Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Women Against Sarah Palin
One friend expressed hesitation about going after Palin in such a way, saying that we should not stoop to the level of our opponents in this election. Another friend fears that the attacks on Palin will deter other women from running for high office. I, however, felt a sense of relief that at last I had found a place to express my dismay at this woman’s nomination for an office that puts her a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world. I oppose her not because she’s the mother of small children, but because of her anti-woman stands on issues. This woman, while posing as a feminist, has made statements espousing the most anti-feminist ideas possible. Being female does not confer the mantle of feminism on a person. What then does make a feminist?
According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “feminism” means, “The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes,” as well as “organized activities on behalf of women’s rights and activities.”
What this means in real life is that people, both women and men, are committed to full participation and equality for women. It means women take charge of their lives and decide their fates on a level playing field. This means, among other things, that women have the right to control their own reproduction, to decide if they want to be mothers, if they want to stay at home with their children, or if they want to enter the work force.
Both John McCain and Sarah Palin say they are opposed to Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional. Sen. McCain has voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and opposed renewal of The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Palin made Alaskan rape victims pay for their rape kites and wouldn’t allow abortion even for rape or incest. She also cut funding for teen mothers.
It is difficult to know in what way either of these candidates supports the feminist agenda. By contrast, the VAWA was drafted by aides in Sen. Joe Biden’s office and Barack Obama has made it clear that he trusts women to make their own reproductive decisions.
Of course, Gov. Palin is not the presidential candidate, but that fact has been obscured by the near-celebrity status accorded her by a cadre of adoring mainstream media figures. In fact, one has to marvel at McCain’s ability to take the attention off his weak candidacy by choosing Palin as his running mate.
Also obscured in the rush by some women to support Palin because she is a woman “just like them” is the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket would be the worst thing for women since George Bush—oh, wait. Even George Bush supported VAWA.
Gov. Palin, like many women of her generation, balances the demands of motherhood with the demands of her career. Does this balancing act automatically make a person a feminist? No. Palin’s opportunities as a woman make her the recipient, not the proponent of the benefits of the feminist movement, benefits she and McCain would likely undo if they were elected into office. That is the reason I added a comment to the Women Against Sarah Palin web site. Too many women and men have fought for too long to gain equal rights for women to have those gains undone by an administration avowedly against those rights.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
If Issues Were Names....
It’s an election year, which means the crazies are bound to come out of the woodwork. It seems like everyone and their dog thinks that if they could just get on the ballot, surely they’d win and do a better job than the yahoos in DC. Too bad a fair portion of those trying to get on the ballot are yahoos themselves. Take for example Marvin Richardson of
Since Pro-Life is his full and only name,
Crazy as Pro-Life is, the concept of a candidate changing his or her name to reflect their views may not be such a crazy idea. The whole process would probably be a lot easier if you had to choose between Tree-Hugger and War-Monger. Here’s to an entertaining election!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Brownback's Backdoor Anti-Abortion Bill?
Senator Sam Brownback is not well-known outside the state of Kansas. You're likely scratching your head trying to figure out why you recognize his name. Think back to very early in the Republican race, when the debates were populated by 11 different candidates. The guy on the outer wings, the one who said that he didn't believe in evolution and that he'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the one with the curly hair and the Kansas drawl, that's him.
Sen. Brownback is known for his extreme conservatism. It's not just fiscal restraint and state's rights with this guy. He has members of the far-right saying, "Wow, this guy is hard-core." Not surprisingly, Sen. Brownback is thoroughly anti-choice. He does not believe that there are any circumstances under which a termination of pregnancy is acceptable, not even in cases of rape or incest. So it's not a shock that he's introduced another bill regarding abortion. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume that any bill coming from Sen. Brownback regarding this issue is inherently flawed and a thinly veiled effort to undermine women's rights, which is why everyone who has read the bill or anything about it is finding themselves a little confused, because that's not what this bill is.
