The Gun Thing

A lot of people don't realize that I am in no way against responsible gun ownership. I'm not a huge fan of the things, but I've shot them and - aside from that incident at summer camp where I accidentally killed a bird - I rather enjoyed the experience.

What I am against, however, are the people who incoherently rail on about the Second Amendment while not being able to tell you what, exactly, the Second Amendment actually says. Or those who evoke said amendment without understanding the context in which it was written, or the reasons why that context is deeply problematic in and of itself.

I am against any discourse that doesn't take into account the mess of white privilege tangled up in every cry for the right to keep and bear firearms. The way we push for armed guards in suburban elementary schools without any mention of the way such guards have impacted inner-city learning institutions, led to increased police brutality within schools, and reinforced the growing school-to-prison pipeline.

I am against the way we explain away mass shootings by white people with simple phrases like "mental illness" while blaming "thuggish" black kids for their own death at the hands of a firearm (and never suggesting they should have been carrying for their own self defense).

Those who look at George Zimmerman and believe he was truly justified in his right to self defense, but make not a peep when Melissa Alexander gets thrown away for firing warning shot near her abusive ex-husband.

Those who co-opt the language of sexual violence prevention only when it suits their pro-gun agenda, coincidentally ignoring the countless instances where possession of a firearm has made women more vulnerable to death from abuse and assault. Not to mention that this idea - that women should carry as "rape prevention" - reinforces rape culture by placing emphasis on me being responsible for protecting myself and not on a collective effort to combat systematic sexual oppression.

Those who don't see how making a case for more gun rights after a tragedy is markedly different from making a case for ways we can keep them from happening again.

Those things. I'm against those things, not gun ownership itself.

And yet, when I bring up any number of these issues, I am summarily accused by my culture's blind affinity for dichotomy of being "against responsible gun ownership." Of being a "bleeding heart liberal who wants big government to take away my rights."

I'm done with it. I am so tired of the dichotomy, of being put into defense mode, of feeling the need to relive the night I was nearly raped just to get my point across, of having my commitment to individual freedom called into question by folks with no visible care for collective justice.

So this is my final statement on the matter, one that I will probably be copy/pasting for years to come: I have no problem with your right to purchase and keep a firearm. I have a problem with you not recognizing the ways in which your arguments are ignorant, short-sighted, and oppressive.

Equality, assimilationist, and other buzzwords trolling my feed today

I've been trying to put into words my feelings on all these red equal signs and greater-than signs popping up on my feed all day, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on what appears to be an ingrown divide.

I was married once. And no, it didn't contribute to my liberation at all. It did, however, make living in this society a little bit easier. Filing taxes jointly, knowing I was assured health benefits and hospital visitation rights, and other protections I gained by enmeshing myself in that institution were all lovely privileges that I was thankful to have at my fingertips. I was also looked at differently: I was an adult woman living with an adult man, and we were married. There was more approval of our relationship, of the way we were living. It was more palatable to our society's views on relationships and love. Problematic at its core? Oh hell yes. Easier? You betcha.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual member of the LGBTQI community who actually thinks the right to marry will ensure total liberation for them or anyone they know. Sure, the neo-liberal tendencies in the more powerful lobbies make it seem that way. But their proponents know as much as the most radical queer motherfucker out there that the right to marry isn't about to solve the nation's health care crisis, combat institutionalized racism, end bullying, or provide housing for countless homeless queer youths. But I also don't believe their personal desire to enter into that institution sets anyone back; far from it, it is our short-sightedness on the issue that holds us back, not granting the right to those who wish to access it.

It's easy to look at this whole thing and write it off as some big movement to make every queer person look like a gay June Cleaver. The "assimilationist model" is indeed problematic, however, that you are so willing to dismiss a push for the right to marry as "totally assimilationist" is divisive and hurtful as well.

Is it possible that, for many same-sex couples living without radical separatist bubbles to call their own, a societal affirmation of their relationship will help make living their lives a little bit easier?

Press on for radical, ground-breaking change, YES. We should do that ceaselessly and without apology. You may say marriage is an oppressive institution fraught with conservative ideology, and I may partially agree with you, but still... what's really the harm in granting others the right to marry if they so choose?

The Waiters

So this came to my attention today.

Okay, for the record, being sex positive means not judging people for their sexual tastes and practices. And that includes not judging folks who, how to put this, "wait" until they're married to do the deed. I certainly don't judge the author of the above article for his relationship choices, despite the fact that he probably thinks I do. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a way outdated concept riddled with oppressive societal norms, but as a friend of mine likes to say, "If abstinence is your fetish, who am I to judge?"

The issue I have with "The Waiters" is that they're so fucking high and mighty about it. They think that the rest of us - the slutty promiscuous sinners who surely will never find true happiness because we just "give it away" to anything that moves - actually want the same things but just don't have the strength or moral integrity to "do things right."

WHICH IS PATHETIC. It's a dream world. I never harbored some uber-sanctified idea of my "virginity." I don't believe "virginity" is even a real physiological state; to me, it's a social construct kept locked up behind a facade of bunk science and poor understanding of reproductive anatomy. And again, if you want to place value on the concept of virginity, then by all means. That's your business. But don't start pulling information from a 19th century textbook to tell me that all women bleed like a slaughtered pig the first time they have intercourse.

So no, I never saw much value in waiting until marriage, in the concept of my supposed "virginity." Does that mean I don't respect myself or my body? Have poor self esteem? Need to "give it up" to keep a man around? Hardly. Let's look at the facts: I have never had sex with someone because I needed to be validated. The only time I've ever had sex under any kind of pressure that surpassed my own autonomy was in a bad relationship that needed to end (a married relationship, at that).

Bad relationship drama aside, I have remained very sexually autonomous in a world that would love to see me otherwise. To start, I was very well educated, mostly by my private (but not religious) school which actually taught comprehensive sex education. The first time I had sex, I was just a few days shy of 17. My boyfriend and I talked it over, we evolved to a place where becoming sexual with one another was something we were both comfortable with, and oh yeah, WE USED PROTECTION. And you know what? I don't regret a thing.

I understand that I'm treading into becoming high and mighty myself, so I want to interject here that I am not trying victim blame. I understand that sexual relationships are far too often entered into for unhealthy reasons, and I believe good, moral people fall into the traps set by a system of inequality between the sexes. So let me say this: anyone who manipulates someone else into having sex with them is a stain upon the wonderful world of human sexuality. The people who fall for it are generally socialized to do so by a system of capitalist patriarchy, which teaches us (particularly those of us with girl parts) that sex is a commodity to be bought and sold while simultaneously shaming us for taking part in it. (Consequently, this is the same system that the aforementioned author likely aligns himself with... food for thought.)

But back to the article. "Oh, we're so much better than that woman who's husband is sleeping it off because we actually feel different today!" You ever stop to think that maybe that couple doesn't want your life? That they don't want your marriage? That they simply didn't perceive their wedding to be this sudden, life-altering event, but rather a wonderful milestone in an already-evolving relationship?

Naw, they wanted to wait, to not live together first. They just fell to temptation. They're weak. Their morals are in shambles. Your way is so much better.

