The election is over, Barack Hussein Obama will be our president, and already the silliness is running rampant. One first-grader came home from school to tell her mother that the new president will kill babies. Gun enthusiasts are lining up to stock their armories. “Values” voters are bemoaning the election of such an immoral person to the highest office in the land. Racists are…well, being racists.
It is heartening for those whose values include issues besides making abortion illegal and attacking gay rights to know that around the country people gathered in groups and burst spontaneously into the “Star Spangled Banner,” performances that are immortalized on YouTube. People around the world cheered and waved American flags, scenes reminiscent of the post-9-11 reaction, only this time joyous rather than elegiac.
Most importantly for women, women’s rights will once again be a priority. Vice-president Elect Joe Biden has been a co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act and will now be in a good position to push this bill through a Democratically-controlled Congress. Pay equity for women will have a chance with this Congress. And given that a President Obama will be able to appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, Roe v. Wade will likely be safe for years to come.
Those who bemoan this fact should give a thought to the fate of abortion rights during the long eight years of the Bush administration. Despite some setbacks to abortion rights around the world and in the United States, abortion is still legal, and therefore safe, in this country. One has to ask why the Republicans and Bush didn’t do more to make abortion illegal when they had the chance. It seems that without the issues of abortion and gay rights, right-wingers would lose their two biggest money-maker issues. It’s certainly the case that leaders of groups such as Operation Rescue and Focus on the Family make a bundle off their fundraising efforts aimed toward shutting down abortion clinics and denying equal rights to gays and lesbians.
Of course, these groups will now be able to rake in more dough than ever as they fight the "evil" Obama empire. Thankfully, though, women, even the religious, anti-choice women who make up a good percentage of those having abortions, will be able to look forward to an administration that trusts them to make choices. Those who have children may look forward to an administration that pays attention to their needs. Those who are in a situation in which they need to have an abortion may be confident that the procedure will continue to be legal and therefore safe.
It’s a new day and good day in America and around the world for women, a day that is long overdue.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The Disastrous Bush Family (Non)-Planning Policies
Blog 10-09-08
Reading Nicolas Kristoff’s column in this morning’s New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin, took me back to the 2004 March for Women’s Lives on the Washington Mall. I went to Washington as a volunteer to sign people up to go back to their hometowns to register people to vote. At one point, I ran out of steam, overwhelmed by the size of the task and by the size of the crowd, so I sat on a park bench to take a break.
A young Black woman was also sitting on the bench and we starting talking. She spoke with an accent, so I asked her where she was from. She said she was from Eritrea and was visiting relatives in the D.C. area. She came to the March, she said, because she said she was so angry at George Bush, her anger growing from the Bush administration policy of cutting off funding for any group giving birth control information that also mentioned abortion as an option. She related in graphic detail the story of one of her relatives who was severely maimed as the result of an illegal abortion. This illegal abortion was the direct result of the Bush administration family planning funding cuts.
As Kristoff points out in his OpEd column, denying funding to family groups only increases the danger for women who are trying to space their childbearing so that they will be able to provide good care to their children.
There’s something sick and evil in a mentality that dictates that women are good for only one thing, childbearing, and it’s even worse when these anti-choice types, mostly men, claim that women don’t want to have control over their childbearing.
Women around the world want control over the number and the timing of children that they give birth to. This is especially crucial in developing countries where women are often raped by their partners and are often the sole support of their families. When they are cut off from access to contraception and family planning information and from legal abortions, they and their families suffer the consequences. Voters should take this information to the polls when they cast their votes this November. We cannot afford the Religious Right agenda fueled by the zealots to continue. We must elect a president and other office holders who believe that women have the ability to figure out for themselves what to do about having and raising children. We need people in office who believe that government has business making these decisions for individuals.
Reading Nicolas Kristoff’s column in this morning’s New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin, took me back to the 2004 March for Women’s Lives on the Washington Mall. I went to Washington as a volunteer to sign people up to go back to their hometowns to register people to vote. At one point, I ran out of steam, overwhelmed by the size of the task and by the size of the crowd, so I sat on a park bench to take a break.
A young Black woman was also sitting on the bench and we starting talking. She spoke with an accent, so I asked her where she was from. She said she was from Eritrea and was visiting relatives in the D.C. area. She came to the March, she said, because she said she was so angry at George Bush, her anger growing from the Bush administration policy of cutting off funding for any group giving birth control information that also mentioned abortion as an option. She related in graphic detail the story of one of her relatives who was severely maimed as the result of an illegal abortion. This illegal abortion was the direct result of the Bush administration family planning funding cuts.
As Kristoff points out in his OpEd column, denying funding to family groups only increases the danger for women who are trying to space their childbearing so that they will be able to provide good care to their children.
There’s something sick and evil in a mentality that dictates that women are good for only one thing, childbearing, and it’s even worse when these anti-choice types, mostly men, claim that women don’t want to have control over their childbearing.
Women around the world want control over the number and the timing of children that they give birth to. This is especially crucial in developing countries where women are often raped by their partners and are often the sole support of their families. When they are cut off from access to contraception and family planning information and from legal abortions, they and their families suffer the consequences. Voters should take this information to the polls when they cast their votes this November. We cannot afford the Religious Right agenda fueled by the zealots to continue. We must elect a president and other office holders who believe that women have the ability to figure out for themselves what to do about having and raising children. We need people in office who believe that government has business making these decisions for individuals.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Women Against Sarah Palin
Recently several friends sent me the following URL for a web site titled “Women Against Sarah Palin.” http://www.womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/.
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.
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
Every legislative season the people of Kansas are forced to endure the same outrage: righteous legislators wasting the taxpayer’s time and money intruding upon women’s reproductive decisions.
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
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
In light of many studies and a recent AP article, if people were truly interested in significantly reducing the number of abortions being performed, they would first look at the demographics of those receiving abortion services and specifically, the conditions in which unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions are more likely to occur.
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
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
It was an odd encounter but in Wichita these odd moments are not that unusual. Wichita is a place where people are so adamant that women have babies against their will that conducting business becomes impossible without someone forcing their anti-choice point of view into a transaction. Man, it’s a real turnoff and accomplishes N O T H I N G.
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
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
Currently in Kansas, a grand jury is investigating Dr. George Tiller, one of only a handful of late-term abortion providers in the U.S. The petitioners are convinced that the Dr. has violated state regulations pertaining to late termination of pregnancy. This is the second time in as many years the doctor has been thusly investigated as he is a top target of such anti-choice organizations like Kansans for Life (like the rest of Kansans are for death?), and Operation Rescue (they aren’t interested in rescuing ‘born’ children from anything). The citizen petition, which was the impetus for the grand jury, was organized by Operation Rescue & Kansans for Life, and only required about 4,100 signatures. As advocacy groups go, these two are about as biased as they come, with long-standing goals of not only shutting down Tiller’s clinic, which serves several thousand patients per year, (only a small percentage of these are late-term); but to make all abortion illegal in Kansas, as well as across the nation. The citizen-petitioned grand jury dates back to the late 1800’s when it was enacted to help fight political corruption during the railroad boom.
