been seeing a lot of fake compassion for women from Bob and Steve recently, particularly for those women who have the proper feeling of guilt and contrition after having an abortion. They have absolutely no compassion for women all over the world who seek illegal abortions out of sheer desperation. Seriously, y'all, wait to see what they have to say about this.
Incidentally, Cory is absolutely right about one thing: the question facing South Dakotans in November is not whether abortion is right or wrong. It's whether abortion should be legal with some restrictions like parental notification, waiting periods, and paperwork requirements, or whether it should be largely illegal. It's about the role the government ought to play in the relationship between a doctor and a patient, and, in my mind, it's ultimately about the role women ought to play in our society. Women are either capable of making these decisions ourselves or we aren't, and Bob and Steve definitely think we aren't. However, if the anti-choice crowd wants to make this about whether abortion is right or wrong, I'm okay with that, because they aren't going to win people over by saying it's wrong. We saw that in 2006 with RL 6 - a solid majority of South Dakotans refused to buy into that rhetoric. During the countless hours I spent working on the No on 6 campaign (and the more limited time I spent volunteering for the campaign against 11) people's overwhelming response was "this is not a black and white issue." Most people don't see it as an issue of right or wrong. Most people consider it gray - between right and wrong.
Pastor Steve's response to this question truly lets us into the mind of a zealot. I wouldn't normally bother to dissect it line by line, but I had to respond directly to the following:
You can read that for yourself but I will warn you it's basically flawed and/or weak reasoning, revisionist history, and unsubstanciated claims such as this one - "outlawing abortion doesn't significantly reduce the number of abortions." Hello? Show me that study. It doesn't exist.
Because, um, such studies do exist and you need to educate yourself about the real-life consequences of your world view. Here are some other studies: four million Latin American women seek illegal abortions each year, 25% of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in Ireland end in abortion (pdf alert). The callous disregard Pastor Steve displays in the quote above for the tens of thousands of women who die each year as a result of laws like IM 11 puts the lie to the notion that he, or any of the anti-choicers in the local blogosphere, actually care about women.
If IM 11 were to become law in South Dakota, it would not be a question of if women would die or be permanently maimed by illegal abortion, but how soon it would happen and under what circumstances it would happen. There would not be a question of if an illegal abortion racket would begin in South Dakota, but of how quickly it would begin and who would run it.
This is something I'll come back to a lot between now and November - because we've been seeing a lot of fake compassion for women from Bob and Steve recently, particularly for those women who have the proper feeling of guilt and contrition after having an abortion. They have absolutely no compassion for women all over the world who seek illegal abortions out of sheer desperation. Seriously, y'all, wait to see what they have to say about this.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Lawmaking by anecdote.
I think we've hit a nerve in the local anti-abortion blogosphere with the news about the APA's determination that abortion is not a significant mental health risk to women.
Bob Ellis has been working overtime at Dakota Voice, with several posts on the topic.
There seem to be two major arguments the antis are trying to make with their recent posts. 1. Women regret their abortions sometimes, therefore abortion should be illegal for all women. 2. Any professional organization suggesting that 1. is not as big a problem as the antis think it is, is biased and anything such an organization has to say about the topic should be disregarded out-of-hand.
I think both of these arguments are pretty easily refuted.
1. I don't think any pro-choice person doubts that some women who have had an abortion, or several abortions, may regret their decision(s) later in life. That's the chance we take as human beings every time we make a decision of any sort - we might decide later on that we made the wrong decision and feel bad about it.
Almost every day, I make a decision that I later regret. I regret some big things and some small things. For example, I regret ordering a pizza the other night instead of making supper at home. I also regret not starting college until I was 21 years old; I feel my life would be very different right now if I'd made a different decision a few years previous. On the other hand, I've made some huge decisions in my life that everyone warned me I'd regret later...and I haven't regretted them for a second. (Quitting my job to go to grad school comes to mind immediately.) I don't assume that decision I later come to regret are always bad decisions for every person facing them - I bet a lot of people ordered pizza the other night and really enjoyed it. I bet a lot of people regret leaving full-time employment for grad school.
Some women might regret having abortions - tens of thousands of women, in fact, might regret having abortions. All of this is entirely possible. That still leaves millions of others who don't regret their decision to terminate. The fact that some women later feel they made the wrong decision does not mean the ability to make the decision to have an abortion should be taken away from every woman. Unless, of course, you believe women aren't smart enough to make these kinds of decisions on our own. Unless you believe we're so stupid that we have to be protected from ourselves.