Fuck your understanding of morals. Morality isn't something you abide by just because some centuries-old book tells you to. Morality is something you have internalized for yourself, and even if it does come from a religious influence, you've still internalized it for personal reasons. I'm a very moral person, but for a number of reasons I could never internalize the kind of morality that your religion pushes. However, I do have extremely clear guidelines for how I handle everything from conflict to sexuality, and I very rarely waiver on any of it. One of my favorite morals is non-judgment. As I've said, I don't judge The Waiters. That's their business. But I have a very clear moral duty to call them out on their bullshit when I see them doing harm by passing moral judgment on others.

"Oh, but marriage is just the way to go." Right, because sexual relationships are always great if you're married. People never use sex to manipulate their partners in a marriage. A married man never rapes or sexually assaults his wife. All relationship problems would just magically be solved if everyone would just get married.

Whatever. I hope he and his wife enjoy a long and happy life in whatever alternate reality they currently reside in.

Enough ranting and cursing for now... Jezebel makes it better with all the hilarious GIFs.

Our Foreskins, Ourselves

A number of people have asked me my opinion on the new American Academy of Pediatrics statement on infant circumcision, released today. But y'all know I'd have my opinion out there even if I hadn't been asked, so here it is:

• The background: It appears the AAP has taken the same body of evidence they've used for the past 13 years plus one new study and somewhat reversed their stance. Despite the hype that the AAP now "recommends" routine circumcision, what the AAP has done is take into account one new study on HIV transmission and is now saying that "the benefits may outweigh the risks." While this is a stone's throw from actually recommending routine male circumcision, it's close enough, and future parents will take it to heart.  Sidebar: The AAP is now the only major pediatric association in the world that does not clearly oppose routine infant circumcision.
  
• While they have added a single study on HIV transmission, the study they are actually referencing cites VOLUNTARY male circumcision, as in, by choice at an adult age, in areas of the world where HIV rates are astoundingly high. This has led to the idea that circumcision at birth somehow protects men from contracting STIs later in life. However, among industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks high in both STI transmission rates (including HIV) and percentage of boys circumcised at birth. In other words, we don't even have correlative evidence to back up this claim. Of course STI transmission is a big concern to me personally, but I don't see how removing a functional part of a boy's penis at birth is going to somehow protect him from contracting an infection later in life. To address this issue, I'd advocate instead for a) comprehensive sex education in schools, b) more funding for youth programs that encourage and increase access to safer sex practices, and c) a society that isn't so sex-negative that things like condoms and penises can't even be discussed in a frank and honest manner.
  
• Regarding the "penile cancer" risk: Penile cancer is extremely rare. When it does occur, it usually manifests in what we call the "foreskin" of the penis. So by removing the foreskin at birth, a male infant will grow up to be less likely to develop a cancer that he was already unlikely to develop in the first place. By this logic, we should also be removing the breast buds of baby girls. Think about it... breast cancer manifests in the functional breast tissue, the basis for which is present at birth. And seeing how breast cancer is far more common than penile cancer, we should be taking every possible precaution. We'll do it when they're two days old, so they won't remember it. We'll use anesthesia, so they won't feel it. And if they want to have kids later in life, well, they can just feed their babies with infant formula. And besides, women can still get some sexual pleasure without their breasts being involved. (See how ridiculous this sounds?)
  
  
• This is just speculation, but... given the fact that more and more insurance companies (and Medicaid) is seeing infant circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, they tend to not cover the costs. Perhaps the AAP is changing their position so they can continue performing the procedure regularly (cough cough cha-ching cough cough). Again, just speculation.

At this point, the sex-positive person in me wants to rail on and on about the sexual implications of removing the nerve-rich foreskin at birth, but instead I'll let Laci Green break it down for us:



Further Reading:
Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement (pdf)
Intact America
The Whole Network

Women who wear the hijab are being oppressed by the patriarchy. Ima rock this corset now.

It started out innocently enough: the Facebook page for a mainstream feminist group featured an image of Team USA fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, the first American woman to compete in an international competition while wearing a hijab.

You know where I'm going with this, don't you?

Oh yes, it happened.  Before I even clicked "view all comments," I knew what I'd find.  And sure enough, I found it:

•  "That's awesome.  Too bad she feels the pressure to cover though.  Damn patriarchy."
• "Good for her! But I can't get past the covering. Poor woman."
• "I hope she wins gold!!  And can be empowered enough to stop having to cover!!!!"

It's really the defining trait of liberal/reformist feminism: privileged Western white ladies having clear-cut ideas about what does and does not constitute oppression, never taking issues of race/class/ethnicity/gender identity into the equation, all the while failing to see where or how they specifically fall into the role of oppressor themselves.  And they just can't shut up about the hijab.  I mean, the second comment says it all, "I can't get past the covering."

I actually engaged that specific commenter in a private conversation, because I do that sometimes.  I've become more particular about who I will engage in deeper-level conversations about privilege and oppression, because let's face it, when you go into an argument with a rabid antichoicer about the morality of abortion, it's just never going to be productive.  But seeing how this particular woman was at least a feminist, I figured what could be the harm.

And it was good.  We had some decent exchanges of ideas and both came out having earned a slightly different perspective on some things.

Then I clicked on her profile.  She had a few photos public, and the ones I could see featured a person, I'm assuming her, dressed up in a corset, fishnets, and heels.  Don't get me wrong, she looked amazing.  If I'd been out and seen her walk by, my reaction would have been one of "hot damn she looks good."  And I'm not one of those feminists who thinks that donning a corset sets women's liberation back three or four decades... while I don't own a corset myself, I have been known to occasionally rock some sexy stuff that would make Andrea Dworkin cringe.

But you must understand that this person made some very scathing comments about how a woman's decision to wear a hijab can never be free of patriarchal influence.  She was very clear about that, even echoing one of my personal favorite talking points: we don't live in a vacuum. It's beyond me, really.  Here's this intelligent woman expressing her discontent with another culture's patriarchal standards while at the same time proudly playing into a centuries-old standard of her own.

I mean obviously it goes back to intersectionality.  There are tons of feminists who believe that they never "buy in" to patriarchal standards with their appearance, but a woman who simply covers her head and hair because of religious tradition has zero autonomy in the matter.  It goes back to our deep-seeded racism and Islamaphobia that, admit it, exists in the majority of us on some level, which is deeply problematic.  For one, it's ignorant: few people who criticize the hijab actually know why it's worn. We're told, mostly by American-based media, that such coverings are required by law in all those mean evil Middle Eastern countries and that's bad.  We pretty much leave it at that.  Secondly, it assumes that we in the United States live in a post-patriarchal society where we've "moved past" all that sexist stuff.  Putting on a vintage-inspired apron and baking cookies for your boyfriend doesn't mean the same thing that it meant 50 years ago... goodness no, the systematic oppression of women - at least in our forward-thinking society - is a thing of the past.  (That's post-feminism, baby!)

Lastly, it's paternalistic.  Liberal/reformist feminists continue to buy into the idea that privileged Western white ladies need to be the ones to "save" other women (Muslim women specifically) from themselves.  This is nothing new... white feminists have been doing this since feminism was feminism. (If you haven't read White Women's Rights by Louise Newman, that should be added to your reading list.  Like now.)  Co-opting the neocolonialist language of our government, these women assume that liberation is something that needs to be given to the women of the world, not something they can achieve for themselves in a way that will jive with their cultures.  Worst of all, no one even attempts to ask Muslim women whether or not they feel oppressed by wearing a hijab, and if they do, they question one or two women of color to gain the appearance of inclusitivity by means of tokenism.  