Here's what the bill does:
For women and families whose prenatal testing has indicated that the fetus has a genetic disorder, physicians will be required to provide "access to timely, scientific, and nondirective counseling about conditions being tested for and accuracy of such tests." Additionally, the bill would create a nation-wide list of families who are willing to adopt children with special needs and referral to support services, including a national clearinghouse of coping resources.
While he may be getting cheers from some, Sen. Brownback's efforts smack of an inability to grasp the difficulty of the heartbreaking choices some families must make. A diagnoses of Down Syndrome does not always mean that a family will give birth to a living child with Down's. What it can mean is that the disorder is such that their baby will die from Down's. The same is true for many genetic and chromosomal disorders. There are degrees of severity and some of them simply are not compatible with life.
The spirit of this bill is laudable; anything that allows women and families to make the decision that is best for them is a step in the right direction. But one step doesn't get you to a destination. If Sen. Brownback is serious about reducing abortion, then it's time to focus on the causes and impact of unplanned pregnancy. In fact, knowing Brownback's typical M.O., one has to wonder if this is an attempt to lull everyone into a false sense of security before tacking on a bunch of amendments that undermine a woman's right to choose.
Sen. Brownback says that this bill is an effort to promote the "culture of life." But the so-called "culture of life" has to be about more than preventing abortions, it must be about making it easier to access information, birth control and the resources parents need to raise children in today's world.
The fact is that the "culture of life" is not being promoted in this country, period. Families are not guaranteed paid medical leave, not all women can access the preventative health care necessary to decrease and detect birth defects, students are not given honest and thorough sex education, and when given the chance to cover low-income children for healthcare, the Congress (Sen. Brownback included) said "no."
What are we to make of a culture that focuses more on the pre-born than they do the pre-schooler? There must be a broad and sweeping overhaul in how this country deals with issues like poverty, health care and education before anything can be done to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.
Julie Burkhart
Kansas Legislators Choose Their Own Morality Over Liberty
The bills are endless: more reporting, more regulations, more rights for the fetus at the expense of the woman, more legislation targeting Dr. Tiller and just more burdens for women to bare in order to exercise their legal rights.
Brazen legislators are using their own families as examples of why their own private reproductive decisions must be the same choice required of everyone else. (This, from the men and women who talk about keeping the government out of our lives).
During recent testimony, several state legislators grilled a man for having the nerve to support his wife’s decision to come to Kansas for an abortion due to the terrible abnormalities of their unborn child. The man appeared stunned. To defend what should have been their own private decision and have it openly disputed in a legislative body as if they were monsters is just the worst example of government abusing citizens.
Legislators in turn gave their own pompous and cruel statements to the press about how they too had children with severe abnormalities and had rightly made a different decision.
Last year a female legislator divulged she had an abortion but later regretted her decision Thus, it was only reasonable to argue that her change of mind was some sort of rationale as to why no other woman should be able to make her own decision. This is the level of discourse and deep thinking by our legislative body. In a word: stupid.
The hypocrisy is enormous and self-evident but no one in Kansas should ever believe for a minute that this legislature holds an august body of stellar individuals working for the good of the state. Too many work for the good of their own morality and act prouder than a peacock when they pass a lame bill on license plates or work to deny women the dignity to make their own health care decisions.
In Plato’s Republic, one philosopher argues that “justice” is the “advantage of the stronger”. Clearly, in Kansas what is right is based on who has the power to abuse others, and if might continues to make right, there is little hope for women in their most vulnerable hour unless the public demands real justice to prevail. In Kansas, that could continue to take a long time when morality trumps liberty again and again.