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.
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
“Liberal Hollywood” is a phony phrase when it comes to young girls and pregnancy.
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
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?
Are American women the biggest fools on the planet?
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
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
Monday, November 26, 2007
Taking away women’s rights one egg at a time!
Colorado Initiative #36. Remember that number. Remember that number as a catalyst for not only trying to take away women’s rights, but for restrictions on birth control, and the can of worms it will open in 2008. The initiative calls for changing the definition of ‘person’ in the Colorado Constitution to include any human being from the moment of fertilization; giving fertilized eggs specific rights. There are certainly a number of problems with the initiative itself, including its wording, intentions and repercussions. For the Colorado Supreme Court to allow this initiative to continue is a disaster waiting to happen.
The initiative states, “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as ‘person’ is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?” It is a sad day when the Colorado Court cannot decipher that the initiative clearly has three separate subjects and that Colorado for Equal Rights co-founders Kristine Burton and Mark Meuser, who proposed the initiative, have violated the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution.
One certainly would not categorize inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law under the same Constitutional section; they are clearly very different rights. Burton and Meuser argue that because all three of these rights deal with “persons” the initiative does not violate the single subject requirement; ergo there should be one bill as opposed to three separate bills. If Burton and Meuser were so passionate about this cause of fertilized egg rights, they should take the time to defend the three rights separately. Rather, they choose to argue the rights as a whole because all three work together nicely in claiming abortion is illegal. Which they will undoubtly use later to further chip away at women’s rights.
Burton and Meuser have stated that their intent is to just establish a constitutional principle, and that any laws or legislation that come from it are hypothetical. Yet, Burton has made it clear that her mission in life is to make abortion illegal, specifically in the state of Colorado. Doesn’t anyone else think it’s a coincidence that she would be proposing a bill to give fertilized eggs rights? Claiming that this bill would have no effect on abortion rights is ridiculous. In fact, this initiative would have a direct correlation to many reproductive rights.
Kathryn Wittneben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said, “The impact of this initiative will extend far beyond the legality of abortion. If fertilized eggs have the legal right to access Colorado’s courts – which is one of the rights that would be granted by this initiative – what does this really mean for Coloradans?” She mentions that if this initiative moves forward, fertilized eggs can petition courts to make it illegal to use effective forms of birth control, and sue pregnant women if they miscarry.
Just imagine the circus of lawsuits waiting to happen in 2008! And who will be the defender of these eggs? Our guess is a right-wing fanatic who is committed to taking away women’s rights, one fertilized egg at a time.
Julie Burkhart
ProKanDo, CEO
The initiative states, “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as ‘person’ is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?” It is a sad day when the Colorado Court cannot decipher that the initiative clearly has three separate subjects and that Colorado for Equal Rights co-founders Kristine Burton and Mark Meuser, who proposed the initiative, have violated the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution.
One certainly would not categorize inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law under the same Constitutional section; they are clearly very different rights. Burton and Meuser argue that because all three of these rights deal with “persons” the initiative does not violate the single subject requirement; ergo there should be one bill as opposed to three separate bills. If Burton and Meuser were so passionate about this cause of fertilized egg rights, they should take the time to defend the three rights separately. Rather, they choose to argue the rights as a whole because all three work together nicely in claiming abortion is illegal. Which they will undoubtly use later to further chip away at women’s rights.
Burton and Meuser have stated that their intent is to just establish a constitutional principle, and that any laws or legislation that come from it are hypothetical. Yet, Burton has made it clear that her mission in life is to make abortion illegal, specifically in the state of Colorado. Doesn’t anyone else think it’s a coincidence that she would be proposing a bill to give fertilized eggs rights? Claiming that this bill would have no effect on abortion rights is ridiculous. In fact, this initiative would have a direct correlation to many reproductive rights.
Kathryn Wittneben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said, “The impact of this initiative will extend far beyond the legality of abortion. If fertilized eggs have the legal right to access Colorado’s courts – which is one of the rights that would be granted by this initiative – what does this really mean for Coloradans?” She mentions that if this initiative moves forward, fertilized eggs can petition courts to make it illegal to use effective forms of birth control, and sue pregnant women if they miscarry.
Just imagine the circus of lawsuits waiting to happen in 2008! And who will be the defender of these eggs? Our guess is a right-wing fanatic who is committed to taking away women’s rights, one fertilized egg at a time.
Julie Burkhart
ProKanDo, CEO
Monday, November 12, 2007
A New Political Day Dawning in Kansas
It’s desperation time when the best the anti-choice, conservative legislators can do is whine before the media about Kansas’s judges refusing to bend to their righteous will. The legislators met at a lodge at Lake Afton to discuss their conservative agenda for the upcoming session including no doubt how to concoct more bills to restrict as much as possible a woman’s freedom to choose.
State Senator Peggy Palmer from Augusta who attended the meeting was quoted in a recent Wichita Eagle article that most “Kansans oppose partial birth, late-term abortions.” What she and her friends do not seem to understand is that most Kansans are far more offended by the anti-choice’s strong armed and “buttinski” tactics, than being offended by a woman’s right to seek medical attention for a difficult pregnancy. Kansans are realists and understand not every pregnancy can be carried to term.
A new day has dawned in Kansas and the conservatives seem unwillingly to acknowledge this important shift towards progressive politics among Kansans. Conservative legislators and anti-choice leaders appear astonished that the Kansas judicial system refuses to be manipulated by agenda driven ideologues. Someone should clue them in that Phill Kline is the poster boy for slimy politicians using their public office to push their anti-choice politics. The conservatives are dangerously out of touch with a growing number of voters in Kansas who are disgusted with this sort of nonsense.
By golly what’s a religious fanatic to do when bullying public officials, filing nuisance lawsuits, and claiming that a few thousand signatures on a petition is a mandate to take the state back to the Dark Ages with a grand inquisitor, and it’s just not getting any traction?
And speaking of nuisance lawsuits, Mark Gietzen is certainly not going to win a place in heaven for his disingenuous statement that he is bringing a lawsuit against Dr. Tiller to “protect other protesters.” This man’s nose must be growing longer than Pinocchio’s! Here’s a free legal tip Mr.Gietzen: jumping in front of someone’s car does not give you the right to seek damages from the driver.
As for the other protesters who routinely block the entrance to the Clinic, the situation has long been an accident waiting to happen. (If I were driving a car I would hit the accelerator instead of braking for the protesters who use that moment to pounce on the car or shove their pamphlets in the window.) Wichita has refused to acknowledge this potentially dangerous situation because city leaders have been an anti-choice conclave for decades. Protesters have been allowed to hold their wild partying, baby-stepping shenanigans in front of the Clinic with impunity and block the entrance (once the police leave) for years! So much for the city upholding the law known as the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act.