So my feminist friend "feels bad" that Muslim women are "pressured" to don "unnecessary and uncomfortable articles of clothing" because of patriarchal rule.  I'm picturing the modestly-dressed Muslim women of the world peering at her Facebook pictures, thinking much the same thing.

The Humorless Feminist

Yeah, that's right.  I'm weighing in on the Daniel Tosh clusterfuck.

See, when one speaks out against the use of sexism in comic routines, they risk being labeled "one of those feminists without a sense of humor."  The humorless feminist stereotype has been a cultural archetype since the radical feminists of the 1970s first spoke out against using women's disenfranchisement to make a joke. 

Many people continue to tell themselves that rape jokes are not only okay, but they're also funny and don't do anything to perpetuate rape culture.  We've somehow come to allow ourselves the privilege of invoking gender oppression for the sake of humor, all the while telling ourselves that sexism, misogyny, sexual assault, and partner violence are things of the past (or at least don't exist in our own social circles).  However, in a country where 20% of women report being sexually assaulted, where the gender wage gap still exists as prominently as it was decades ago, and where our government continues to legislate our bodies and sexualities with ease, how can even the most light-hearted jab not reaffirm our society's commitment to gender discrimination? 

This kind of humor has really become popular in self-described "enlightened" circles.  Maybe a person fancies himself a feminist and supports the right to choose.  He probably condemns wage discrimination and treats his female friends and partners as equals.  He may have helped organize Take Back the Night events, and he may speak loudly about the importance of consent.  From this, he may feel he's "earned" the right to make a rape joke or two; after all, he would never rape anyone, so what could really be the harm?

What he doesn't realize is that the women in his extra-enlightened, uber-sex positive and politically radical social circle are just as likely to have experienced sexual assault as the women in the repressed circles he and his friends love to scoff at.  That means that, for every rape joke he tells, 20% of his female friends are forced to hear the worst thing that's ever happened to them turned into a mechanism for cheap laughs.  Worse yet, the ever-present stigma of being a sexual assault victim means that these women are unlikely speak up, lest they become labeled "humorless feminists" who allowed themselves to be raped.  Even the playful jabs of "bitch make me a sandwich" smack of regressive social norms and help to maintain the constraints of male dominance.

Not wanting to be left on the sidelines of social clout, women themselves often become complicit in the maintenance of rape as an acceptable source of humor.  For us, it's even harder to unpack.  After all, haven't we, the clear majority of sexual assault victims, also "earned" this right?  We face the threat of sexual assault every single time we work late and have to walk to our cars alone.  We worry about stopping for gas late at night.  Our hearts skip a beat when we're in the shower and think we hear someone in the house.  We're warned from early childhood about getting into cars with boys, accepting alcoholic beverages at parties, wearing clothes that show too much skin, dancing a certain way, etc.  Why not take this horrendous reality and laugh the weight off of it once in a while, if only while in the company of other women?

I struggled with this one for a while, then I finally realized that, at least in my experience, the opportunity to make a rape joke never really comes up in all-woman gatherings.  It's not that we were censoring ourselves: the compulsion simply isn't there.  From this I can only conclude that jokes about sexual assault exist almost exclusively in rooms where male privilege dominates, and let's be real, male dominance exists even inside groups of anti-sexist wingnuts.

And yet we refrain from speaking up against it, lest we become "the oppressors" ourselves.  How dare we police someone else's god-given right to free speech?  I mean what is this, Nazi Germany?  This is perhaps the most frustrating (and most difficult to refute) accusation, the one that probably silences us more than anything else.  By turning the language of oppression against us, we become the bad guys while they continue perpetuating rape culture under the guise of "freedom of expression."  And with that, we continue to be silenced.

Let me get one thing straight: I have a phenomenal sense of humor.  It's actually a bit warped, which makes some people uncomfortable.  I use the word "fuck" a whole lot.  I enjoy incredibly raunchy jokes, especially those that take an ounce or two of intellect to fully appreciate.  In proper circles, I can make a whole group cringe, laugh, then cringe some more as they add my side-splitting anecdote to their own humor arsenals.  Best of all, I can do it all without having to use sexist or racist language.  That's the opposite of having "no sense of humor." 

My question is, how bad is your sense of humor that you have to turn to years of social injustice to get laughs?  How bad is your vocabulary that you have to use sexist slurs to make a point?  And how lacking in whit are you that you have to use one of the worst possible things that can happen to a person just to make a joke?

Vagina

That is all.

Why Birthing Rights Matter to the Pro-Choice Movement

In the more abortion-focused circles of the pro-choice movement, birthing rights often go undiscussed.  My mentions of home birth rights specifically have brought varying responses, from supportive to ambivalent to outright hostile ("Well that is not safe!"). 

But let's be clear about something.  Reproductive justice means that everyone has complete control over if, when, where, how, and with whom they bring a child into the world.  It means that people have accurate, unbiased access to information regarding all facets of their reproductive lives, from contraception to pregnancy options, from practices surrounding birth to parental rights. It means that our choices are not constrained by politics, financial barriers, or social pressure.  In other words, how can the right to give birth at home - safely and legally - not be on a reproductive justice advocate's radar?

I mention this because we in North Carolina are enduring yet another vicious attack on the rights of pregnant and childbearing individuals.  Women seeking home births may have the legal right to do so, but just like the women seeking abortion care, these laws do nothing to protect access.  As far as home birth attendants go, our state only recognizes certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and in order for these phenomenal women to legally attend births, they must be supervised by an MD currently licensed to practice obstetrics in the state.  As you can imagine, physicians that will supervise homebirth CNMs are few and far between, and this week one of them was advised (under threats of sanction) that he cannot sign off on CNMs who are not under his direct employment.  Even though the law does not dictate these terms, the medical board's sanction left seven of our eleven home birth CNMs without a licensing MD, and countless women without a care provider.

The research is abundantly clear: when labor is progressing normally, a woman under the care of a trained midwife is as safe giving birth at home as she would be under the care of an obstetrician in a hospital.

Anti-abortion birth advocates are already taking a hypocritical stance on the matter as they decry abortion rights while asking why women's reproductive decisions are limited.  I've been biting my tongue while reading the Facebook comments of fellow birth professionals all week.  One such statement went, "It is legal to have an abortion but a woman can't choose to have a home birth with a midwife! This is crazy!"  Another, "A mother can kill her baby in all three trimesters but can't give birth at home.  The government is nuts."  [Fact-Check Sidebar: North Carolina restricts abortion access after the 20th week of pregnancy (hardly "all three trimesters"); additionally, this ruling didn't come from the government, it came from the NC Board of Medicine, an agency independent from the state's governing body.]  These ramblings are usually followed by the contradictory co-opting of pro-choice language, ripe with phrases like "right to choose" and "my body, my choice."

