Totally not discussing the election today. Because really... no.
There's a video a lot of people are posting where a boy toddler is
repeatedly and aggressively pressing himself against a girl toddler
despite her continued efforts to push him away. People are absolutely
cooing over it, remarking at how adorable it is and "awe he's in love,"
and "oh look that little girl is so assertive and cute."
I gotta say, it's not friggin cute. It's
an absolute disregard of this little girl’s boundaries. Then there's the adult
behind the camera, giggling and doing nothing... how disgusting. And how analogous it is to when grown men don’t take no
for an answer, no matter how much a woman pushes and shoves and says no.
You
might say, but they're just babies. They don't know any better. "Boys
will be boys." Oh yeah? And at what age, exactly, does this kind of
invasive behavior become "not okay," because I've heard people use the
same excuse for college-aged men who sexually harass women. And what
better time to teach someone that pushing himself (or herself) upon a
person who clearly doesn't want to be touched is not fucking okay?
Instead, we film it and redistribute it all over the internet, cooing
and laughing. Gross.
This is how we teach boys not to respect women’s spaces.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Last Night's Nums: Braised Coconut Spinach and Chickpeas
This was a very simple recipe that, while curry-ish, was a nice change from the constant legitimate curries we eat around here. It's very flavorful and goes well over brown rice (though any grain would probably work). What's more, it's made almost entirely from things we regularly stock, so it's a nice thing to throw together on those nights where you want to eat in but haven't thought ahead enough to go shopping.
You will need:
2 teaspoons oil or ghee
1 small yellow onion
2 cups red potato, chopped into 1" chunks
4 large cloves garlic, peeled and minced
1 tablespoon fresh grated ginger
2 teaspoons turmeric
1/3 cup sun-dried tomatoes, chopped
1 large lemon, zested and juiced (about 2 tablespoons juice)
Dash of red pepper flakes
15-ounce can chickpeas, drained
1/2 pound frozen spinach
14-ounce can coconut milk
1 teaspoon salt, or to taste
1 teaspoon ground ginger
Instructions:
 |
| Complete with a view of the utter mess that is my kitchen. |
Add the chickpeas and cook over high heat for a few minutes or until the chickpeas are beginning to turn golden and they are coated with the onion and garlic mixture.
Reduce heat to medium. Toss in the spinach and stir to blend. It will begin to look and smell seriously tasty. Let cook until all the ice crystals have melted off the spinach. (If using fresh spinach, toss in one handful at a time until the wilting makes room for more.)
When all the spinach has been stirred in, pour in the coconut milk and stir in the salt, ground ginger, and lemon juice. Bring to a simmer then turn down the heat and cook for 10 minutes or until the chickpeas are warm through. Taste and add more salt and lemon juice, if necessary.
Garnish with cilantro. Serve over brown rice with a side of nan or other tasty flat bread.
 |
| YUM! |
Monday, October 29, 2012
The Wolf or the Fox? Or, why I voted 3rd party this year.
Believe it or not, this was kind of difficult decision for me. In past election cycles, I've allowed myself to be roped into the "lesser of two evils" game, told that I should vote for the Democrat for purposes of "damage control," that I as a woman should understand this more than anyone. And in past elections, I felt pretty okay about it.
So why the sudden change? Well, for one thing, I realized that I've never actually used my right to vote to vote FOR someone. Every time, I'm voting AGAINST Bush, AGAINST McCain, this or that person. I'm sick of it, and this time I wanted to use my vote - that right that my feminist foremothers fought tirelessly for - to amplify my voice, not my concession.
Of course this decision has been/will continue to be met with some heated arguments for an Obama vote. So I thought I'd address some of those here.
"But why this election? This is the most important election of our lifetime!"
Yeah you said that last time. And the time before that.
Okay, I get it. The idea of a Romney presidency scares you even more than the prospect of a McCain/Palin administration scared you four years ago. I do not blame you; the Republicans have become increasingly confident in the past few years, and they are using that confidence to push some seriously frightening policies. I mean, that so many GOP'ers feel okay saying totally inappropriate (and inaccurate) things about abortion and rape is frightening enough... that they continue to garner support from a large portion of the population is beyond me.