For readers who do not realize just what takes place in front of Dr.Tiller’s Clinic, allow me to explain. The best comparison to be made is with the Phelps family. Yes, the infamous Phelps family who protest at funerals of fallen soldiers. Just as the Phelps should be prevented from interfering and violating another family’s right to grieve privately for their child, anti-choice protesters should also be prevented from interfering and violating a woman’s privacy to enter a clinic. The city should move the protesters further away from the Clinic to avoid the harassment and screaming loonies that confront these women who have every right to seek medical services. They have the power under FACE to create a bubble zone around the Clinic to allow women the freedom to safely enter but of course, the city has failed to apply this protection to Dr. Tiller’s Clinic.
Protesting at funerals may be curbed due to a bill passed last session in the Kansas Legislature if it survives a fight in the courts. Of course, no lawsuit or bills in the Kansas Legislature will be forthcoming to ensure women the same dignity to attend to their own medical needs without facing ugly protesters.
In Wichita, the anti-choice protesters will once again occupy the narrow strip in front of Dr. Tiller’s clinic and do everything in their power to annoy, harass, bully and be visible with their crosses, graphic fetus signs, loud music and other tactics to make a mockery of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The difference is more and more Kansans are no longer sympathetic to these perverted protests and want the long war against women who seek abortion services to end.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
State Senator Peggy Palmer from Augusta who attended the meeting was quoted in a recent Wichita Eagle article that most “Kansans oppose partial birth, late-term abortions.” What she and her friends do not seem to understand is that most Kansans are far more offended by the anti-choice’s strong armed and “buttinski” tactics, than being offended by a woman’s right to seek medical attention for a difficult pregnancy. Kansans are realists and understand not every pregnancy can be carried to term.
A new day has dawned in Kansas and the conservatives seem unwillingly to acknowledge this important shift towards progressive politics among Kansans. Conservative legislators and anti-choice leaders appear astonished that the Kansas judicial system refuses to be manipulated by agenda driven ideologues. Someone should clue them in that Phill Kline is the poster boy for slimy politicians using their public office to push their anti-choice politics. The conservatives are dangerously out of touch with a growing number of voters in Kansas who are disgusted with this sort of nonsense.
By golly what’s a religious fanatic to do when bullying public officials, filing nuisance lawsuits, and claiming that a few thousand signatures on a petition is a mandate to take the state back to the Dark Ages with a grand inquisitor, and it’s just not getting any traction?
And speaking of nuisance lawsuits, Mark Gietzen is certainly not going to win a place in heaven for his disingenuous statement that he is bringing a lawsuit against Dr. Tiller to “protect other protesters.” This man’s nose must be growing longer than Pinocchio’s! Here’s a free legal tip Mr.Gietzen: jumping in front of someone’s car does not give you the right to seek damages from the driver.
As for the other protesters who routinely block the entrance to the Clinic, the situation has long been an accident waiting to happen. (If I were driving a car I would hit the accelerator instead of braking for the protesters who use that moment to pounce on the car or shove their pamphlets in the window.) Wichita has refused to acknowledge this potentially dangerous situation because city leaders have been an anti-choice conclave for decades. Protesters have been allowed to hold their wild partying, baby-stepping shenanigans in front of the Clinic with impunity and block the entrance (once the police leave) for years! So much for the city upholding the law known as the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act.
For readers who do not realize just what takes place in front of Dr.Tiller’s Clinic, allow me to explain. The best comparison to be made is with the Phelps family. Yes, the infamous Phelps family who protest at funerals of fallen soldiers. Just as the Phelps should be prevented from interfering and violating another family’s right to grieve privately for their child, anti-choice protesters should also be prevented from interfering and violating a woman’s privacy to enter a clinic. The city should move the protesters further away from the Clinic to avoid the harassment and screaming loonies that confront these women who have every right to seek medical services. They have the power under FACE to create a bubble zone around the Clinic to allow women the freedom to safely enter but of course, the city has failed to apply this protection to Dr. Tiller’s Clinic.
Protesting at funerals may be curbed due to a bill passed last session in the Kansas Legislature if it survives a fight in the courts. Of course, no lawsuit or bills in the Kansas Legislature will be forthcoming to ensure women the same dignity to attend to their own medical needs without facing ugly protesters.
In Wichita, the anti-choice protesters will once again occupy the narrow strip in front of Dr. Tiller’s clinic and do everything in their power to annoy, harass, bully and be visible with their crosses, graphic fetus signs, loud music and other tactics to make a mockery of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The difference is more and more Kansans are no longer sympathetic to these perverted protests and want the long war against women who seek abortion services to end.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Monday, November 05, 2007
“Calling Dr. Unbiased, Calling Dr. Independent, your patient is waiting”
When it comes to Roe v. Wade, there is no end to the mischief legislators, anti-abortion groups, and judges will do to dilute and nullify the most basic and fundamental right a citizen has to the right to privacy.
Today we learned some of the arguments reached by Attorney General Morrison in supporting his 19 misdemeanor counts against Dr. Tiller and his Clinic. The transparency of those arguments can be reduced very easily to the follow:
1. State Legislators are purposively trying to make the process of obtaining an abortion a burden.
It is a sham to state that the numerous anti-abortion bills enacted by the Kansas Legislature has been for the “good of the women”. It is all about doing everything possible to resist Roe v. Wade while pretending the intent is for the medical safety of women and girls. Where were these noble sentiments when women were dying in back alley abortions? How was society protecting the welfare and health of women by forcing them to butcher themselves instead of seeking skilled physicians in excellent clinics operating in the light of day?
2.Morrison himself makes the above case by arguing that the “Kansas legislature through statute, expressed a strong interest in protecting potential life.”
Not only is this a rather pompous statement about Kansas’s legislators, but clearly denotes the intent is to discourage abortions. Every new law is intentionally inching up to the line of the right to privacy to place burdens not only on the young women seeking medical attention, but burdens upon the medical community. The “intent” of the law is to dry up any desire by the medical profession to “deal” with the moralizing, police state, in this line of work. The continuing harassment and legal battles brought against Dr. Tiller serve as a clear warning to all new doctors: working in a women’s health clinic means you too can be hounded to the edge of hell.
3. The most important question is whether or not the requirement for a second “unbiased opinion”(an interesting legal term a politician wouldn’t know if it bit him where the sun don’t shine) is constitutional, and not an undue restriction or burden on the woman.
The answer to that of course, is that without question, initiating the requirement of a second unbiased opinion is an open statement that we do not trust these kinds of doctors to follow the laws regarding abortions. These physicians are shifty, secretive and in an odious business therefore, we must hold them to multiple standards of oversight. Really? This might be news to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts who approves those who can practice in the state.