The abortion rift amongst birth advocates is really nothing new.  After all, to simply be an advocate for varying birthing options does not encompass any official position on the politics of pregnancy itself.  Birth advocates come to the work for a variety of reasons, while it certainly seems odd to me that a person could support the "right to choose" in one pregnancy outcome but not another, the social stigma surrounding abortion means that this rift is bound to exist. 

That home birth rights are not at the forefront of the reproductive justice movement, on the other hand, is beyond me.  The struggles are just too similar.  Every time someone points out that women might have to cross state lines to access a home birth midwife, I think of the women who still - in the year 2012 - have to seek abortion care in a state with fewer restrictions or more providers.  When we worry that women will have to give birth with midwives who operate illegally (or go unassisted), I think of the women who risked their lives going to see illegal abortion providers with no public credentials, or the women who simply did it themselves.  Medicaid and many private insurers restrict access to home birth midwives just like they restrict access to abortion, making both more or less a privilege to those with the means to pay out of pocket. 

Reproductive justice advocates who are involved in birthing rights see both - the right to an abortion and the right to give birth at home - as the same struggle.  We understand that any assault on reproductive freedom comes from a system of patriarchal self-interest that sees women not as autonomous beings, but as objects to be regulated and "fixed."  We know that any women who choose home birth have done their research and don't need "warnings" from government institutions, just like women seeking abortions don't need the ideological jargon in "Right To Know" legislation.  We know that women and their families are capable of making the best possible decisions regarding the births of their children, and we seek to create a world where access, stigma, and social pressure don't sway these decisions.  In other words, we live up to the full spectrum of our ideology... we Trust Women.

I call on the reproductive justice movement to make birthing rights a part of their pro-choice consciousness.  If we are to create a world that ensures sexual and reproductive well-being for all women and girls, no struggle to protect our choices or desires can go unsupported.

30 Kids and Counting: Race, class, and the scapegoating of the Other

This is yet another issue I was planning on avoiding, but it's gone viral on my Facebook news feed, so here we are.

The story goes that Desmond Hatchett, a Tennessee resident, is the biological father of thirty children.  Thirty children born to eleven different women.  The other part... he has a minimum-wage job and therefore some of his children's mothers receive as little as $1.49 per month. He is pleading with the state for help with his support payments.

I know better than to read the comments below the stories.  I'm not even going to go there.  But the commentary provided by people on Facebook - people I'm actually friends with and tend to respect as intelligent human beings - provided its own source of disappointment.

But first, let's break down a few of the issues in the news article itself.

The headline, TN Man 'Fathers' 30 Kids But Can't Support Any, is in and of itself problematic.  The last line of the article tells us he has a minimum-wage job, so obviously he can support some, especially when they report that his previous partners do in fact receive support payments, however small they may be.  The use of the word "fathers" in quotations, paired with the obviously inaccurate claim that he "can't afford any," reinforces the deadbeat Black dad stereotype.  While Hatchett may not come across as the most sexually responsible person in the world, that he is even showing up in court and willingly getting half his paycheck taken by the state means that he is making more of an effort than, say, a man who dodges the system completely and goes "off the grid" to avoid child support payments (or, say, a man who is physically and financially present in a child's life but is any shade of abusive).

Much of the language in the article itself is racist and demeaning.  The author could have easily reported that Hatchett had children with 11 different partners, but instead chose to use the term "baby mamas" in quotations, clearly an attempt to write off all people involved as irresponsible stereotypes.

The article also lacks any discussion of why this sort of thing happens in the first place, especially in a racial and socioeconomic context.  And no, I'm not talking about the apparently "high number" of sexual partners Hatchett has had (okay, I did end up reading some of the reader comments... d'oh!).  I'm talking about the fact that Tennessee is a state with a long history of abstinence-only sex education (or in some cases, no sex education at all). In fact, the state's legislature is currently pushing a bill that would restrict this curriculum even more.  Additionally, while condom use rates have improved amongst the young African American population, cultural barriers present in lower-income communities persist.  Non-barrier, female-controlled contraceptives remain difficult to access in any community without consistent financial stability, and the state of Tennessee strictly prohibits social safety nets from funding abortion services.  And the results are apparent: Tennessee has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy in the country, particularly among young African American women. 

And now for the comments I read on my Facebook feed.

I'll say first that simply posting the article without any discussion of the above points is irresponsible, period.  Desmond Hatchett does not exist in a vacuum, and while his situation is a bit more extreme, his story is not unique.  Countless men regardless of race or socioeconomic status have "accidental children" with previous sexual partners.  We're only hearing about Hatchett because he doesn't have the economic privilege to make his child support payments outside of the public view. 

I have a number of feminist-identified friends who decided instead to take the "men are scum" approach.  But again, ignorance of the race/class factors involved here make their commentary troubling in the feminist lens because really, they're not calling out all men... they're calling out this particular kind of man.  A truly feminist account of Hatchett's situation would not ignore the intersectionality at play here.  Rather, it would push it to the forefront of the conversation.

Another person pointed the finger not only at the irresponsibility of Hatchett, but the "stupidity" of his female partners as well.  The poster even went so far as to muse that several of the women involved might have become pregnant intentionally in order to receive payment (because child support payments are just a phenomenally effective get-rich-quick scheme).

Even more troubling was the friend who simply stated that Hatchett should be "permanently sterilized." To make matters worse, he went on to express complete ignorance of why this is problematic when confronted about it.  Using terms like "personal responsibility" and "individual case," he remained unwilling to even learn about our nation's history of forced and coerced sterilization in lower-income communities of color, but assured me his previous comment "had nothing to do with race."  Right.

The Desmond Hatchett story made headlines first because it serves as an extreme example of a very common issue: the United States has one of the most abysmal records of unintended pregnancy in the industrialized world.  But the perpetuation of shock and "oh my god can you believe this guy" serves a deeper social purpose in that it puts a stereotypical face on the issue.  Thus, we allow ourselves to point the finger at one person or one kind of person (read: not us), blaming a group of irresponsible individuals rather than asking how we as a society may be complicit in another person's actions.  I thought the people I associate myself with were better than that, however, this time it appears I may have been mistaken.

The Politics of EC

At risk of sounding like a Plan B commercial, things don't always go as planned.  The single most prepared and educated individuals can have a condom break, or hell, get lost in the heat of the moment and fail to use one at all.  While the latter certainly indicates a higher lack of preparedness (or common sense), the point is this: people who engage in vaginal intercourse - be they married or single, monogamous or not, teenaged or adult, using condoms or on the pill or neither - are at risk for a situation that could lead to an unintended pregnancy. 

While emergency contraception (trade names "Plan B" or "Next Choice," aka "the morning-after pill") has only been FDA approved since 1999, health care providers have been cutting up contraception pill packs for the exact same purpose since the 1980s.  The drug was made available to women over 18 without a prescription in 2006, then, in 2009, the FDA arbitrarily approved the drug for OTC use for women 17 and older.

Fast forward to last week, when "pro-woman" HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception OTC for all.  A political move indeed, likely stemming from the fact that we are approaching an election year, and let's face it, Sebelius is "Obama's Girl."

We've heard the cries of disapproval from every anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-sex activist out there: "It will make young girls engage in sex at a younger age." "Women will start using it as their only form of birth control." "It causes early abortions." "It will turn the country into a 24/7 orgy," and so on and so forth.