2. I had to laugh at the title of one of Bob's posts - "The APA - When Bias Eclipses Science." You see, the APA doesn't hate gay people like Bob does, so we shouldn't trust anything they say. To refute the APA's study, Bob posts this statement (Warning: it's a .pdf) signed by various counselors, doctors, and nurses - and some other random people (you mean to tell me someone holding a B.A. in psychology thinks abortion hurts women? My stars, that changes everything!). A quick review of the footnotes of this report suggests what I assumed was the case from the beginning - Bob's attempting to refute what he considers biased science with other "science" that matches his worldview and is therefore completely unbiased. Every study footnoted in the statement Bob referenced is authored or co-authored by David Reardon, Vincent Rue, Jesse Cougle, or Priscilla Coleman - all people who put their personal biases against abortion ahead of their role as researchers and academics.
Bob has failed to prove the APA's bias on this issue (as I suggested above, his evidence is that they removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973), and instead relies on the "research" of people like David Reardon, who doesn't really even pretend to be anything but an agenda-driven junk scientist.
So what this ultimately boils down to, in my mind, is that people like Bob Ellis and Steve Hickey think we should outlaw abortion because they know some people who really wish they hadn't had abortions. Anecdotal evidence like this isn't science, for one thing, and it certainly shouldn't dictate how we pass laws in this country.
Bob Ellis has been working overtime at Dakota Voice, with several posts on the topic.
There seem to be two major arguments the antis are trying to make with their recent posts. 1. Women regret their abortions sometimes, therefore abortion should be illegal for all women. 2. Any professional organization suggesting that 1. is not as big a problem as the antis think it is, is biased and anything such an organization has to say about the topic should be disregarded out-of-hand.
I think both of these arguments are pretty easily refuted.
1. I don't think any pro-choice person doubts that some women who have had an abortion, or several abortions, may regret their decision(s) later in life. That's the chance we take as human beings every time we make a decision of any sort - we might decide later on that we made the wrong decision and feel bad about it.
Almost every day, I make a decision that I later regret. I regret some big things and some small things. For example, I regret ordering a pizza the other night instead of making supper at home. I also regret not starting college until I was 21 years old; I feel my life would be very different right now if I'd made a different decision a few years previous. On the other hand, I've made some huge decisions in my life that everyone warned me I'd regret later...and I haven't regretted them for a second. (Quitting my job to go to grad school comes to mind immediately.) I don't assume that decision I later come to regret are always bad decisions for every person facing them - I bet a lot of people ordered pizza the other night and really enjoyed it. I bet a lot of people regret leaving full-time employment for grad school.
Some women might regret having abortions - tens of thousands of women, in fact, might regret having abortions. All of this is entirely possible. That still leaves millions of others who don't regret their decision to terminate. The fact that some women later feel they made the wrong decision does not mean the ability to make the decision to have an abortion should be taken away from every woman. Unless, of course, you believe women aren't smart enough to make these kinds of decisions on our own. Unless you believe we're so stupid that we have to be protected from ourselves.
2. I had to laugh at the title of one of Bob's posts - "The APA - When Bias Eclipses Science." You see, the APA doesn't hate gay people like Bob does, so we shouldn't trust anything they say. To refute the APA's study, Bob posts this statement (Warning: it's a .pdf) signed by various counselors, doctors, and nurses - and some other random people (you mean to tell me someone holding a B.A. in psychology thinks abortion hurts women? My stars, that changes everything!). A quick review of the footnotes of this report suggests what I assumed was the case from the beginning - Bob's attempting to refute what he considers biased science with other "science" that matches his worldview and is therefore completely unbiased. Every study footnoted in the statement Bob referenced is authored or co-authored by David Reardon, Vincent Rue, Jesse Cougle, or Priscilla Coleman - all people who put their personal biases against abortion ahead of their role as researchers and academics.
Bob has failed to prove the APA's bias on this issue (as I suggested above, his evidence is that they removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973), and instead relies on the "research" of people like David Reardon, who doesn't really even pretend to be anything but an agenda-driven junk scientist.
So what this ultimately boils down to, in my mind, is that people like Bob Ellis and Steve Hickey think we should outlaw abortion because they know some people who really wish they hadn't had abortions. Anecdotal evidence like this isn't science, for one thing, and it certainly shouldn't dictate how we pass laws in this country.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Irony
To "prove" that the APA's report that a single abortion is not a threat to a woman's mental health is biased, Pastor Steve links to a report by Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., frequent guest at right to life gatherings and part of the problem when it comes to biased "science" surrounding the abortion debate.