But really, why not let this be an important election for Third Parties as well? I believe that enough people are disenfranchised with the limitations of our two-party system that now is the time to shift the conversation. The more buzz these third parties get, the better. To borrow words from my candidate, Dr. Stein:
"Progressives have been told we dare not vote for our values and our vision because dangerous things will happen — witness Ralph Nader. We have 10 years of experience with muzzling ourselves politically, and it’s very clear now that silence has not been an effective political strategy, and that the politics of fear in fact has delivered all those things that we were afraid of."
"Great, I totally see the value in generating buzz for third parties. But why do you have to do it this election??"
What, are you going to be more receptive to my "throwing away my vote" next time around? I seem to remember the exact same line being used in 2008. And 2004. The point is, there's never going to be an "ideal time" to shift the conversation, so why not today?
"But but but... the courts! You of all people should recognize the importance of the courts!!"
I know, I know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is likely to retire soon, as are a couple other Supreme Court justices. Roe v. Wade is in danger. I understand. I went through that entire process in my head, and when I came out of it, I still could not in good conscience cast a vote for Obama.
Look, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would be a disaster. But it would also be an opportunity. We've become so overwhelmed with the reproductive rights struggle that we’re in defensive mode. We’re trying desperately to hold on to the limited rights we won back in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision. Because of the numerous attacks on the basic right to choose, it almost seems like we have no alternative.
But simply holding on to what we gained with Roe bars a large percentage of the population from their realization of reproductive justice. For example, Roe v. Wade never guaranteed access to abortion, evidenced by the passage of the Hyde Amendment several years later. This amendment continues to restrict abortion access to young and lower-income women of all stripes.
The battle over Roe has also forced us to focus our attention solely on the legality of abortion. To be sure, the vision of reproductive justice is not about the right to terminate a pregnancy; to me, reproductive justice encompasses the entire experience of being a sexual being capable of reproduction. When we focus solely on maintaining Roe, we lose our ability to fight for everything else. Reproductive justice encompasses far more than convincing legislators to allow us to do what we should have the right to do in the first place, and as disastrous as it would be to lose Roe, it would open the door for some real shit to start happening.
"But you're a health care worker! What about Obamacare? Your clients could lose their insurance coverage for your services."
Indeed they could. But if I remember correctly, Obama already sold out my and my clients' rights when he used our health care as a bargaining chip to get the bill passed in the first place. And just because the Affordable Care Act makes women's health care a more accessible doesn't mean it's anything close to what we deserve. The people of the United States deserve universal, single-payer health care; Democrats never wanted to fight for that in the first place, and if they did, they dropped that platform at the first accusation of "socialism." All the more reason to cast a ballot for someone who believes that health care is a basic human right.
"I mean, Obama's not perfect, but he's not that bad, is he?"
I'm not as elegant as I'd like to be on this matter, so I'll let Dr. Stein break it down for us:
"Obama has basically embraced most of Bush’s policies, including drill baby drill, pro-nuke, pro-coal, undermining the Durban [climate] accords. He’s celebrating the beginnings of the Keystone pipeline. We still have twice as many troops in Afghanistan as we had under George Bush. The only reason Obama withdrew from Iraq was because he was unable to negotiate immunity for the troops, so he wound up having to accept what was George Bush’s timeline for withdrawal."What it comes down to is that progressives have no voice in our corrupt, money-driven electoral system. If it were up to me, this system wouldn't even exist anymore, but when I have the opportunity to vote for someone who truly reflects my values, I'll take it. Casting a ballot for a war-mongering corporate candidate, to me, is almost as offensive as casting one for a war-mongering corporate candidate who's also anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ. Remember, the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is lube.
Lastly, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not look down upon progressives who have had the same internal dialogue and came to a different conclusion. If you harbor very real criticisms of Obama but voted for him anyway, I completely understand. If you harbor so many criticisms of the system that you don't vote at all, I understand that as well. I'm not going to put you down, call you a spineless liberal, or accuse you of "playing into" the system. Your vote is your choice, and so long as it is well-informed, I respect your decision. All I ask in return is that you do the same for me.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Feminism and the Case of the Shrinking Costume
This is going around the interwebs today:
The Evolution of Girls' Halloween Costumes
I've made it a policy not to engage in debate with the friends of acquaintances, but when the friend of a friend commented on Facebook that feminism, secularism, and sex positivity were to blame for this phenomenon, I decided to come here to discuss the many ways she's wrong.