I'm not about to spend a lot of time refuting these claims, sighting the ways we know that making contraception available to teens does not lead to earlier sexual contact, how it makes no sense to take a $35 pill every time you have sex instead of going on OCs for $20 a month, how it does not cause "early abortions," etc.  What I will spend some time on, however, are the reasons the mainstream population allows themselves to be swayed by the Christian Right's barrage of anti-sexuality bullshit.

It comes down to a conversation I had with my dad over Thanksgiving.  Neither of us had any clue that the FDA was considering OTC status for emergency contraception at the time.  I believe I was going on about how securing a prescription for Plan B involved little more than a 5 minute conversation with an advance practice clinician about your family history, and no, the girl's parents did not have to sign off on it, at least not in North Carolina.

While relatively conservative, my dad has a more progressive outlook on some social issues, and birth control seems to be one of them.  However, he seemed shaken by the fact that a 15 year old girl could walk into a Planned Parenthood, talk with a nurse practitioner, and walk away with Plan B without her parents ever knowing.  My first reaction would have been to accuse him of being a typical anti-woman wingnut, though he's my dad and I know he's really not a raging misogynist.  Such a disconnect led me to take a moment to process exactly what his major objection could be.

Then it hit me.

Dad is a 62 year old man with a daughter who was 15 a mere twelve years ago.  When he pictures a 15 year old girl, he pictures his daughter: an awkward string bean of a high schooler who, in his mind, has absolutely no interest in dating, let alone sex.  When he pictures that 15 year old procuring Plan B, the thought is horrifying.  That girl is, after all, someone's daughter.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, I picture a 15 year old girl and I see one of my teens.  They've had a condom break (or didn't use one at all), or maybe they forgot to take their pill or get their Depo shot.  Now is no time to tell them that they shouldn't have been doing whatever they were doing to get themselves into that situation.  That conversation can be had after they get their EC, and if it's one of my teens, you know we'll be having it.  "You were drinking and didn't know what you were doing?  Tell me what's wrong with that."  "You didn't use a condom?  Why on earth... we have a giant bucket right here in the office."  "Condoms break, yes... it's rare but it happens.  Do you want to talk about an IUD or another method?" "What can we do to help you remember to take your pill?  Have you thought about the NuvaRing, or maybe an Implanon?"  Nowhere in the above scenarios do I think for even a second that I can change what's already happened, nor do I believe that having made EC available will make them more likely to do it again.

Then I started thinking into the future.  Will I become one of those moms who used to be uber sex-positive but now has a kid who she doesn't want to admit is a sexual being?  Let's be real... kids are humans.  Humans are sexual.  There is no "sex switch" that gets flipped on when you turn 18 (or when you get married... but that's a whole other post).  We don't like to talk about it, but children masturbate.  I was just having a conversation with a friend who told me that her two year old son gets an erection when he nurses; the thought horrified me for about 2 seconds until I checked myself and realized that it's not at all weird... it's a normal biological response to a place of extreme comfort and happiness.

It makes us so uncomfortable to think of kids, especially our own, being sexual beings, but ignoring it (or trying to "save them" from their inherent nature as a living breathing human) is hardly going to change that.  If anything, it makes things worse.  Too many times young girls fail to ask for EC because they're embarrassed, or they think they need their parents' permission, or they can't afford it, or they don't even know it's available to them.  That doesn't make them stop having sex... it makes them more likely to face an unintended pregnancy and have their childhood come to a screeching halt.  If all we have to do to keep that from happening is toss our ridiculous notions of "the virtuous child" out the door, well, I think we owe them at least that much.

NC General Assembly overrides veto, defunds Planned Parenthood

There are numerous reasons North Carolina residents should be angry this morning.  If you are a teacher, a parent of a child in public school, a college student, a state employee, a woman, uninsured, lower-income, a person with mental illness, an infant, or a health worker, yesterday's late-night veto override of the state budget affects you. 

Five Democrats joined the Republican majority in the override.  I could go on and on about all the ways that this budget is, pardon my language, royally fucked, but I need to focus primarily on the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 

Despite the fact that 57% of NC voters support state funding for Planned Parenthood, the GOP has used its majority, once again, to enact an ideology.  With this budget, the GOP is waging class warfare against the most underserved communities, not just in its defunding of low-cost health clinics, but in its major cuts to education and human services as well.  Don't even get me started on what this means for state employees (predominately lower-income people of color).

But I digress.  This entry is about Planned Parenthood.

Last night's vote basically removes Planned Parenthood's ability to be a Title X provider.  They are now no longer eligible to receive grants from the Women's Health Services Fund or the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiatives program.

I have been a regular client of my local Planned Parenthood clinic for four years.  I have received annual pap smears, regular physical exams, low-cost birth control, and a very inexpensive breast exam that one time I found a strange lump.  Not one of these visits ever put me in the poor house even though my health insurance doesn't cover me unless I get hit by a bus.  Hell, they even did a strep throat test for me this one time I was on call for a birth and thought I was getting sick.

I have friends who have received all that and more from Planned Parenthood clinics.  They've gotten STD testing and treatment.  They've had cervical cancer screenings.  They've gotten pregnancy tests and options counseling.  They've had abortions.  They've received referrals for low-cost prenatal care.

If this is what our General Assembly really thinks the state wants, they have another thing coming.  There are too many of us who have received quality health care that they can afford, in part due to the state's funding of Planned Parenthood through the health block grants that they are now ineligible to receive.  We will see the results of this, and fast.  Sweeping cuts to education, massive lay-offs in the government sector, rampant attacks on the environment, cuts to WIC programs, and of course the lack of low-cost health care outside of county-run health departments resinate with far too many NC residents for us to just sit back and take it.

The question now is, what are we going to do about it?

On Fidelity

This whole Anthony Weiner thing has got me thinking about the parameters of "fidelity" in relationships.  By which I mean, fidelity is (to me) a relative concept, defined by the individuals involved in the relationship.

First I have to say this: I don't know whether or not these internet and phone exchanges were okay with Weiner's wife.  He mentioned that she knew about them before they were married, but we don't know whether or not that means she was cool with it.  If she doesn't consider it cheating, then he wasn't cheating.  Period.

Regardless of the parameters of the congressman's marriage, there are many couples out there who would not consider what he did cheating.  Some couples have open relationships where outside sexual experiences are fine.  For others, the partner has to actually have sexual contact for it to be considered cheating.  On the other side, there are folks who believe that sending suggestive photos over the internet is, in fact, cheating.  There are also those who think that receiving a lapdance is cheating.  Even further down the spectrum, some people consider watching pornography cheating, and others think that even masturbating is cheating.  Some people even believe that looking at another human with a lustful eye is cheating (think Christine O'Donnell here). 

What I'm trying to say is that this concept of "fidelity" is too relative for us to just point blank say that Anthony Weiner was cheating on his wife, especially if we don't know what was and was not okay between both partners.  If his wife was fine with it, then he wasn't cheating, because "cheating" by definition implies that one partner was breaking the rules of the relationship.