Who decides which doctor is unbiased in this scenario? Must we find a physician who is openly anti-abortion as the only one who can sign on with Dr. Tiller to approve a woman’s late term abortion? Is that the intent of the law? It’s a slippery slope.
4. Morrison also cites the recent Supreme Court decision regarding upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as another indicator that restrictions on abortions in general are constitutional. Of course, what Morrison does not state is the obvious: President Bush packed the Supreme Court with men whose religious beliefs color their opinion about abortion. Due to that newly seated Court, we now have in place a group of five men who have no problem restricting a woman’s reproductive freedoms and this explains why the Court upheld the new law passed by Congress.
The more serious issue of why a government, a state, has the right to ever intervene when it comes to a woman’s health has never been adequately explored. It is a philosophical puzzle: does everyone have the right to be born even if it destroys a woman’s own life, her health and her own future as a separate individual?
Do we expect women to martyr themselves for a baby? Is that a double standard? Do fathers have to become martyrs for a new baby? Of course not, and yet we have no problem shifting the burden of life on women and then holding our noses in disgust when a woman does not want that burden or risk to her health. Clearly, the state should never intervene in abortion issues except for expecting medical standards to be ethical and safe as in any other medical facility. We have moved far beyond this simple and sensible formula.
Let me just state the obvious: a second unbiased opinion was not codified by the Kansas Legislature for medical reasons, but done so for highly biased and political reasons.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Today we learned some of the arguments reached by Attorney General Morrison in supporting his 19 misdemeanor counts against Dr. Tiller and his Clinic. The transparency of those arguments can be reduced very easily to the follow:
1. State Legislators are purposively trying to make the process of obtaining an abortion a burden.
It is a sham to state that the numerous anti-abortion bills enacted by the Kansas Legislature has been for the “good of the women”. It is all about doing everything possible to resist Roe v. Wade while pretending the intent is for the medical safety of women and girls. Where were these noble sentiments when women were dying in back alley abortions? How was society protecting the welfare and health of women by forcing them to butcher themselves instead of seeking skilled physicians in excellent clinics operating in the light of day?
2.Morrison himself makes the above case by arguing that the “Kansas legislature through statute, expressed a strong interest in protecting potential life.”
Not only is this a rather pompous statement about Kansas’s legislators, but clearly denotes the intent is to discourage abortions. Every new law is intentionally inching up to the line of the right to privacy to place burdens not only on the young women seeking medical attention, but burdens upon the medical community. The “intent” of the law is to dry up any desire by the medical profession to “deal” with the moralizing, police state, in this line of work. The continuing harassment and legal battles brought against Dr. Tiller serve as a clear warning to all new doctors: working in a women’s health clinic means you too can be hounded to the edge of hell.
3. The most important question is whether or not the requirement for a second “unbiased opinion”(an interesting legal term a politician wouldn’t know if it bit him where the sun don’t shine) is constitutional, and not an undue restriction or burden on the woman.
The answer to that of course, is that without question, initiating the requirement of a second unbiased opinion is an open statement that we do not trust these kinds of doctors to follow the laws regarding abortions. These physicians are shifty, secretive and in an odious business therefore, we must hold them to multiple standards of oversight. Really? This might be news to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts who approves those who can practice in the state.
Who decides which doctor is unbiased in this scenario? Must we find a physician who is openly anti-abortion as the only one who can sign on with Dr. Tiller to approve a woman’s late term abortion? Is that the intent of the law? It’s a slippery slope.
4. Morrison also cites the recent Supreme Court decision regarding upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as another indicator that restrictions on abortions in general are constitutional. Of course, what Morrison does not state is the obvious: President Bush packed the Supreme Court with men whose religious beliefs color their opinion about abortion. Due to that newly seated Court, we now have in place a group of five men who have no problem restricting a woman’s reproductive freedoms and this explains why the Court upheld the new law passed by Congress.
The more serious issue of why a government, a state, has the right to ever intervene when it comes to a woman’s health has never been adequately explored. It is a philosophical puzzle: does everyone have the right to be born even if it destroys a woman’s own life, her health and her own future as a separate individual?
Do we expect women to martyr themselves for a baby? Is that a double standard? Do fathers have to become martyrs for a new baby? Of course not, and yet we have no problem shifting the burden of life on women and then holding our noses in disgust when a woman does not want that burden or risk to her health. Clearly, the state should never intervene in abortion issues except for expecting medical standards to be ethical and safe as in any other medical facility. We have moved far beyond this simple and sensible formula.
Let me just state the obvious: a second unbiased opinion was not codified by the Kansas Legislature for medical reasons, but done so for highly biased and political reasons.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Friday, November 02, 2007
Anti-Woman Bills from the Anti-Choice Brigade
Even before most legislative sessions have started, the anti-choice brigade continues to push for absurd legislation that takes away women’s rights. They are drafting bills and drawing up plans to push during the next legislative session. Will nothing stop these people from throwing women’s rights out the window? And just what exactly are they up to? Here are snippets from just a few states.
Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision later this month that would give fertilized eggs the same constitutional rights as minors and adults. Their obvious intent is to prevent abortions because legal rights would be given from the moment of fertilization, according to NARAL Colorado.
The consequences of this bill would not only affect a woman’s right to choose, but would prohibit birth control, and restricts in-vitro fertilization. The 2008 ballot initiative is not for “equal rights of eggs,” but rather its purpose is to strip away women’s rights, and restrict them from making their own choices when it comes to their health care.
Arizona
In Arizona anti-choice opponents are looking for tougher restrictions on abortion clinics. They hope to mirror Missouri laws that would have medical regulations similar to outpatient surgical facilities. Anti-choice lawmakers say the requirements, which include larger hallways, emergency resuscitation equipment and high ceilings, are for the protection of women, because the clinics would be up to standard health facility standards. Other requirements include changing the staffing and record-keeping procedures.
Bridget Daly, the spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Central Arizona, says that clinics already abide by State laws and always put patient safety first. So what’s with all the laws? Anti-choice opponents are only interested in pushing their own personal agenda, not really about the safety of women. This law is another installment of restrictions on women’s rights.
Missouri
Governor Matt Blunt has put together a task force to examine how abortions affect women. The kicker? All the members, including Mr. Blunt himself, are anti-choice. Seems a little fishy to us. What’s worse is that they are using taxpayers’ money to fund this group. The Governor’s Task Force on the Impact of Abortion on Women is not a wide-open question to Blunt. He hopes to find information that will lower the number of abortions, and somehow benefit the anti-choice supporters. In other words, the task force is unlikely to conclude that having an abortion can be beneficial for a woman’s health.
