A few good resources

For some great pro-choice feminist blogging, check out Feministing and Bush v. Choice.

America: Proud to be an obstacle to global women's rights

That's right, it's freedom-loving Hijab-liberating America that is stalling international women's rights. Why? An anti-choice agenda, of course. Women's rights to their own reproductive systems have long been recognized as human rights, up there with all the other rights based on personal autonomy -- like the right not to be tortured. Countries like China and Romania have violated these rights with devastating results -- China by forcing and coercing abortion and regulating how many children women are allowed to have, and Romania by not allowing women access to family planning services. When we set a precedent where the state can control women's reproductive choices, we get into dangerous territory, as these two examples have shown. Human rights are based on the right to individual autonomy, just as reproductive rights are. If a woman cannot control her own reproductive system, she is hard-pressed to control anything else in her life. As Westerners, it can be easy to ignore the various social inequalities, cultural differences and barriers to access faced by women around the world. Not everyone has Western privilege -- including a lot of people in the Western world and the global north. When tens of thousands of women die every year because of illegal abortion, when many are prosecuted, when women and girls don't have access to basic healthcare, it is simply not acceptable to export our "morality" abroad and stall what could be a very successful event. It is not moral to push a policy that kills women.

It's also valuable to see who our co-conspirators are on this issue. We're in the company of countries like Iran and Somolia in our status as a non-signatory on CEDAW, the primary international women's rights document. Every other developed Western nation -- you know, the places that many people consider "englightened" -- is behind it. The United States' anti-choice emphasis hurts women worldwide. It's immoral. And it's unbelievable that a supposed beacon of "freedom" is willing to infringe on the freedoms and basic rights to life of more than half the world's population.

(also cross-posted at Third Wave Agenda)

The Abstinence-only Cure-all

(cross-posted at Third Wave Agenda)

From Mother Jones magazine, direct quotes from the $170 million-a-year abstinence-only "health" curricula (they'd be funny if they weren't so unbelievably frightening):

"Hold up a beautiful rose. Talk about the petals and how they add color and fragrance to the rose. Hand the rose to a student, telling that student to pull off a petal and pass it on to another student who also pulls off a petal. Continue passing the rose around until there are no more petals. At the end, hold up te rose. Ask: Of what value is the rose now? ... The rose represents someone who participates in casual sex." -- Choosing the Best PATH

"No matter how strong a condom is, it won't protect you from a broken heart." -- A.C. Green's Game Plan

"The first player spins the culinder, points the gun to his/her head, and pulls the trigger. He/she has only a one in six chance of being killed. But if one continues to perform this act, the chamber with the bullet will ultimately fall into position, and the game ends as one of the players dies. Relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette." --Me, My World, My Future

"Watch what you wear, if you don't aim to please, don't aim to tease." --Sex Respect

"Infertility, isolation, jealousy, poverty, heartbreak, substance abuse, AIDS, pregnancy, cervical cancer, genital herpes, unstable long-term commitments, depression, embarassment, meaningless wedding, sexual violence, personal disappointment, suicide, feelings of being used, loss of honesty, loneliness, loss of personal goals, distrust of others, plevic inflammatory disease, loss of reputation, fear of pregnancy, disappointed parents, loss of self-esteem, leaving high school before graduation... ALL of them can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." --Choosing the Best PATH

Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied

Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=240519
WASHINGTON Nov 9, 2004 — In several states, women considering abortion are given government-issued brochures warning that the procedure could increase their chance of developing breast cancer, despite scientific findings to the contrary.
More than a year ago, a panel of scientists convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed available data and concluded there is no link. A scientific review in the Lancet, a British medical journal, came to the same conclusion, questioning the methodology in studies that suggested a link.
The cancer information is distributed to women during mandatory waiting periods before abortions. In some cases, the information is on the states' Web sites.
"We're going to continue to educate the public about this," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an anti-abortion group. She dismissed the National Cancer Institute's findings as politically motivated and maintained that the link has been scientifically proven.
New Bacteria Threaten Public Health
Doctor Discovers the 'Orgasmatron'
Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied
The effort to write the issue into state law began in the mid-1990s, when a few studies suggested women who had abortions or miscarriages might be more likely to develop breast cancer. The warnings are now required in Texas and Mississippi, and health officials in Kansas and Louisiana voluntarily issue them.
In Mississippi, women who want abortions must sign a form indicating they've been told there is a "medical risk" of breast cancer. In other states, brochures say there is a link or that evidence is mixed.
Minnesota law requires the health department to include this information on its Web site, but the department backed down after an outcry from the state's medical community. Montana law also mandated the warning, but the state Supreme Court struck it down.
The brochures still in circulation tell women the issue "needs further study."
"They can do further research on their own and determine which of those studies they should put most attention on," said Sharon Watson, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. "We're just trying to provide all the information it's possible to provide."
In Louisiana there will be changes, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the state's Department of Health and Hospitals. He said the department's new director did not know the state pamphlet included such information until contacted this week by The Associated Press.
"If there is scientific evidence, and it certainly appears there now is, we would certainly make the necessary changes in that brochure," Johannessen said Tuesday.
The brochure, he said, is a reflection of the "very, very strong pro-family, pro-life leaning" of Louisiana.
"Nonetheless, it's incumbent on us as the health agency to make sure any information is factually correct," he said. "We don't want to be misleading women who are making this important choice."
A Democrat, Kathleen Blanco, was elected Louisiana governor last year, replacing a Republican.
The issue continues to be debated in state legislatures, with bills considered this year in Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.
On the federal level, several members of Congress complained last year after the NCI Web site included material suggesting a link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriage. An expert panel that was asked to review the data reported in March 2003 that "well established" evidence shows no link.
Among the studies cited by the NCI expert panel was Danish research that used computerized medical records to compare women who had undergone abortions with that country's cancer registry and found no higher cancer rate.
"Having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer," the NCI site now says.
Those findings were affirmed this year by an article in the Lancet, which reviewed 53 studies. Lancet found that studies that purported a link had flawed methodologies.
Still, anti-abortion activists are unconvinced.
Joel Brind, a biochemist at Baruch College in New York who advises the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, noted that a woman's chances of getting breast cancer go down if she gives birth at a relatively young age. He reasons that those who opt for abortion are giving up a chance of reducing their breast cancer risk.
Therefore, he says, abortion increases the risk of cancer.
He dismisses the findings of the National Cancer Institute, calling it a "political exercise, a charade if you will." He participated in those discussions and filed a minority report.

A letter from the VfC e-board

Dear friends and pro-choice allies,

A recent email sent by the MoveOn Student Action Team posed the question “What defines a generation?” The body of the email sought to answer the question and in doing so wrote, “it is not the attempts of others to destroy our world that makes us who we are, but how we rise to the challenge of rebuilding it.”

Although a few days ago many of us found ourselves staring at our television screens with tears in our eyes and conjuring only the most apocalyptic of visions, it is imperative to acknowledge the overwhelming extent to which we, the American pro-choice majority, rose to the challenges that have surfaced over the past few years. These last years have tested not only our passion for the pursuit of reproductive freedom, but also our dedication, endurance, courage, fortitude and most of all our ability to mobilize an entire nation around this vital issue.

In the last year the members of this movement have done more for the perpetuation of reproductive freedom than many thought possible, especially given the often bleak circumstances under which we worked. We organized 1.15 million people and flawlessly carried out the largest march in the history of this country. We safeguarded the rights of thousands of women by convincing President Bush to order the Department of Justice to stop subpoenaing women’s medical records. We have fought against the unconstitutionality of the so-called “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” in three major lawsuits and have proudly emerged from each courtroom victorious. Most importantly though, we have educated, inspired, organized, and mobilized the American pro-choice majority. We are at the very least 1.15 million people strong. We are intelligent, brave, diverse, dynamic, well-informed and passionate people, and we have both the determination and the capability to tackle anything that is brought before us.