Cue the barrage of conservative Bible-thumpers who believe everybody should live by their standards.  Many have probably already spoken out about Weiner's supposed "infidelity," and to be sure many more would if they themselves hadn't already been caught toe-tapping in some airport men's room.  For these folks, even couples who have a polyamorous agreement are "cheating."  While they may be "cheating" on the standards laid out in certain religious beliefs, not everybody conforms to such a rigid set of rules. 

What would be lovely is if we were all comfortable enough with our partners to discuss these parameters, and have them be equally-applicable.  But because we live in a patriarchal society, there will always be a certain shame in discussing just how "faithful" we need to be.  To be sure, if we can't clearly discuss our thoughts on morality, monogamy, lust, attraction, etc, then we're going to continue having a whole lot of "cheaters" in the world.  Some folks who don't believe looking at porn is cheating might be surprised when they're "caught" and their partners accuse them of infidelity.  Others might push the limits further and further until they do cross a boundary that, instead of being discussed thoroughly, was assumed to be cheating by one partner but not the offender.

Me, I have my own definitions of what constitutes cheating, but those aren't really any of your business.  Not being a relationship counselor, I can't say what folks should do when their boundaries don't meet, though it's fair to say that a simple compromise might lead to grudges and back-handed revenge. 

Regardless, I don't know whether or not Weiner cheated on his wife.  I honestly think he apologized to her, first and foremost, for having made the mistake of making his "junk" so public, and for making her the wife of a guy involved in a sex scandal.  Or maybe she wasn't okay with it but pretended to be, or maybe she just decided to turn a blind eye to avoid the matter altogether.  Again, I really don't know, but as much as I'd like to find out, I know that their personal definitions of fidelity are really none of our damn business.

Breastfeeding, Options, and a Tale of Two Michelles

In the wake of a study that suggests formula-fed children are six times as likely to be obese by age three, Michelle Obama has taken up breastfeeding promotion as a main objective of her Let's Move campaign.  According to her spokesperson, the first lady is focusing not on dictating people's infant feeding choices, but instead "trying to make it easier for those who choose to [breastfeed]."

Lower-income, predominately African American communities have the lowest breastfeeding initiation rates, rates that drop even lower to around 20% at six months of age.  Children in these communities are also at the highest risk for infant death and, of course, childhood obesity, both of which breastfeeding is known to curb.  Additionally, women who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast cancer and diabetes later in life, health problems that are both prevalent among African American women.

Surveys have all but confirmed that the abysmal breastfeeding rates in lower-income communities (regardless of race) are mostly due to socioeconomic barriers: women who cannot afford (or locate) a professional lactation consultant are likely to give up breastfeeding when problems arise.  While these problems (sore nipples, engorgement, etc) can make breastfeeding unbearably painful, the assistance of a lactation specialist or consultant often provides a quick and easy fix. Additionally, lower-income women are more likely to have to return to work sooner, and, without appropriate equipment, support, and know-how, many of these women will have to give up breastfeeding all together.  Such a factor played a role in the IRS' recent decision to allow the deduction of breastpumps and other supplies as medical expenses.

Cue the circus of rich folks who are "tired of the government telling them what to do with their bodies."  Take Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachmann, whose reaction to increased accessibility of breastfeeding is probably nothing more than a political stunt: on the Laura Ingraham show, Bachmann railed against the supposed "nanny state" that we are creating by helping women make more autonomous infant feeding decisions.  Bachmann bragged, "I've given birth to five babies and I breast-fed every single one," continuing with, "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump ... That's the new definition of a nanny state."

Staying home and breastfeeding five babies is all well and good for Michelle Bachmann, but in communities where women are more likely to have to return to work soon after baby is born, laying down $200+ for a decent breast pump is out of the question.  Never mind that many of the jobs these women hold aren't exactly friendly to a mother's pumping needs (a cause which Mrs. Obama has also taken up), even a working mother with an office job is infinitely more able to keep her supply up while at work.  This is simply not the case in retail stores, schools, factories, and service industries.

Of course, to the hard-line conservative, women who cannot breastfeed their children should think twice about that before "choosing" to get pregnant in the first place.  Talk about government control of women's bodies: these are the same people who are currently working to remove Title X funding from family planning clinics, cut funding from supplemental nutrition programs, strike programs that provide prenatal and pediatric care, and of course, limit the accessibility of abortion.  It's almost like they, not the first lady, are the ones dictating what women are and are not able to do with their bodies, from the prevention of pregnancy to their infant feeding choices.

Michelle Obama's call to promote breastfeeding is hardly a question of government intervention.  Women know that breastfeeding is best, and most women want to be able to provide breastmilk for their children.  The problem is not that the government is intervening, but that for many women, continuing to breastfeed is out of the question.  Breaking down barriers, providing education and support, and promoting the healithiest of healthy practices is not just best for our newest citizens, it is in fact a practice that could save billions in medical costs per year.  You'd think these purported "fiscal conservatives" would be down with that... but then, who ever said they were champions of sound logic?

Rep. Giffords, Violence, and Moral Culpability

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona, I believe another discussion of violent rhetoric is in order. 

First off: no one is saying that Sarah Palin, Jesse Kelly, or the Tea Party Movement pulled the trigger.  No one is demanding these people be found guilty of any legal wrongdoing.  We are not blaming the act, in its entirety, on anything said by Glenn Beck or another Fox News talking head.  Though, I'm sure the above people/organizations will find a way to spin it so that it sounds like we are accusing them of such, just like Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that pro-choice groups said he was responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller in 2009. They will claim that we are "exploiting the tragedy" for "political gain," that we are just looking for a new way to demonize the all-powerful Tea Party Movement, all the while excusing themselves 100% from believing that anything they have said or done could have helped to foster an environment where someone would commit such an act.

No, Sarah Palin did not necessarily say "go shoot someone" with her crosshairs map.  Jesse Kelly did not technically endorse gunning down Rep. Giffords when he said "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office ... Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."  Glenn Beck has not been endorsing actual gun violence with his continued rhetoric of "taking back the government by force."  Not a single one of these individuals ran up to Giffords and pulled the trigger, nor did they personally put Loughner up to the task.  But that doesn't mean they have not helped to cultivate an environment where something like this could happen.  Does it mean they are legally liable and should be charged as accessories to murder?  No.  Does it mean they should be taken to task for their role in fostering such an environment through continued violent and inflammatory rhetoric?  Absolutely.

We must be guarded when we use phrases like "isolated incident," as in truth there is no such thing.  Each and every individual, especially those who would go so far beyond the customary range of human behavior, acts in response to social cues.  Not one of us lives in a vacuum free from societal influence, and while we cannot (and will not) claim that Sarah Palin is legally liable for Sunday's shooting, we can (and must) discuss the concept of moral culpability.

It is indeed an "ultra-liberal" way of thinking, though I shutter to use the L word here.  Indeed, it is a manner of thinking that leads us to ask why the high school drop-out robbed the convenience store, why the single mother sold her body for cash, why the student drugged and raped his date, and of course, why the young man unloaded an automatic weapon at an Arizona constituents event.  The answers give us some insight into the wrongdoer's life, giving us a bit of sympathy for their situation, if only for a moment.