In the words of That Girl, "a swing and a miss, my friend."
In the words of That Girl, "a swing and a miss, my friend."
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Hey, Democrats?
Why is it that you've scheduled anti-choice Senator Bob Casey to speak at the DNC on the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage?
By the way, it's apparently too much to give Senator Hillary Clinton, the runner up in the Democratic primary, winner of approximately 18 million votes, the first woman of either political party to win a state primary in the nation's history, and someone who has been hugely influential in shaping this year's Democratic platform, the keynote speaking slot that evening. She'll be a "headliner," while Mark Warner will be the keynote.
A hint from me, to the DNC: No one cares what Mark Warner has to say about anything.
I seriously want someone to ask me why on Earth it might be that former Hillary supporters can't "get over" her primary loss. It might be because we were front and center for months making noise about the sexism that permeated the Democratic Party and the media coverage of the campaign, apparently for no good reason. Democrats keep doing stuff like this that just indicates to me that they feel they can take women's votes for granted.
By the way, it's apparently too much to give Senator Hillary Clinton, the runner up in the Democratic primary, winner of approximately 18 million votes, the first woman of either political party to win a state primary in the nation's history, and someone who has been hugely influential in shaping this year's Democratic platform, the keynote speaking slot that evening. She'll be a "headliner," while Mark Warner will be the keynote.
A hint from me, to the DNC: No one cares what Mark Warner has to say about anything.
I seriously want someone to ask me why on Earth it might be that former Hillary supporters can't "get over" her primary loss. It might be because we were front and center for months making noise about the sexism that permeated the Democratic Party and the media coverage of the campaign, apparently for no good reason. Democrats keep doing stuff like this that just indicates to me that they feel they can take women's votes for granted.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Allen Unruh: Head D-Bag and Bert Reynolds Stunt Double
One of my favorite abortion-related flicks of all time is that of Citizen Ruth, a hilarious, satirical depiction of the abortion debate. At a time where Vote Yes for The Unruhs to Pocket MORE Federal Monies can't lay the crap off, I find myself loving this film more and more. Casting Bert Reynolds as the head anti was abso-freakin'-lutely brilliant...maybe even a direct copycat, perhaps. Ah, Allen Unruh. The dude apparently, as according to the new More magazine article, is responsible for stealing Leslee (yep, they had an affair, people!) from her pre-martial sex-loving, PASTOR boy toy and Democratic, liberal feminist values and turning her into an anti-choice, empirical nutso. When Leslee's mom told her to "get out of the kitchen and start a business," she obviously took that to mean "find a rich dude from which you can spring board his crusade into a lucrative, international empire." I'm sure it was the mustache. Money, surely, had nothing to do with it.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Blog-larious!
I have to say, Sibby's Really bad news, Pat Powers is a complete jerk is probably the funniest blog title I've seen in a long time. I almost spit out my coffee when I saw it on the War College side bar.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Who Would Jesus Stalk?
The pastors I know tend to do things like minister to the sick, comfort the grieving, and counsel the distressed. Even in their spare time, they're out in the community making it a better place.
Steve Hickey of Voices Carry, on the other hand, apparently likes to spend his time digging up personal information on Healthy Families employees so he can put it out on the internet. I think I've found the real stalkerazzi and he isn't hanging out at Chris Lien rallies.
I know tons of pro-choice people in this state who are afraid speak out precisely because of this kind of crap. It's really amazing that so many actual South Dakotans are still willing to even put themselves out there, knowing what they'll face. You try to help out with a campaign you believe in and suddenly have to worry about Steve Hickey tapping your phones or sitting outside of your house in a surveillance van (maybe that's the true mean of "Voices Carry"; I assumed he just had a thing for Aimee Mann).
Hickey asks for forgiveness for "playing hardball," but as I'm sure he knows, if you want to be forgiven, you actually have to own up to what you've done wrong. And I doubt he's going to see the light on this one anytime soon.
Anyway, dude, nice Christian attitude.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Get the Heck Outta Here, VY!
I gotta laugh when I read the ‘Endorsements’ page of the Vote Yes for State Mandated Lobotomies of Women website. Today, the whackos posted an ‘exciting’ announcement about how Focus on the Family Action endorses IM11! Wow! Get the heck outta here! Focus on the Family endorses this measure?! I don’t know if I believe it!