What faces us in the years to come may be the greatest test of this generation of pro-choice activists. And this greatest of tests is accompanied by the greatest responsibilities. If you were never as active as you would have liked to be, if you ever questioned the attack on our rights but never thought to make a change, if you lived through the last four years but never truly answered the question “why am I pro-choice?” now, more than ever, is the time. Indeed we will be tested. However, it can be stated as unequivocal fact, that our generation of activists will rise to the challenges that face us, fulfill our enormous potential as citizens, students and activists, and emerge victorious.

In solidarity,
Ravina, Jill, Sarah, Anne, Maya, and Rachael

Bush's Faith

Journalist Ron Suskind examines how Bush's belief in God has impacted his presidency, how some of Bush's supporters believe he is an instrument of God and the growing concern among many non-Evangelical Republicans. One former Reagan/Bush official says, "Just in the past few months. I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do." We also speak with Esther Kaplan author of the new book, "With God On Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House."This story continues at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1423216

What if Roe Fell?

COMMENTARY
If Roe Falls, States Offer Little Protection
By Ann Pappert - WeNews commentator

Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's Enews.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Like most other women concerned with abortion rights, I've focused on what would happen if Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision protecting women's right to have a legal abortion, was overturned.
But after working as communications consultant at the Center for Reproductive Rights, and reading their new report, "What If Roe Fell?" I now realize that the abortion battleground is also in the states. And more than ever, I'm convinced that anyone who says the threats to Roe are exaggerated is trying to disengage women from the very real threat that faces a woman's access to a safe and legal abortion.
There's little doubt that the re-election of George Bush would bring us to the threshold of a reversal of Roe, since he's likely to fill any vacancy on the Supreme Court with anti-choice judges.
In the event that Roe were to be overturned, the power to regulate abortion would revert back to the states.
Is this really something to worry about?
Yes. Restrictive abortion laws have been passed in state after state, even when a pro-choice President and Congress were in charge. Many of these laws were passed by anti-choice proponents in the hopes that any legal challenge could reach the Supreme Court. Once there, a ruling to uphold a state abortion ban might nullify Roe.
Nothing to Fear
For years, I've listened to anti-choice conservatives tell women that the pro-choice movement exaggerates the threat to Roe, and that even if it were reversed we'd have nothing to fear.
Pundits, such as the New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, claim that only a few states would pass laws restricting abortion; that the right has backed off the abortion battle.
Earlier this year, I listened as Lisa Schiffrin--a Republican Party strategist best known as the author of Dan Quayle's famous "Murphy Brown" speech attacking single mothers--told several hundred people at a taping of a New York City radio forum that everyone knows that the right wing has conceded defeat when it comes to abortion.
This, however, was only months after Congress, in November 2003, passed a federal ban on abortions that has since been ruled unconstitutional by three federal district courts and which, by the way, is so vaguely worded that abortions after 12 weeks could have been prohibited.
Don't Listen
So don't listen to people like Rosen and Schiffrin.
Far from backing off, anti-choice proponents have been working furiously on a state level for years, passing law after law against abortion, from legislation banning abortions outright to laws mandating waiting periods or requiring biased, anti-choice counseling.
According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, the leading pro-choice organization, since 1995 alone, state legislatures have passed 380 measures restricting abortions and a reversal of Roe would add fuel to the fire.
"What If Roe Fell?" is the first detailed state-by-state analysis of the effect of a reversal of Roe and the report makes it clear that the end of Roe could spell an end to abortion rights for most American women.
According to the report, only 20 states are likely to have protections against abortion bans if Roe falls. Only 10 states offer constitutional guarantees for abortion.
That leaves 70 million women of reproductive age in 30 states at immediate risk of losing their right to choose.
New Life for Old Bans
In some states existing laws banning abortion have never been challenged and are only held in check by Roe. Alabama's pre-Roe abortion law, for instance, has never been blocked by any court. If Roe is lifted, doctors who perform abortions in that state would immediately be vulnerable to the accusation that they were committing a felony.
Other states have abortions bans on the books that have been blocked by the courts. In these states, with anti-choice governors and legislatures, officials would likely move quickly to lift these injunctions and restore restrictive abortion legislation.
Take Michigan for instance. Its abortion ban was blocked by the courts shortly after the original Roe decision in 1973. If Roe were reversed, officials in Michigan could ask the courts to restore the ban.
Still other states have legislatures likely to enact anti-choice laws.
Although Ohio has no pre-Roe abortion law, neither does it have a state constitutional guarantee to abortion. And neither does it have pro-choice political leadership. Both Ohio's governor and its state legislature are anti-choice, leaving the state wide open to banning abortion altogether if Roe were to be reversed.
Risk Rankings
The report also identifies 21 states where women are at a high risk of losing their right to choose: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Nine states are at moderate risk: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
The 20 states where abortion rights would likely be protected are: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
When Schiffrin downplayed the right wing's concern with abortion, it was only days after the massive pro-choice march in Washington last April, when upwards of a million people voiced their support for reproductive choice.
By the way, she spoke about pro-choice activists you would have thought we were the lunatic fringe: a bunch of paranoid radicals unwilling and unable to accept the fact that abortion rights were no longer at risk.
"What if Roe Fell?" debunks any such idea. It also makes it clear why reassurances about the permanence of abortion guarantees must be considered suspect. We must see these tactics for what they really are: a strategy to lull pro-choice supporters into a false sense of comfort and keep them from getting involved and to marginalize those of us who already are.
As the report from the Center for Reproductive Rights so clearly shows us, now is precisely the time for anyone who wants to support abortion rights to get involved.
Ann Pappert has spent over two decades as a journalist and activist, working on women's issues. She lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.
For more information:
Center for Reproductive Rights-- - "What If Roe Fell?": - http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bo_whatifroefell.html