Patriarchy manifests itself differently in different cultures. In theocracies, it may come with the expectation that a woman remain completely modest in dress and behavior, norms that may or may not be enforced by law. In our capitalist society, however, patriarchy manifests as the idea that our bodies - and our sexualities - are commodities to be bought and sold, cheered on and exploited by the standards of the male gaze.
The common theme is that our bodies are not our own; they are controlled by a system of oppression, or sometimes even by another human being directly. Whether we're being forced to cover ourselves against our will or made to believe that our only worth comes in being sexy for another person's enjoyment, it's all patriarchy, and it's all intensely detrimental.
So the sexy costumes. I have friends who enjoy them immensely. But you know what? They're grown adults who have chosen - though likely through a lifetime of socialization - to don very skimpy outfits on Halloween, at parties, etc. Most of them wouldn't be caught dead in a Halloween store's $10 faux corset, but at a glance their wardrobe choices appear similar to the costumes I tend to roll my eyes at. Which is to say, I don't exactly cheer on the practice, but I do respect it as a means of self-expression, a reflection of our patriarchal society though it may be.
It gets hairy when you start parsing "choice" and "autonomy" with the knowledge that we do not exist in a vacuum, that all our behaviors and choices are influenced by the way we've been brought up. But what we can probably all agree on is that the availability of these ever-shrinking costumes - and the disappearance of other options - pollutes the minds of girls from a very early age. If from a young age a girl consistently sees nothing but outfits that highlight her chest and fall far above her knee, how can we even begin to hope that she will be able to express her sexuality autonomously as an adult?
Make no mistakes... the sexualization of young girls is not the result of feminism, secularism, or sex positivity (ideals that all deem autonomous decision making and healthy sexuality of high value). No, childhood sexualization comes, not surprisingly, from our culture's version of patriarchy: a capitalist view that sees bodies as objects to be bought and sold.
The Evolution of Girls' Halloween Costumes
I've made it a policy not to engage in debate with the friends of acquaintances, but when the friend of a friend commented on Facebook that feminism, secularism, and sex positivity were to blame for this phenomenon, I decided to come here to discuss the many ways she's wrong.
Patriarchy manifests itself differently in different cultures. In theocracies, it may come with the expectation that a woman remain completely modest in dress and behavior, norms that may or may not be enforced by law. In our capitalist society, however, patriarchy manifests as the idea that our bodies - and our sexualities - are commodities to be bought and sold, cheered on and exploited by the standards of the male gaze.
The common theme is that our bodies are not our own; they are controlled by a system of oppression, or sometimes even by another human being directly. Whether we're being forced to cover ourselves against our will or made to believe that our only worth comes in being sexy for another person's enjoyment, it's all patriarchy, and it's all intensely detrimental.
So the sexy costumes. I have friends who enjoy them immensely. But you know what? They're grown adults who have chosen - though likely through a lifetime of socialization - to don very skimpy outfits on Halloween, at parties, etc. Most of them wouldn't be caught dead in a Halloween store's $10 faux corset, but at a glance their wardrobe choices appear similar to the costumes I tend to roll my eyes at. Which is to say, I don't exactly cheer on the practice, but I do respect it as a means of self-expression, a reflection of our patriarchal society though it may be.
It gets hairy when you start parsing "choice" and "autonomy" with the knowledge that we do not exist in a vacuum, that all our behaviors and choices are influenced by the way we've been brought up. But what we can probably all agree on is that the availability of these ever-shrinking costumes - and the disappearance of other options - pollutes the minds of girls from a very early age. If from a young age a girl consistently sees nothing but outfits that highlight her chest and fall far above her knee, how can we even begin to hope that she will be able to express her sexuality autonomously as an adult?