What? Steve “I heart blogging about abortion on church time” Hickey supports this measure? You better check your facts, because I just don’t know if I believe it!
Alan Green, creator of LifeLight? He’s supporting THIS? What a break through!
And my absolute favorite: Non-Dr. Allen and Leslee Unruh are endorsing this? You have got to be shitting me! I’m petrified with shock.
C’mon, VY. You guys are hilarious. Bravo on your impressive and totally surprising endorsements. Maybe the Campaign for Healthy Families should make sure to include how they’re endorsed by NOW, Kathleen Hannah, and Kate Looby on their website so they can show all the universal and unusual support they have, too. Just plain silly.
What? Steve “I heart blogging about abortion on church time” Hickey supports this measure? You better check your facts, because I just don’t know if I believe it!
Alan Green, creator of LifeLight? He’s supporting THIS? What a break through!
And my absolute favorite: Non-Dr. Allen and Leslee Unruh are endorsing this? You have got to be shitting me! I’m petrified with shock.
C’mon, VY. You guys are hilarious. Bravo on your impressive and totally surprising endorsements. Maybe the Campaign for Healthy Families should make sure to include how they’re endorsed by NOW, Kathleen Hannah, and Kate Looby on their website so they can show all the universal and unusual support they have, too. Just plain silly.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
A note to Todd Epp:
It's not just Republicans who are extra-tough on their women activists/legislators/leaders.
I think Hillary Clinton's campaign in particular brought out a lot of resentment among women Democrats, both those who were Hillary supporters, and those who were Obama supporters. I heard a lot of longtime Democratic women activists, many of them women in my own family, complain for the first time about what they've long felt was their subservient role in the party. In my experience, women Democrats do the lion's share of selling tickets, baking for potlucks, organizing and staffing events, stuffing envelopes, making telephone calls, and knocking on doors, and a lot of these women have felt pretty disrespected recently.
I think Hillary Clinton's campaign in particular brought out a lot of resentment among women Democrats, both those who were Hillary supporters, and those who were Obama supporters. I heard a lot of longtime Democratic women activists, many of them women in my own family, complain for the first time about what they've long felt was their subservient role in the party. In my experience, women Democrats do the lion's share of selling tickets, baking for potlucks, organizing and staffing events, stuffing envelopes, making telephone calls, and knocking on doors, and a lot of these women have felt pretty disrespected recently.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Arguments against IM 11
I've been catching up on my South Dakota blog reading today, and I found a really nice, succinct set of problems with IM 11. Cory does a good job of explaining why I and a lot of other women and men oppose this measure:
When I attended the Campaign for Healthy Families' open house in Sioux Falls last week, I was talking with another veteran of the crazy abortion wars in this state. I was telling her that every time I actually read the texts of the abortion bans that go through the state legislature or through the initiative process, I'm totally infuriated. No matter how many times they've tried these bans before, or how many times they'll try them again, they just make my blood boil the first time I read them. There's no respect for women in the text of IM 11, and Cory really hits the nail on the head in the quote above.
People who oppose IM 11 assume women are capable of making difficult, complicated decisions without the interference of the Unruhs, Pastor Steve Hickey, and the government of the state of South Dakota. Women should find the text of this initiated measure completely insulting.
1. IM11 assumes the majority of women who choose to have abortions are uninformed or irrational.
2. IM11 assumes women are not strong enough to resist bad advice.
3. IM11 assumes women who say they've been raped and want an abortion are lying.
4. IM11 reinforces the concept that women are lesser beings if they do not fulfill their obligation to bear children.
5. IM11 declares women wards of the state whose bodies may be placed in servitude of another being in a way the state never demands of men.
When I attended the Campaign for Healthy Families' open house in Sioux Falls last week, I was talking with another veteran of the crazy abortion wars in this state. I was telling her that every time I actually read the texts of the abortion bans that go through the state legislature or through the initiative process, I'm totally infuriated. No matter how many times they've tried these bans before, or how many times they'll try them again, they just make my blood boil the first time I read them. There's no respect for women in the text of IM 11, and Cory really hits the nail on the head in the quote above.
People who oppose IM 11 assume women are capable of making difficult, complicated decisions without the interference of the Unruhs, Pastor Steve Hickey, and the government of the state of South Dakota. Women should find the text of this initiated measure completely insulting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