The group’s main goal is to investigate the physical, social, emotional and economic effects of abortion. So how is the group going to report this “truthful, honest information?” We have a feeling the task force is going to turn the other cheek when they find that valid scientific studies have already documented that abortion is safe and does not affect a woman’s long-term psychological health. What the anti-choice zealots do not understand is that not having access to safe and legal abortions may cause worse effects on women’s health.
Ohio
The Ohio anti-choice brigade is looking to pass laws that would force women to look at sonograms before choosing to have an abortion. Many clinics already have this option, including the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, which says they are remaining neutral on the bill because it is “already telling clinics to do what they do already.” The anti-choice people hope this law will help women change their minds. Richard Land, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commissioner, who popularized the plan, said that “people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward. Pregnant mothers who see their babies on sonograms are far more likely to carry their babies to term.”
This proposition assumes that most women have no idea what they are going to do when they go into an abortion clinic. Not only does it infantilize women, but it also makes women feel guilty when they are already in a tough situation. If the law makes it mandatory for women to have sonograms before their abortion, it makes it worse for those women. Just like abortion, viewing a sonogram should be a choice made by the woman and her physician, not the government.
It may be hard to believe, but anti-choice opponents are coming up with even more absurd laws to push back women’s rights. As the upcoming legislative sessions start across the county, we need to prepare to fight against these bills that could hinder our right to choose.
Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision later this month that would give fertilized eggs the same constitutional rights as minors and adults. Their obvious intent is to prevent abortions because legal rights would be given from the moment of fertilization, according to NARAL Colorado.
The consequences of this bill would not only affect a woman’s right to choose, but would prohibit birth control, and restricts in-vitro fertilization. The 2008 ballot initiative is not for “equal rights of eggs,” but rather its purpose is to strip away women’s rights, and restrict them from making their own choices when it comes to their health care.
Arizona
In Arizona anti-choice opponents are looking for tougher restrictions on abortion clinics. They hope to mirror Missouri laws that would have medical regulations similar to outpatient surgical facilities. Anti-choice lawmakers say the requirements, which include larger hallways, emergency resuscitation equipment and high ceilings, are for the protection of women, because the clinics would be up to standard health facility standards. Other requirements include changing the staffing and record-keeping procedures.
Bridget Daly, the spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Central Arizona, says that clinics already abide by State laws and always put patient safety first. So what’s with all the laws? Anti-choice opponents are only interested in pushing their own personal agenda, not really about the safety of women. This law is another installment of restrictions on women’s rights.
Missouri
Governor Matt Blunt has put together a task force to examine how abortions affect women. The kicker? All the members, including Mr. Blunt himself, are anti-choice. Seems a little fishy to us. What’s worse is that they are using taxpayers’ money to fund this group. The Governor’s Task Force on the Impact of Abortion on Women is not a wide-open question to Blunt. He hopes to find information that will lower the number of abortions, and somehow benefit the anti-choice supporters. In other words, the task force is unlikely to conclude that having an abortion can be beneficial for a woman’s health.
The group’s main goal is to investigate the physical, social, emotional and economic effects of abortion. So how is the group going to report this “truthful, honest information?” We have a feeling the task force is going to turn the other cheek when they find that valid scientific studies have already documented that abortion is safe and does not affect a woman’s long-term psychological health. What the anti-choice zealots do not understand is that not having access to safe and legal abortions may cause worse effects on women’s health.
Ohio
The Ohio anti-choice brigade is looking to pass laws that would force women to look at sonograms before choosing to have an abortion. Many clinics already have this option, including the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, which says they are remaining neutral on the bill because it is “already telling clinics to do what they do already.” The anti-choice people hope this law will help women change their minds. Richard Land, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commissioner, who popularized the plan, said that “people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward. Pregnant mothers who see their babies on sonograms are far more likely to carry their babies to term.”
This proposition assumes that most women have no idea what they are going to do when they go into an abortion clinic. Not only does it infantilize women, but it also makes women feel guilty when they are already in a tough situation. If the law makes it mandatory for women to have sonograms before their abortion, it makes it worse for those women. Just like abortion, viewing a sonogram should be a choice made by the woman and her physician, not the government.
It may be hard to believe, but anti-choice opponents are coming up with even more absurd laws to push back women’s rights. As the upcoming legislative sessions start across the county, we need to prepare to fight against these bills that could hinder our right to choose.
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Question
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, and author of the book “The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It and How To Get It Back” apparently pondered an interesting question for the GOP presidential candidates that was mentioned by Bill Maher on his show, “Reel Time”. The question is worth repeating and thinking about.
The question Sullivan wanted to pose went something like this: “If you could go back in time and abort Osama bin Laden, would you do it?" What if the candidates answer, “no” all fetuses have the right to be born, even those who kill thousands and disrupt our world, as we know it; it’s still life and it is precious? Would you, the voter, agree that there could never be exceptions to complicated issues about life in general and pregnancies in particular?
Is it not reasonable or even logical to postulate further that perhaps it is erroneous to assume every pregnancy will in turn result in a wonderful gift to the world and enrich all our lives and the planet? Of course this is exactly the reality that Operation Knuckleheads ignore just as they ignore all the valid and important reasons why women should control their own reproductive decisions.
Perhaps some people’s God might teach the fetus of Osama Bin Laden is just as worthy as any other fetus, but others could logically argue that it is impossible to determine what a new life will bring to the world. It might be a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer like BTK. No one can knows for sure and it is dishonest to act as if all pregnancies are created equal and wonderful.
When Operation Knuckleheads use their propaganda to state that “all life is precious” they are ignoring the reality that not every child born into this world is mentally whole or grows up to be productive, loved, and well schooled enough to be a good citizen of the world. If all life were precious, there would be no war and there would certainly be no toleration for abused and neglected children in society. Children would all have healthcare and wonderful schools without whining from the taxpayer about paying for public schools. We know in reality, only “some lives are precious.”
I’m not advocating that women abort their fetus because they might be growing something like Rosemary’s Baby inside their womb, but merely to explain Sullivan’s question. He raises the dilemma that if we assume every abortion is killing the next Einstein we must also consider its opposite: abortion might be killing the next Frankenstein. When the anti-abortion crew stands on their soapbox about the sanctity of life, Sullivan’s question should haunt their certainty.
It is pompous and arrogant to assume that all pregnancies are a joyful gift from heaven when you consider such circumstances as rape or incest. There is little joy carrying a fetus to term with severe abnormalities causing permanent health issues for either mother or child. Joy is not a word to describe what most girls and women feel in these cases. Operation Knuckleheads do not care about these realities but continue the mantra “all life is precious”.
As a society we have to ask ourselves what do we value more? The rationale decision to control our destiny’s as much as possible, or to hope lady luck is on our side as we give parenthood a whirl on the Wheel of Fortune?
Being pro-choice means you support women in all their choices; including the decision to carry a baby to term under all the circumstances listed above or the decision not to do so.
In a perfect world we would like all babies to be born brilliant, and pregnant women to be capable and healthy for motherhood, but conditions are not always in the cards to produce such outcomes.