Vickie Sandall Stangl
Friday, March 07, 2008
All Hail the Prince
If you live in
This tale of privacy violation goes back a few years, clear back to the election of Attorney General Phill Kline in 2002. It was clear from the beginning that Kline had a gift for sniffing out imaginary crime. He was convinced that if he could just rifle through the medical records of women who’d had abortions, surely he’d find some malfeasance to unearth: statutory rape, coercion, illegal late-term abortions. And thus began Kline’s crusade. The subpoenas went out, the records were confiscated and Kline, in all his noise and fury, never suspected that people may not agree with what he was doing. It never occurred to him that regardless of the personal views people had about abortion, hardly anyone thought he was justified in prying into private medical records. He was summoned a fairly loud and abrupt wake up call on Election Day 2006 when he was booted out office in what can only be called a mandate.
Kansans breathed a sigh of relief as we watched Phill and his clinic x-ray specs head out the door (only to have him set up shop as the
Kinzer has quickly emerged as the new anti-choice pied piper. This year, the prince squatted down and dropped what we like to call the “Trail-Mix” abortion bill. There’s a little something for everyone in this 18-page whopper. One needs a fork lift to haul it around and the stamina of a marathoner to read the whole thing in a single sitting. The provisions in this bill make it sound as if Kinzer would only be mollified if he were allowed to personally supervise every abortion in the state of
If your second cousin twice removed feels that you were coerced into an abortion, she can take it upon herself to sue the doctor who performed the procedure on your behalf, sweet of her, isn’t it?
It gets better, if a local DA (say a de-throned AG withering away in
But wait, there’s still more! Because women are too mentally feeble to know what they’re doing, great big signs need to be posted in every reproductive health care facility alerting them to the fact that they should feel free to leave the building that they’ve already entered of their own volition and free will. Obviously they’re not smart enough to act on changing their minds without a reminder from our friendly legislature. Following that logic, someone should post similar signs at JC Penny whenever they have a door buster sale for those who feel that they can’t leave the store until they’ve purchased a couple armfuls of merchandise at 40% off. “You don’t have to buy the pencil skirt! You can walk away!” Think of how many cases of buyer’s remorse could be prevented!
The thing goes on and on and on this way. If we gave you a snarky bit about every provision, this blog would end up roughly the same length as Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” and just as appropriately named.
Will the bill go anywhere? That remains to be seen. The legislature is still in session and really, if Dorothy can click her heels to come home, then just about anything is possible in
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Abortion Issue more than just numbers
A common misconception is that most abortions are had by unwed teens or ‘loose’ women, and it’s usually due to the ‘immorality’ of these women. Mass media plays a major role in forming this image, with stories and movies that portray unintended, teen pregnancy in such light terms.
However, the facts show this just isn’t true. Of women who terminate their pregnancies, only about 17% are teens, half are 25 or older with even more than that having already had at least one child. In spite of these readily available statistics, much legislative energy is still being spent trying to enact parental notification laws across the United States. New Hampshire is an example of a state, looking to pass bills related to these laws.
An unintended pregnancy can create quite an economic strain, and all too often, women who are getting abortions are acting in the interests of the children they already have. Looking around, we can see that ignorance and misperceptions are all too common regarding who has abortions and why.
Of course, most people don’t trouble themselves with the use of demographic analyses of various social phenomena, especially abortions. Most see or imagine one specific situation, and can’t seem to imagine the many other factors that may affect a woman’s situation. While this doesn’t preclude opinions on the subject, it definitely reduces the number of those that can be considered valid. Like many other social issues, abortion has many factors, many elements that rule out any single ‘solution’, for it has too many complexities to be pushed into the realm of either/or, or all right or all wrong.
Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo
Monday, January 28, 2008
New Requirements for Businesses Against Abortions
When I am trying to purchase something in a store or do business with a company, I do not expect employees or even the owner to start lecturing me about the evils of abortion. I just want to buy the product or look at the merchandise and leave. I’m not there to hold a debate or even presume to first ask them if they harass Dr. Tiller and the women who seek his medical help.
It’s clear to me that I have incorrectly assumed that decent people will act responsibly in public especially in a work environment, but this is not the case in Wichita. Frankly, I’m tired of being sideswiped by righteous individuals whose views I don’t share in the least.
Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t mind doing business with people who disagree with me if we stick to business and the product I want is something they can offer. However, I certainly want to avoid places that turn their public place into a private zone of moralizing to me. Most of us would never ever force our private views on others in a public place but again, let’s be clear; in Wichita, don’t count on any bubble zone of decency to protect you from these fanatical views. The “Visioneering Committee” might want to think about what a turnoff this is to new citizens of Wichita as well as the natives.
Therefore, it might make sense to propose that the Wichita City Council pass legislation requiring businesses who can’t control their workers or owners from statements that make it clear they are against a woman having the fundamental right to make her own choices about reproduction, to place signs up announcing their opposition. The sign could state: “Pregnant women are required by the Christian Fundamentalists of Wichita and their god to give birth regardless of whether the woman agrees or follows our beliefs. Have a nice day.”
And while the City Council is at, by all means, allow these businesses to put up their crosses, the Ten Commandments, opposition to same sex couples, and pictures of aborted fetuses so that it should be very, very clear we are dealing with people who live in a world that rejects an individual’s personal liberties and would transform our republic into a theocracy in a minute if they could.
A “buyer beware” warning sign should be visible to the consumer since we enter these businesses for no other reason than to make a purchase, and then find ourselves accosted by pronouncements against abortions. I would really appreciate the heads up that the business I am about to encounter is either going to respect me or use the opportunity to get on their soapbox that I’m a baby killer and have no morals compared to their glorious morals.
It must be nice to view life in only black and white terms and to have all the right answers to other people’s lives. I wouldn’t know. I’m just trying to do the best I can and when a young girl or older woman feels that her pregnancy is not a good thing, I’m taking her word for it, and wouldn’t presume to do otherwise.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Anti-Choice Witch Hunt
Historically, this citizen’s grand jury has rarely been invoked and never, until recently, to advance a social or moral agenda. This old law, had its use in fighting political corruption to be sure; but in this case it is a tool in active vigilantism. A small minority of people with an agenda, forcing a criminal investigation, definitely usurps the executive power of government. A government populated with persons elected by the majority of voters by the way. But Operation Rescue & Kansans for Life (KFL) have long claimed that prosecutors are too soft on abortion; thus, the witch hunt they’ve orchestrated.
Last Friday, jurors heard testimony from KFL director David Gittrich (“inspired by God to use the grand jury”), and Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, (why are these organizations always headed up by men?). While the testimony is secret in these proceedings, the jurors did receive binders from Operation Rescue that included the citizen petition, a failed criminal complaint from 2006, and photos of several pregnant women entering the clinic during this last fall. These busybodies regularly take pictures of those entering and exiting the clinic, from their protest “camps” just outside the gates and over the fence of the clinic. Of course these photos prove nothing, they are being used in the group’s building of circumstantial “evidence” and of course, to intimidate and shame the women who are often in the midst difficult circumstances.
Additionally, Operation Rescue has indicated that they cannot have prosecution of late-term abortion without subpoenaing private medical records – Doctor/patient privacy and HIPPA be damned, they’re at it again! This taxpayer-funded investigation amounts to little more than religious and moral zealots preaching against women’s right to reproductive freedom.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Juno and Liberal Hollywood
I just returned from the seeing the movie Juno (as in the Roman Goddess and wife of Zeus, associated with bringing forth life) and the adorable name of the sixteen year old who discovers what we have known since the dawn of time: lying down or sitting in a chair while engaging in sex can lead to pregnancy. That was the most important and accurate message of the entire movie. Unfortunately, the movie quickly turns into the old theme of grownups yearning for their youth and kids showing grownups a thing or two about life-especially Juno.
I was impressed with the young actress who plays Juno but I found the subject of an unplanned pregnancy treated a bit too flippant. Teen pregnancy is no laughing matter and Juno for the most part is a very funny movie. Granted this is fiction and it is far more entertaining to watch a precocious actress be funny and quirky as she reveals her confusion and regret for her sexual tryst BUT, and this is a big BUT, it is disappointing how the subject of an unplanned pregnancy is always a comedy or some warm, feel good, movie about a girl who of course, elects to have her baby.