a pretty intense discussion about eleanor cooney's "the way it was" has been happening over at my blog, third wave agenda. check out the comments here. cooney herself has even posted!

U.S. says, "Women shouldn't have sexual rights."

Eighty-Five Nations Back Population Agenda

By EDITH M. LEDERER
.c The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States has refused to join 85 other heads of state and government in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and choice about having children.

President Bush's administration withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to ``sexual rights.''

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan wrote to organizers of the statement that that the United States was committed to the Cairo plan of 1994 and ``to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights.''

``The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement,'' Ryan said, because it ``includes the concept of `sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community.''

Ryan did not elaborate on the Bush administration's objections to the phrase ``sexual rights,'' but at past U.N. meetings U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by giving condoms to young people to prevent AIDS.

The statement of new global support for the Cairo plan was given Wednesday to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette by media mogul Ted Turner, who has lent significant financial support to the world body through his United Nations Foundation.

The 1994 Cairo program, signed by 179 countries, including the United States, says women have the ``right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents.''

The support statement notes that in 1994 ``the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights, alleviate poverty, secure gender equality, and protect the environment.''

While progress has been made, the statement says the world is facing an exponential increase in HIV/AIDS, a growing gap between rich and poor, persistently high death rates related to pregnancy and childbirth, and inadequate access to family planning services.

The Cairo support statement was signed by leaders of 85 nations including the entire European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries as well as 22 former world leaders, notably Presidents Carter and Clinton.

The Bush administration responded only on Tuesday to organizers who had asked for the president's support.

While refusing to sign the followup statement, the United States did endorse a platform that specifically mentioned reproductive rights a year after the Cairo plan was adopted. The endorsement came at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing.

The United States took a leading role in drafting the Beijing document, which states: ``The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.''

Bush has blocked $34 million in congressionally approved annual assistance to the United Nations Population Fund, alleging the U.N. agency helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions. China calls the charge baseless.

Pro-Choice America

Elections are coming up, and my former employer, the ever-fantastic Women's eNews, has a great electoral map of the state races. Note how quite a few states don't have a single pro-choice candidate running. Scary.