Whose to say that the woman who has made the choice to end her pregnancy has just saved the world from a monster? If that sounds ridiculous, it is just as ridiculous to assume the pregnancy ended was the end of a potential Saint.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
The question Sullivan wanted to pose went something like this: “If you could go back in time and abort Osama bin Laden, would you do it?" What if the candidates answer, “no” all fetuses have the right to be born, even those who kill thousands and disrupt our world, as we know it; it’s still life and it is precious? Would you, the voter, agree that there could never be exceptions to complicated issues about life in general and pregnancies in particular?
Is it not reasonable or even logical to postulate further that perhaps it is erroneous to assume every pregnancy will in turn result in a wonderful gift to the world and enrich all our lives and the planet? Of course this is exactly the reality that Operation Knuckleheads ignore just as they ignore all the valid and important reasons why women should control their own reproductive decisions.
Perhaps some people’s God might teach the fetus of Osama Bin Laden is just as worthy as any other fetus, but others could logically argue that it is impossible to determine what a new life will bring to the world. It might be a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer like BTK. No one can knows for sure and it is dishonest to act as if all pregnancies are created equal and wonderful.
When Operation Knuckleheads use their propaganda to state that “all life is precious” they are ignoring the reality that not every child born into this world is mentally whole or grows up to be productive, loved, and well schooled enough to be a good citizen of the world. If all life were precious, there would be no war and there would certainly be no toleration for abused and neglected children in society. Children would all have healthcare and wonderful schools without whining from the taxpayer about paying for public schools. We know in reality, only “some lives are precious.”
I’m not advocating that women abort their fetus because they might be growing something like Rosemary’s Baby inside their womb, but merely to explain Sullivan’s question. He raises the dilemma that if we assume every abortion is killing the next Einstein we must also consider its opposite: abortion might be killing the next Frankenstein. When the anti-abortion crew stands on their soapbox about the sanctity of life, Sullivan’s question should haunt their certainty.
It is pompous and arrogant to assume that all pregnancies are a joyful gift from heaven when you consider such circumstances as rape or incest. There is little joy carrying a fetus to term with severe abnormalities causing permanent health issues for either mother or child. Joy is not a word to describe what most girls and women feel in these cases. Operation Knuckleheads do not care about these realities but continue the mantra “all life is precious”.
As a society we have to ask ourselves what do we value more? The rationale decision to control our destiny’s as much as possible, or to hope lady luck is on our side as we give parenthood a whirl on the Wheel of Fortune?
Being pro-choice means you support women in all their choices; including the decision to carry a baby to term under all the circumstances listed above or the decision not to do so.
In a perfect world we would like all babies to be born brilliant, and pregnant women to be capable and healthy for motherhood, but conditions are not always in the cards to produce such outcomes.
Whose to say that the woman who has made the choice to end her pregnancy has just saved the world from a monster? If that sounds ridiculous, it is just as ridiculous to assume the pregnancy ended was the end of a potential Saint.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Monday, October 22, 2007
Goodbye Mr. Kline
Once again boys and girls, Phill Kline is on the trail of the dastardly Overland Park clinic known as Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. What is this clinic doing that 107 charges have been drawn up against it by Kline? Doing exactly what it has a right to do: counseling pregnant women, providing contraceptive information and abortion services as allowed under the standards mandated by the law.
Kline and his pal Troy Newman, just can’t stomach these clinics to operate and thus conspire together to close them down for their buddy, God. The formula is simple: use taxpayer money to harrass clinics with grand jury investigations, file numerous criminal charges that carry heavy fines and prison terms, use intimidation tactics with nutty groups like Operation Rescue, and then hold press conferences on the taxpayers dime to pontificate about “doing one’s duty” until the clinics are bled dry with legal expenses and are forced to close their doors.
Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, is not about to let these two charlatans get away with their manipulation of the law and the system to deny women their right to privacy as afforded under the constitution. Closing these clinics is not an option and the people of Kansas are beyond tired of Kline’s efforts.
A stranger to Kansas would have to wonder why in the world this District Attorney of Johnson County, is not summarily tossed out on his glutius maximus for abusing his important public office. Courageous Kansans fighting to uphold a woman’s right to privacy know the answer to this conundrum: the Kansas electorate was fed up with Kline in 2006, and soundly voted him out of the State Attorney General office only to see the anti-abortion republican hacks snub the will of the people, and hand Kline his current job to continue his assault on women seeking important medical services
Kline is a man obsessed with forcing his religious beliefs on all Kansans. It might even be suggested he has a bit of a “Messiah” complex as he fights for his male, Christian, fundamentalist God who abhors abortions. Of course, Kline’s God doesn’t seem very angry about Iraqis being killed, but is livid that women have the right in America to decide their own reproductive choices. One would think God could take care of this Himself instead of sending the Phill Kline or Troy Newman to do the dirty work. (Frankly, I think God is hanging with the wrong crowd.)
It seems clear now that we need the Kansas State Legislature to pass a law prohibiting ideological/hate groups from harassing businesses and private citizens with their nuisance petitions to convene grand juries in Kansas. It is a gross manipulation of a democratic tool in the interest of one narrow group and mocks the entire system of justice.
One of the most fundamental right citizens have is to make medical decisions they deem best for their physical welfare. No person is truly free without this most basic right, and Kline knows this is true, but that is exactly the point; Kline doesn’t believe women should be “that” free. They must atone for Eve’s sin and forcing women to give birth is God’s command, right? God didn’t say, “Enjoy your apple, and control your pregnancies”. Kline won’t say this in so many words but it is what he believes. He is working for God to save babies because women are not to get off scott-free from having sex and for sinning first!
From a legal basis, Kline’s attempt to shred a citizen’s right to privacy is certainly in violation of Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 and Roe v.Wade,1973. His actions make the Supreme Court’s bland phrase regarding restrictions that should not cause “an undue burden” ring even more hollow for women who now face the undue burden of an out of control District Attorney in Johnson County.
Kline is not only violating the constitution with his actions, but in violation of the most important principles the founders bequeathed to future generations: a secular government allowing all people to freely worship their God, but also a government which bars religion from making laws based upon their doctrines. Kline flunked this most basic civic lesson.
Let me state this one more time: Upholding reproductive choice for women might offend someone’s religious beliefs, but the American government is not based upon writing laws that support a religious viewpoint. Good government must pass laws based upon the rights of the citizenry, and this may come as a shock to Kline and others, but women are citizens who have autonomy over their own bodies. To do anything less is to make a mockery of our own democratic republic, free of religious entanglements. The world is scarred and damaged enough by religious dogma dictating public policy without doing the same in America.