Whether the movie is “Knocked Up”, “Home Fries” or “Waitress”, Hollywood doesn’t want to address teen pregnancy or any unwanted pregnancy in a different storyline other than humor and a happy, happy ending which means of course, the woman has her baby and life is going to work out just dandy.
How about a real movie where the young woman decides she can’t handle a baby, does not believe she can give a baby up for adoption, or just does not want to take the risk on her health and opts for an abortion? I’m sure it could be done in a respectful and honest manner to illustrate that when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, women should be respected no matter what choice they make. I’m dreaming I know, so bear with me as we enter the world of writer Diablo Cody.
The scene where Juno goes into a women’s clinic to have an abortion is just bogus if not pretentious. I challenge anyone to find a woman’s clinic where the receptionist is a seventeen-year-old “Goth” girl with piercings in her lip, and nose and acts as if she is bored to tears handing out forms for Juno’s scheduled abortion procedure. The appointment becomes even weirder when the same receptionist offers Juno a flavored condom. Honest. Juno quips that it is a little late now for this helpful gift. It’s not only a little too late, it is the screenwriter trying to be cute but it just comes off as silly.
Obviously the screenwriter is making a statement that abortion is not only a mistake but these clinics are abortion mills staffed by uncaring, goofy, irresponsible people so run as fast as you can for the exist and save your baby!
There is one teenage protester outside the clinic who softly and gently urges Juno to save her baby. This alone is pure fiction since protesters are rarely meek but are extremely angry and pushy as young girls try to get passed their obnoxious screaming but we don’t want to have the audience angry with the heroic protester. Juno is determined to go in and proceed but the protester makes a remark that Juno cannot stop thinking about: “Did she know that her baby had fingernails already?” This shocking revelation causes Juno to sit in the office obsessing on the fact to the point that she leaves and decides an abortion is not right for her. Now, there is nothing wrong with this and in fact it is good that Juno has decided to do what she believes is best for her in this situation. She realizes she has to be comfortable with her choice and decides that fingernails represent a future she believes should have a chance regardless of her lapse in judgment. In the end, a baby finds a happy home, Juno and her boyfriend pick up where they left off, her parents still adore her and the track team keeps working out with the change of the seasons
Now, the important lesson here is choice. No one forced Juno to get an abortion. She makes her own choice to have the baby and give it up for adoption. It is as if Juno wants to do something good for others out of her mistake. Maybe it makes her feel better too, and who can blame any woman for wanting to have absolution in a world that makes an unplanned pregnancy a crime? Again the writer ignores some important realities facing most girls in the same situation: not every teenage girl has supportive parents like Juno, not every teenager has the mental and physical well being to carry a baby to term, and not every teenager has sophisticated intellect of Juno to cope with motherhood. These are important variables that make choice absolutely essential for every young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy.
Juno bravely gives up her baby to the point that you wonder if she really knows what she has given up which of course, is another theme skipped over; babies having babies is never a good idea. Bottom line, all women deserve to make their own reproductive decisions. Unfortunately the writer chose to make it appear that the choice Juno made was “right” and therefore right for all girls in the same situation.
That’s called a political statement hidden in a charming comedy. Just once I’d like to see a sweet, funny film explore a teenager who chooses an abortion and she lives happily ever after because it happens and it’s not some fictional story like Juno.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Where is the Outrage For Women By Women?
American women courageously and proudly join the military leaving behind their children and families to risk being killed in the service of their country. Sadly, they do this without understanding it is for a nation that can’t even cough up an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to unequivocally give women equal protection under the laws.
Far more remarkable and outrageous is that American women go to war for a nation that has consistently failed to protect and uphold their right to make their own reproductive decisions. A nation that cannot honor a woman’s most important medical decisions should not expect such a sacrifice.