Make no mistakes... the sexualization of young girls is not the result of feminism, secularism, or sex positivity (ideals that all deem autonomous decision making and healthy sexuality of high value). No, childhood sexualization comes, not surprisingly, from our culture's version of patriarchy: a capitalist view that sees bodies as objects to be bought and sold.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Waiting Till The Wedding Night, Helpfully Explained By The Bluth Family
Inspired by Jezebel's GIF parade to explain the recent Fox News "opinion" piece on waiting until marriage, I present to you...
Waiting Till The Wedding Night - Getting Married The Right Way
Helpfully Explained by the Bluth Family
Helpfully Explained by the Bluth Family
As anyone who’s read my abstinence column here at Fox News Opinion could guess, my wedding is something that I’ve looked forward to for quite some time. After having tied the knot at the end of August, I can now say beyond all shadow of a doubt, that it was everything I’d hoped and prayed that it would be since childhood. (I’d also prayed to be bitten by a radioactive spider and develop sticky hands, but… I was an idiot.)
Let me preface this column by saying this: my wife (I have to get used to saying that) and I not only waited sexually in every way (no, we didn’t pull the Bill Clinton and technically avoid “sex” sex,)...
...but we didn’t shack up as live-ins and most importantly, we courted each other in a way that was consistent with our publicly professed values.
We did it right.
Feeling judged? I couldn’t care less. You know why? Because my wife and I were judged all throughout our relationship. People laughed, scoffed and poked fun at the young, celibate, naive Christian couple.
We’d certainly never make it to the wedding without schtupping, and if we did, our “wedding night would be awkward and terrible,” they said.
Turns out that people couldn’t have been more wrong. Looking back, I think that the women saying those things felt like the floozies they ultimately were, and the men, with their fickle manhood tied to their pathetic sexual conquests, felt threatened.
I think it’s important to write this column not to gloat (though I’ll be glad to), but to speak up for all of the young couples that have also done things the right way. When people do marriage right, they don’t complain so much, and so their voices are silenced by the rabble of promiscuous charlatans, peddling their pathetic world view as “progressive.”
Our wedding was perfect.
Our wedding night was nothing short of amazing.
I write this on a plane heading into a tropical paradise with the most beautiful woman to have walked the planet earth. I know everybody says that their bride was the “most beautiful in the world.” They’re wrong. I win.
I’d like to tell you a story of our morning after, however. One that transpired into one of the most glaring epiphanies I’d ever had.
As my wife (again, still not used to that) and I ate breakfast at a local inn, we discussed how excited we were to start the rest of our lives together, how scary it was that everything was now so different. At the same time, we overheard the table next to us discussing their very own wedding from the night prior. What a coincidence!
“The thing is, nothing’s really changed,” the bride said.
Puzzled, my wife asked, “Did you get married last night too? So did we!”
“Congratulations!” the other dame said. “Yeah we did, just last night.”
“Where’s the groom?” my wife innocently… scratch that, naively asked.
“Oh, he’s sleeping. There was no way he was coming out with me this morning!” She paused and smirked. “Let’s just say that he’s got a lingering headache from a really good time last night.”
My heart sank. Firstly, that poor schmuck's “good time” was simply getting snookered. Not enjoying the company of close family and long-lost friends with a clear head and clean conscience, not staring in awe at his beautiful new wife, wanting to soak in every glimmer of her eyes as she shot him heart-racing looks from across the dance floor, not taking all of the cheesy pictures as they cut the cake, not even carrying her across that suite threshold as they nervously anticipated their “nightcap.”
He probably won’t remember any of it. Instead, he got smashed. He was “that guy”… at his own freaking wedding.
Then I realized something. Our wedding was truly a once in a lifetime event. It was a God’s-honest celebration of two completely separate lives now becoming one. Physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually, everything that made us who we were individually was becoming what bonded us together. Our family traveled from far and wide to celebrate the decision of two young people to truly commit themselves to each other, and selflessly give themselves to one another in a way that they never had before that very night.
The people next to us that morning? Well, theirs was just one big party. And the morning after? Just another hangover.
Our “weddings” were the same event in name only. They know it, and we know it.
Do yours the right way. If you’re young and wondering whether you should wait, whether you should just give in, become a live-in harlot/mimbo and do it the world’s way.