In turn, we are labeled "bleeding-heart" and "soft on crime."  However, nothing could be further from the truth: while we ask why, we don't do it to excuse the crime itself.  We ask these questions because we know that there is no such thing as an "isolated incident."  We ask because we know that there will be others in the same situation, and those others are going to be inclined to behave in a similar manner.  We ask because we know that we as a society can do better, because we're not prepared to believe that some people are "just bad eggs." 

To say that some are "just bad eggs" is like saying "girls just like pink," or "boys just like toy cars."  We know that's bullshit, that girls like pink and boys like cars because they're told to, and that their budding preferences are reinforced by parents, television, friends, etc.  The same goes for people like Loughner, people who might already be "unstable" and frustrated, and then just need to interpret an influential figure's words as the go-ahead for violence.  This is something the Palins of the world don't seem to have figured out, or at least don't want to admit: actions have consequences.

It is never okay to use violent rhetoric against another person, no matter how innocuous it may seem.  This is all very easily spun as "they think Palin caused the shooting," but whatever.  I would rather be a "bleeding-heart" who asks why than the kind of person who incites violence then turns the other way when something tragic happens.

Birthing Against the Grain

 The following was originally posted at ChoiceUSA's Choice Words blog.

--------------------------------------------------

CNN featured a story today about Aneka, a woman who recently gave birth to her fourth child, vaginally and at home, after previously enduring three cesarean births. Apparently her obstetrician had told her that her pelvis was "too small" to deliver vaginally, and, after her first cesarean, she continued birthing surgically because she was told that was what she had to do.

For her forth child, the obstetrician scheduled a cesarean, but Aneka never showed. Since seven months gestation, she had been researching vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC. And, due to her area's hospitals not supporting VBACs and her doctor's suggestion for yet another cesarean, Aneka chose to give birth at home under the care of a midwife. The birth resulted in a healthy 9 pound baby, born vaginally after only four minutes of pushing.  (Small pelvis my ass.)

CNN offers dueling perspectives on the matter: some in the medical establishment believe Aneka's actions were "irresponsible" and dangerous, while birth advocates applaud her as a hero of the birth movement.

The home birth vs. hospital birth, VBAC vs. repeat cesarean debate is ongoing, with more and more evidence surfacing to suggest that a) home birth is as safe as hospital birth, assuming the woman does not experience major complications and is under the care of a midwife, and b) attempting a VBAC is safer than repeat cesarean, which is a major abdominal surgery that lengthens recovery time and often acts as an affront to breastfeeding.

But what concerns me about this story most is not the fact that this woman couldn't be better supported in her choices, or that she had to endure three cesareans before she found out that her body could give birth on its own, or even that it paints home birth as more dangerous than it is. What concerns me most is the public opinion surrounding Aneka's situation as evidenced by the article's comments. From the peanut gallery:

"Wow, talk about stupid. She got lucky, it really wouldn't have hurt her to go and have that c-section just to be safe. Well, I guess it's her decision. I'm just happy the baby didn't die because of her risk taking."

"I love the 'it's a woman's choice' line of thinking. What about the father (husband or not)? What about the baby?"

"This woman is a fool!"

"Who was she more concerned about, herself and her 'birth experience', or the risks to her baby?"

Never mind that this particular woman's birthing experience ended positively, or that most home birth experiences end that same way. No, Aneka was defiant and therefore is an idiot. She's irresponsible. She "could have" endangered her child's life by not listening to the doctor. In other words, women should do what they're told with their bodies, and besides, women need to stop thinking about what they want and just think about the baby (sound familiar?).

Even more troubling, many of the comments don't focus on stupidity; they focus, not surprisingly, on the number of children this Black woman has:

"I just hope she stops feeding her need to breed! Plus, she was really stupid."

"YOU HAVE 4 ALREADY! FIND THE OFF BUTTON! AND ALL YOU IDIOTS CRYING ABOUT MEXICANS AND THEIR KIDS, LOOK RIGHT HERE! THIS IS WHATS TRULY WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY, NOBODY NEEDS 5, 6 , 7 KIDS, THTS [sic] JUST NUTS...."

"Newsflash: She's an entitled black person."

So, in conclusion:

• A woman who makes an informed decision to switch to the care of a midwife after her scalpel-happy OB pushes cesarean surgery is "defiant."
• It's irresponsible to worry about having positive birthing experiences; all that matters is that the baby gets out alive.
  
• Women should never, ever have more children than the public thinks you should have, especially women of color.

How bad is it?

This bad.  All it is is a story about bad weather in the Middle East, and the comments are outrageous.  The most recent, presently at 10:35pm, are as follows (and remember, this is just a story about bad weather):

"allah mad"

"Heavy rains? It's o.k. I have seen many pictures of the Middle East- everyone wears a hat."

"Its Israels fault! They trained the storm to hit the other countries around them. Watch out for the Mossad ... I'm joking of course"

"Couldn't happen to a nicer group!"

"One thing is for sure. The sociopathic powers that be of the extremist countries in this region will find a way to blame this on the West and/or Israel, and the masses will believe them. Sometimes I think they rival cold war Russia when it comes to propoganda [sic]."

This is the kind of thing that will be looked back on the way we remember the segregationists or the McCarthyists.

Let's hope.

[shutters.]

Prematurity Awareness and Labor Induction

I learned from RH Reality Check that yesterday was Prematurity Awareness Day.  According to March of Dimes president Jennifer Howse, the United States has one of the highest rates of premature birth in the industrialized world, receiving a letter grade of "D" from the MoD.   The March of Dimes cites lack of access to early prenatal care and education as a main reason for the discrepancy. 

While I appreciate blogger Robin Marty for calling attention to this major problem in the United States, I must say I was shocked to find no mention of a common medical practice that contributes to premature birth: labor induction without medical indication. 

Others would call this "elective induction," but I've seen enough to know that it's usually the doctor, not the mother, that pushes for the induction, and therefore I find the term "elective" puts undue blame on the mother.  After all, we're supposed to trust our care providers.  When a doctor tells you that you "need" to be induced, we're not supposed to have to ask why.  We figure the term "need" means there's a problem.  But when it comes to induction of labor, a doctor telling you it's "needed" without providing an explanation usually means it's not needed at all.  (I always encourage my clients to ask lots of questions, even if they have a care provider that lays everything out for them.  If there's a problem, they'll usually tell you, but if they're pushing for an induction without saying why, you should know beforehand what the problem is, if any.)

Estimated due dates are just that: estimates.  In most cases, your body is the best indicator of when a baby is ready to be born, and the onset of labor is your cue.  Unless there is another complication (pre-eclampsia, placental insufficiency, gestational diabetes, etc), most babies will come when they're supposed to come.  As my dad says, "Babies are always right on time."  Inducing labor for the convenience of the doctor, the parents, or even the doula might seem okay or even preferable, but you could be cutting off valuable gestation time where the baby will be getting her/his final developmental markers.

In other words, babies born from induction can be (and sometimes are) classified as premature even if they're born at or slightly after the 38 week mark.  Again, your estimated due date is just an estimate, and different babies take different amounts of time to be "ready."  Studies show babies born at 38 weeks from a spontaneous labor have much better outcomes than babies born at 38 weeks from induction.  Babies born from induction are more likely to have jaundice, respiratory distress, lower APGAR scores, difficulty establishing a sleep cycle, increased risk for sepsis, and of course, difficulty breastfeeding.  Many induction babies need transfer to the NICU.  Being induced puts the mother at risk for cesarean, difficulty establishing a milk supply, and retained placenta (with or without cesarean surgery). 