The ERA is unimportant to a nation that has come to rely upon massive amounts of money to buy justice instead of relying on just laws. Of course, women do not always have money or corporations to defend the issues important to them, and there is the rub, but where is the outrage? There is plenty to feel angry about these last eight years under George Bush & Co.
Least we forget, the Bush Administration arbitrarily prohibited the dissemination of information about abortions in healthcare services for women in other nations, and signed into law a ban on late term abortions in America. In Kansas, the assault against women has been a constant battle from sanctimonious state legislators determined to delay and sabotage a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. More glaring have been the religious fanatics manipulating the laws to smear the healthcare professionals devoted to providing comprehensive and compassionate medical care to women in Kansas.
The paradoxes regarding women and their position in American life is staggering: we have come to expect admission to the finest universities and to have the opportunity of pursuing any career imaginable, and yet women are still victims to an ideology that undeniably teaches biology is destiny. If a woman does possess financial independence and can overcome her little biological handicap of getting pregnant, a good many women spend their lives holding their sisters down while lecturing why it is for their own good. Since the Reagan years, one woman in particular stands out in this effort.
Phyllis Schlafly is the mistress of hypocrisy. She has made a career standing for what she did not practice in her own life. She had a career outside of motherhood and was not always obedient to male superiors. Schlafly earned her MA degree in government, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1952 and later earned a law degree. She was not the darling of the media or the Republican Party until discovering what so many TV ministers have discovered; there is money and fame to be earned in telling people whom to hate, and how to make your own prejudices against others’ beliefs appear to be violating God’s word.
Why are women not outraged and standing up for reproductive choice? Most just don’t care because it doesn’t matter in their own private world. They are busy with raising their children, dealing with husbands and careers to think about the possibility that their own daughters might someday lose the freedoms they take for granted. A minority of women oppose choice claiming it is all about saving babies. If they truly cared about children they would protest against the priests who sexually abuse children and volunteer to help those abused and neglected. Instead, they park their butts out in front of Dr. Tiller’s clinic as if they are doing something important. Why? Because they hate to the very core of their being the idea that women would have more power than God. Choice challenges their religious dogma that demands procreation and subservience to men and God.
There is no question anti-choice supporters think GOD IS MALE but let’s face it, most other religions do, too. God wants women to wrap themselves up like mummies and squeeze out as many kids until it kills them because Eve brought sin and death into the world. What woman still believes this nonsense? What kind of woman still believes women are so insignificant and inferior that pregnancy and the use of contraceptives is an issue for the states and judges, but not the individual woman?
How free are women in America if they lose their access to contraceptives? Today there are physicians and pharmacists denying women their prescriptions because they personally object to women having sex and cheating pregnancy. Seriously! This “moral” stance by physicians and pharmacists is rampant sexism endorsed by the AMA. The American Medical Association has magnanimously given physicians a pass not to treat women they find morally repugnant for having sex. Where is the outrage by women against this Taliban behavior?
The message American women send out to men is obvious; we will fight for our men, our country and some other woman’s fetus, but not for our own well being or political rights. That would be selfish and emulate that naughty, naughty Eve. If there is one thing women do well, even in America, it’s to obey men and their male God.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the founding mother of the suffrage movement and women’s rights in America. For years, men in power promised to help support women’s efforts to obtain the right to vote but of course, they lied. Stanton finally came to the realization that it was up to women to fight for themselves if they were to ever earn a seat at the table as full persons under the laws.
It’s a lesson women must embrace to secure the right to privacy or we can rest assured there will be plenty of foolish women around more than willing to support men in their efforts to strip vulnerable women of their right to decide when or even if they will give birth.
Speaking of foolish women, if TIME Magazine gave an award each year for the group most retarding American democracy, my nomination would be for all the women in America who have failed to be outraged for women and speak out for choice, as well as all the conservative women who have shamelessly used their religion as an excuse to war against their sisters.
Vickie Sandell Stangl