If you’re wondering whether all of the mocking, the ridicule, the incredible difficulty of saving yourself for your spouse is worth it, let me tell you without a doubt that it is. Your wedding can be the most memorable day and night of your life… or just another party.
Oops. Did I just make a “judgment?” You’re darn right I did.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Newsflash: It's Not Unusual To Measure Pregnancy From Two Weeks Prior To Conception
The following is a cross-post from RHRealityCheck.org
------------------------
Dear Everyone,
Please stop referring to Arizona's new abortion ban as the "Pregnancy Begins Two Weeks Before Conception Act." It's an ill-informed statement and makes us all look like we don't know what we're talking about. Plus, it focuses on the wrong aspects of the bill.
First of all, from a health care standpoint, pregnancy is nearly always measured from two weeks prior to when implantation (the physiological beginning of pregnancy) actually occurs. All clinicians - doctors, midwives, the good folks at your local Planned Parenthood - measure pregnancy not from how long a person has actually been pregnant, but from their last menstrual period (LMP), which falls about two weeks prior to implantation. This is partly because we don't always know exactly when a person actually became pregnant, but mostly because it's far more accurate to measure a person's unique gestation rate by her cycle.
In other words, if I was pregnant and had my last menstrual period on July 23, I would be classified as "six weeks pregnant" even though I've probably only been pregnant for about four. This is not unusual, and all clinics that provide abortions measure your pregnancy this way.
Now, let's instead focus on the real problems with this bill. The ban on abortions after the 20th week LMP (18 weeks gestation, for those of you playing along at home) is an arbitrary marker backed up by the idea that fetuses feel pain after this point (there in fact is no evidence to support this claim). My own state of North Carolina has had this ban in place for years, as do Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The Arizona bill also requires women to have an ultrasound 24 hours to having an abortion, requires clinics that provide abortions to be held to higher standards than most other outpatient surgical facilities, and states that providers must have admitting privileges in local hospitals (again not something that is generally required of practitioners operating in other kinds of outpatient surgical centers). In other words, the Arizona bill is a major attack on abortion access, not just a bill that challenges our understanding of gestational measurement.
So really, instead of calling it the "Pregnancy Begins Two Weeks Before Conception Act," I'd like to suggest the following alternatives:
Your Friendly Full-Spectrum Doula,
Lauren
------------------------
Dear Everyone,
Please stop referring to Arizona's new abortion ban as the "Pregnancy Begins Two Weeks Before Conception Act." It's an ill-informed statement and makes us all look like we don't know what we're talking about. Plus, it focuses on the wrong aspects of the bill.
In other words, if I was pregnant and had my last menstrual period on July 23, I would be classified as "six weeks pregnant" even though I've probably only been pregnant for about four. This is not unusual, and all clinics that provide abortions measure your pregnancy this way.
Now, let's instead focus on the real problems with this bill. The ban on abortions after the 20th week LMP (18 weeks gestation, for those of you playing along at home) is an arbitrary marker backed up by the idea that fetuses feel pain after this point (there in fact is no evidence to support this claim). My own state of North Carolina has had this ban in place for years, as do Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The Arizona bill also requires women to have an ultrasound 24 hours to having an abortion, requires clinics that provide abortions to be held to higher standards than most other outpatient surgical facilities, and states that providers must have admitting privileges in local hospitals (again not something that is generally required of practitioners operating in other kinds of outpatient surgical centers). In other words, the Arizona bill is a major attack on abortion access, not just a bill that challenges our understanding of gestational measurement.
So really, instead of calling it the "Pregnancy Begins Two Weeks Before Conception Act," I'd like to suggest the following alternatives:
- The "Let's All Use Bunk Science To Legislate When A Fetus Feels Pain" Act
- The "Arbitrary Guidelines On Gestational Restrictions For Abortion" Act
- The "Women Are Incapable Of Making Their Own Decisions" Act
- The "State-Sanctioned Rape" Act (to borrow from the Virginia bill passed earlier this year)
- The "Let's Place So Many Restrictions On Who Can Provide Abortions That No One Can" Act
Your Friendly Full-Spectrum Doula,
Lauren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)