Of course, there are good medical reasons to induce, and you should trust your care provider to help you make that call.  If there is an emergency and the baby needs to be born, good medical care and support from trained professionals can help curb these problems, but if induction is not necessary, why take the risk?  As far as the prematurity issue goes, well, you simply cannot address premature birth without addressing the medical practices that cause more babies to come too soon, and that practice is routine induction without medical indication.

Juan Williams isn't stupid.

No, I don't think NPR should have fired Juan Williams over last week's comments on The O'Reilly Factor.  I think NPR should have fired him when he fabricated comments by would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shazad, a huge no-no as any Journalism 101 student could tell you. I think NPR should have fired him when, despite many clear warnings from his employers, he continued to violate the standards of journalistic conduct that NPR holds each of its analysts to.  But, seeing how NPR failed to terminate his contract following any of those incidents, ousting him after his highly bigoted comments on the Factor was the next best thing.

Of course, none of this has stopped the talking heads at Fox News from railing on about how Williams' supposed "First Amendment rights" were violated.  And of course, Fox News was happy to take in the poor, oppressed Williams and offer him a $2million contract, thus giving us a clear answer to the question, "What does it take to get a job at Fox News?"  (In Williams' case, all you have to do is make some bigoted comments on one of their programs and get subsequently fired from what they see as a "liberal think tank.")

The firing issue, my friends, was not just that the comment was inflammatory.  The issue was that Juan Williams made an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor as a representative from NPR's analyst team.  He was not appearing as an individual, as the screencap on the left shows, but as a contributing journalist from NPR. When you appear on a television program as a representative of your employing agency, you're accountable for what you say and do.  This is nothing Williams didn't know.  That's just how employment works, period.

Even if Williams had appeared as an individual, NPR's code of ethics expressly prohibits journalists from "participat[ing] in shows, electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis."  Whether or not this standard stifles free speech is not the issue; Williams knew this code, he knew he was acting in violation of his employer's policy, and he chose to appear on The O'Reilly Factor anyway.

One could speculate that Williams appeared on the Factor to make inflammatory comments specifically so that his contract with NPR would be terminated.  He could have well known that the supposedly "pro-free speech" (read: pro-Islamaphobia) Fox News would play Good Samaritan and offer him, let's face it, a much more lucrative contract.

What's the other issue here?  Are we "too politically correct" about Muslims, Islam, and people from the Middle East?  Is it really "too politically correct" to expect someone to not be a racist?  Or do conservatives sense the tide turning away from knee-jerk Islamaphobia and cry "free speech" whenever one of their own is held accountable for their bigoted actions?

No, Fox News' interest in Williams has precious little to do with freedom of speech.  Their interest stems from their goal of keeping Islamaphobia the norm.  They would not have reacted so compassionately if Williams had been fired for, say, denouncing Christine O'Donnel's credibility or for saying something inflammatory about the Tea Party Movement.  Why would they?  They have no vested interest in promoting that way of thinking, and in the above cases they would have shunned him outright.  But when Williams comes under fire for his repeated racist, bigoted, and highly-editorialized "analysis," well, the corporate news dogs have got his back: Fox News chief Roger Ailes says Williams' right to say bigoted things will be "protected by Fox News on a daily basis."

Let me make one thing clear: Juan Williams is not the victim of a First Amendment violation.  He said what he said, and he is still a free citizen who does not have to worry about his government locking him up, or worse.  He exercised his right to say something bigoted, and NPR responded by exercising their right to fire his ass.  And in terms of how this ugly scenario turned out, I wouldn't worry much about Juan Williams.  Just because NPR isn't on the market for an Islamaphobe doesn't mean other news agencies aren't.  I think he'll be just fine.

Bullying Takes Another Life

Tyler Clementi was a Rutgers University first year who friends describe as "a terrific musician, and a very promising, hardworking young man."  But last week, he left a note on his Facebook page: "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."

What happened to turn this promising, talented violinist into a suicide statistic?  The answer may not surprise you.

Shortly before his death, Clementi asked his dorm roommate for privacy.  His roommate, Dharun Ravi, consented, but covertly turned on his webcam before leaving.  He later tweeted: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."  Two days later, he followed up, "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."  Ravi went on to broadcast the live stream on the internet. 

Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, both 18, have been charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy.  Ravi has also been charged with two more counts of invasion of privacy for taping the second encounter.  It is a fourth-degree crime to collect sexual images without consent, and transmitting them is a third-degree crime that could lead to a five year prison sentence.

The whole story makes me sick to my stomach.  I can't even begin to imagine the shame, the feelings of over-exposure, that drove Clementi to feel like suicide was his only option.  Being videoed in a more socially-acceptible, man-woman encounter would be bad enough, but having your sexuality exposed, being literally dragged out of the closet to hundreds of perfect strangers, is enough to make anyone feel as though there's no good way out.  It is a stark reminder of how prevalent bullying is and how dire the consequences can be.

My heart goes out to the friends and family of this young man whose life was taken far too soon by a society that saw his personal life as a side-show prank, an entity to be hunted and exposed, instead of a human being deserving of privacy, respect, and love.

Who's The Terrorist?

Today's post will take the form of a picture game I just made up.  It's called "Raided vs. Not Raided."  Let's see how ya do...

1. Which picture represents a movement has been targeted by the FBI for suspected material support for terrorism?

2.  Which sign has led to FBI investigations?

3.   Which message has prompted the FBI to raid the homes of several Minnesota and Chicago residents?

4.  Which activist can be seen getting high-fives from several police officers?

5.   EXTRA CREDIT.  How likely are the targets of the FBI raids to be arrested and charged with any offense, small or large?

Answers:
1.  A.  The latest FBI raids involved peace and justice activists who were suspected of supporting "terrorism" in Palestine and Columbia.  Minnesota resident Jessica Sundan told the press, "I don’t know what they’re looking for, but I do know that I’ve been an outspoken activist for peace and justice, opposing U.S. government intervention in other countries, including Colombia, which was one of the places listed on the warrant."  The picture on the right depicts a tea party activist threatening armed resistance. 

2. B.  The FBI also raided the home of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, whose banner is shown on the right.  The photo on the left is a recent shot of an anti-abortion protester. 

3.  B. Citing connections with "Colombian terrorist organizations," this week's FBI raids also targeted immigrants rights activities.  The sign on the left is from a National Organization for Marriage rally.

4. A.  The man with the rifle is at an anti-Obama rally where the president was speaking nearby.  The man in the picture on the right is anti-war activist Hatem Abudayyeh, also targeted by this week's FBI raids.

5.  Highly unlikely.  Historically, raids on anti-war, peace, and justice activists very rarely end in arrest or provide any incriminating evidence.  However, these raids are meant to send a message to social justice advocates everywhere: keep it quiet and non-threatening, or we may be at your door tomorrow.  On the flip side, I have yet to hear of any FBI investigations on the men who bring guns or warnings of guns to conservative rallies, whereas unarmed peaceful activists are regularly targeted by local and federal law enforcement.