Kline should resign if he cannot curb his addiction to upholding the bible instead of the law. We all know the answer to that dilemma. Goodbye Mr. Kline.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Kline and his pal Troy Newman, just can’t stomach these clinics to operate and thus conspire together to close them down for their buddy, God. The formula is simple: use taxpayer money to harrass clinics with grand jury investigations, file numerous criminal charges that carry heavy fines and prison terms, use intimidation tactics with nutty groups like Operation Rescue, and then hold press conferences on the taxpayers dime to pontificate about “doing one’s duty” until the clinics are bled dry with legal expenses and are forced to close their doors.
Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, is not about to let these two charlatans get away with their manipulation of the law and the system to deny women their right to privacy as afforded under the constitution. Closing these clinics is not an option and the people of Kansas are beyond tired of Kline’s efforts.
A stranger to Kansas would have to wonder why in the world this District Attorney of Johnson County, is not summarily tossed out on his glutius maximus for abusing his important public office. Courageous Kansans fighting to uphold a woman’s right to privacy know the answer to this conundrum: the Kansas electorate was fed up with Kline in 2006, and soundly voted him out of the State Attorney General office only to see the anti-abortion republican hacks snub the will of the people, and hand Kline his current job to continue his assault on women seeking important medical services
Kline is a man obsessed with forcing his religious beliefs on all Kansans. It might even be suggested he has a bit of a “Messiah” complex as he fights for his male, Christian, fundamentalist God who abhors abortions. Of course, Kline’s God doesn’t seem very angry about Iraqis being killed, but is livid that women have the right in America to decide their own reproductive choices. One would think God could take care of this Himself instead of sending the Phill Kline or Troy Newman to do the dirty work. (Frankly, I think God is hanging with the wrong crowd.)
It seems clear now that we need the Kansas State Legislature to pass a law prohibiting ideological/hate groups from harassing businesses and private citizens with their nuisance petitions to convene grand juries in Kansas. It is a gross manipulation of a democratic tool in the interest of one narrow group and mocks the entire system of justice.
One of the most fundamental right citizens have is to make medical decisions they deem best for their physical welfare. No person is truly free without this most basic right, and Kline knows this is true, but that is exactly the point; Kline doesn’t believe women should be “that” free. They must atone for Eve’s sin and forcing women to give birth is God’s command, right? God didn’t say, “Enjoy your apple, and control your pregnancies”. Kline won’t say this in so many words but it is what he believes. He is working for God to save babies because women are not to get off scott-free from having sex and for sinning first!
From a legal basis, Kline’s attempt to shred a citizen’s right to privacy is certainly in violation of Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 and Roe v.Wade,1973. His actions make the Supreme Court’s bland phrase regarding restrictions that should not cause “an undue burden” ring even more hollow for women who now face the undue burden of an out of control District Attorney in Johnson County.
Kline is not only violating the constitution with his actions, but in violation of the most important principles the founders bequeathed to future generations: a secular government allowing all people to freely worship their God, but also a government which bars religion from making laws based upon their doctrines. Kline flunked this most basic civic lesson.
Let me state this one more time: Upholding reproductive choice for women might offend someone’s religious beliefs, but the American government is not based upon writing laws that support a religious viewpoint. Good government must pass laws based upon the rights of the citizenry, and this may come as a shock to Kline and others, but women are citizens who have autonomy over their own bodies. To do anything less is to make a mockery of our own democratic republic, free of religious entanglements. The world is scarred and damaged enough by religious dogma dictating public policy without doing the same in America.
Kline should resign if he cannot curb his addiction to upholding the bible instead of the law. We all know the answer to that dilemma. Goodbye Mr. Kline.
Vickie Sandell Stangl
Friday, October 19, 2007
Snoop Dog Kline is at it again!
What’s the saying, “Old habits die hard?” Well that’s exactly what Phill Kline’s motto should be as District Attorney of Johnson County, Kansas. He can’t seem to stop harassing women and doctors, and snooping around for information regarding women’s medical records. He is clearly and unequivocally sticking his nose in a place where it does not belong. Some people across the state even question his authority as DA to file such a complaint in his home county.
Phill Kline’s charges against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in Overland Park, Kansas are part of another attack on women’s rights. On Wednesday, October 17, Kline filed 23 felony and 84 misdemeanor counts. They range anywhere from accusations of providing false information to failure to maintain medical records to providing unlawful late-termination of pregnancy. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows about Kline’s previous track record as an anti-choice zealot.
Kline’s crusade to shut down abortion providers and harass women began back in October of 2003, when sealed subpoenas showed up at Women’s Health Care Services and at Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood. That was four long years ago. Due to the gag order on the subpoenas, the general public and the press did not learn about his fishing expedition until early winter of 2004. In those subpoenas, Kline asserted that the clinics were guilty of wrong doing, which lead to numerous years of litigation. Unfortunately, this is an extension of that case, only with Kline now as the District Attorney of Johnson County instead of as the Attorney General of the State of Kansas.
Initially, Kline spun his zealotry as protection of children from child rapists, even though the vast majority of the records that he sought were for adult women who had had abortion procedures. It did not take long for the media to see through this politically motivated ploy. However, the case raged on, with the real threat of women’s privacy being violated.
It became clear that the only way Kline was ever going to stop his trolling for women’s medical records was for him to lose his AG seat. Due to his blatant misuse of his governmental office and extravagant expenditures, he lost his position to Paul Morrison by a 16 point margin, which was remarkable given the Republican vs. Democratic registration in this state, and given early polling numbers in the race. These numbers showed just how fed up and tired Kansans are with his one-issue-ax-to-grind-agenda.
And now, less than a year later, Kline is at it again, prosecuting as Johnson County DA. Taxpayers should wonder if Kline’s charges hold any value, or if the attack is purely for political purposes. When in reality, most of Kline’s time is spent on his battle to shut down abortion clinics, and to take away your right to choose.
Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri told the Associated Press that the clinic did not perform any abortions past the 22nd week of pregnancy and that they always provide high-quality care for their patients. Clinics, including Dr. Tiller’s clinic in Wichita, have been under attack since 2002 when Kline was elected attorney general. Since Kline opposes abortion, he is abusing his position to keep women from having access to it. With these charges, Kline is attempting to shut down these clinics and limit women’s right to choose. He is further pushing women into becoming second-class citizens.
The first hearing is scheduled for November 16, but one has to wonder if Kline’s charges will even hold up in court. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Morrison said he had reviewed the current accusations, and found no crimes or misconducts, and questioned Kline’s political influence behind the charges.
With anti-choice zealots like Kline in office, we cannot let our focus or our efforts wane. We must be diligent when protecting women’s rights, as women are not truly free and equal in our society until we have the autonomous decision-making power regarding our reproductive lives. If there is no equity when it comes to reproduction, there is no equity in education, jobs or relationships.
As a state and as a country, politicians have undervalued women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, for too long. We cannot stand by and allow our elected officials to decide what is right and moral for the women of this nation.
By Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo
Phill Kline’s charges against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in Overland Park, Kansas are part of another attack on women’s rights. On Wednesday, October 17, Kline filed 23 felony and 84 misdemeanor counts. They range anywhere from accusations of providing false information to failure to maintain medical records to providing unlawful late-termination of pregnancy. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows about Kline’s previous track record as an anti-choice zealot.
Kline’s crusade to shut down abortion providers and harass women began back in October of 2003, when sealed subpoenas showed up at Women’s Health Care Services and at Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood. That was four long years ago. Due to the gag order on the subpoenas, the general public and the press did not learn about his fishing expedition until early winter of 2004. In those subpoenas, Kline asserted that the clinics were guilty of wrong doing, which lead to numerous years of litigation. Unfortunately, this is an extension of that case, only with Kline now as the District Attorney of Johnson County instead of as the Attorney General of the State of Kansas.
Initially, Kline spun his zealotry as protection of children from child rapists, even though the vast majority of the records that he sought were for adult women who had had abortion procedures. It did not take long for the media to see through this politically motivated ploy. However, the case raged on, with the real threat of women’s privacy being violated.
It became clear that the only way Kline was ever going to stop his trolling for women’s medical records was for him to lose his AG seat. Due to his blatant misuse of his governmental office and extravagant expenditures, he lost his position to Paul Morrison by a 16 point margin, which was remarkable given the Republican vs. Democratic registration in this state, and given early polling numbers in the race. These numbers showed just how fed up and tired Kansans are with his one-issue-ax-to-grind-agenda.
And now, less than a year later, Kline is at it again, prosecuting as Johnson County DA. Taxpayers should wonder if Kline’s charges hold any value, or if the attack is purely for political purposes. When in reality, most of Kline’s time is spent on his battle to shut down abortion clinics, and to take away your right to choose.
Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri told the Associated Press that the clinic did not perform any abortions past the 22nd week of pregnancy and that they always provide high-quality care for their patients. Clinics, including Dr. Tiller’s clinic in Wichita, have been under attack since 2002 when Kline was elected attorney general. Since Kline opposes abortion, he is abusing his position to keep women from having access to it. With these charges, Kline is attempting to shut down these clinics and limit women’s right to choose. He is further pushing women into becoming second-class citizens.
The first hearing is scheduled for November 16, but one has to wonder if Kline’s charges will even hold up in court. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Morrison said he had reviewed the current accusations, and found no crimes or misconducts, and questioned Kline’s political influence behind the charges.
With anti-choice zealots like Kline in office, we cannot let our focus or our efforts wane. We must be diligent when protecting women’s rights, as women are not truly free and equal in our society until we have the autonomous decision-making power regarding our reproductive lives. If there is no equity when it comes to reproduction, there is no equity in education, jobs or relationships.
As a state and as a country, politicians have undervalued women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, for too long. We cannot stand by and allow our elected officials to decide what is right and moral for the women of this nation.
By Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Nicaragua’s Abortion Ban
Nicaragua’s abortion ban, implemented a year ago, is hurting women a lot more than it is doing anything else. The ban calls for imprisonment of women, and the people who help them (including doctors) when they have an abortion, even in the case of saving the woman’s life. It is among Central America’s most restrictive abortion laws that limits women, and puts their lives in danger.
The ban, which has resulted around 80 deaths so far (according to the International Herald Tribune) has put women at a standstill. The law says that the country will prosecute anybody who has an abortion, but what about the women who are facing pregnancy complications that could lead to death? Are they supposed to pick between going to jail or dying? The high rate of deaths because of illegal abortions in that country is astonishing as well.
The recent release of the Human Rights Watch report on the blanket ban has shed some light into how it has evolved. Women do not want to go get public medical help during their pregnancies in case they have a miscarriage, and are sent to jail. Doctors are also worried about “assisting” in these miscarriages and some are even denying women of medical help.
The fact that the government refuses rights to these women is appalling, and are in affect sentencing these women to die, whether from pregnancy complications or botched abortions. How does the Nicaraguan government ignore these facts? Do they stick to their beliefs that they are only trying to save the fetuses lives when in fact, they are sentencing these women to death? How much longer will this law be butchering women?
The fight to get rid of the ban though, mainly because of the strong, religious background of the people, but the Nicaraguan Feminist Movement and several other groups have already filed petitions to declare the ban unconstitutional. Since the courts have yet to rule, the battle wages on as many human rights groups and activists continue to show the fallout of this horrible ban, especially in the U.S.
Nicaragua’s blanket ban on abortion, and its consequences, should be a reminder to all how imperative women’s reproductive rights are, especially when right-wing legislators are working to chip away these rights everyday. According to a recent New York Times article, a global study has shown that outlawing abortions still does not reduce the number of them happening. If anything, it increases the number of deaths among women who do choose to have an abortion.
The situation reaches all women, and as we work towards fighting for all women’s rights, we should remember the words of Lucy Stone, “Now all we need is to continue to speak the truth fearlessly, and we shall add to our number those who will turn the scale to the side of equal and full justice in all things.”
Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo
The ban, which has resulted around 80 deaths so far (according to the International Herald Tribune) has put women at a standstill. The law says that the country will prosecute anybody who has an abortion, but what about the women who are facing pregnancy complications that could lead to death? Are they supposed to pick between going to jail or dying? The high rate of deaths because of illegal abortions in that country is astonishing as well.
The recent release of the Human Rights Watch report on the blanket ban has shed some light into how it has evolved. Women do not want to go get public medical help during their pregnancies in case they have a miscarriage, and are sent to jail. Doctors are also worried about “assisting” in these miscarriages and some are even denying women of medical help.
The fact that the government refuses rights to these women is appalling, and are in affect sentencing these women to die, whether from pregnancy complications or botched abortions. How does the Nicaraguan government ignore these facts? Do they stick to their beliefs that they are only trying to save the fetuses lives when in fact, they are sentencing these women to death? How much longer will this law be butchering women?
The fight to get rid of the ban though, mainly because of the strong, religious background of the people, but the Nicaraguan Feminist Movement and several other groups have already filed petitions to declare the ban unconstitutional. Since the courts have yet to rule, the battle wages on as many human rights groups and activists continue to show the fallout of this horrible ban, especially in the U.S.
Nicaragua’s blanket ban on abortion, and its consequences, should be a reminder to all how imperative women’s reproductive rights are, especially when right-wing legislators are working to chip away these rights everyday. According to a recent New York Times article, a global study has shown that outlawing abortions still does not reduce the number of them happening. If anything, it increases the number of deaths among women who do choose to have an abortion.
The situation reaches all women, and as we work towards fighting for all women’s rights, we should remember the words of Lucy Stone, “Now all we need is to continue to speak the truth fearlessly, and we shall add to our number those who will turn the scale to the side of equal and full justice in all things.”
Julie Burkhart
CEO, ProKanDo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)