For now, there is no in-between

To declare that The Wichita Divide evoked emotions I did not know I had would be making an understatement.

Rather, one evening after a long day of providing comprehensive, reproductive health care, I opened this newly released, 350+-page, hardbound account of the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the battle over abortion, then proceeded to carry it with me everywhere for seven lunches and seven bedtimes.

Some excerpts inspired web searches, journal entries, and visions of perfect health care in a perfectly open-hearted world, while chapters leading to the climax conjured sobs from my throat I’ve never heard before.

Do I recommend you read the truly terrifying Wichita Divide? Absolutely, but not because it’s painful. Because it is necessary. A master hate-crime writer, Stephen Singular will cushion your grief with big-picture facts.

You knew so much about Dr. Tiller, and if you didn’t know, you found out once he was murdered: his commitment to helping women in the face of humiliating and dangerous opposition, in and out of the court room, arranging adoptions to pro-choice parents, providing free services to nine-year-olds, loving husband, father, and grandfather, abiding spirit gifted to lead and to sooth those in their deepest hour of need, the day to day regimen of a terrorized abortioneer.

Singular presents Dr. Tiller sheer as he was. Yet, unlike abortioneers who’ve returned to clinics with resolved *attitude is everything* to continue to provide and expand compassionate health care, Singular has been connecting with the murderer’s wife, Lindsey Roeder—a brave woman liberated by her ex-husband’s sentence to imprisonment for the rest of his life. He also presents a picture of rising American hate and seedy blending of church and state. He wraps a variety of stories into a compelling narrative with a neutral yet urgent tone.

I cannot recommend this book enough. We know what it is we provide. We know it is always crucial and often good. Do mild-manner, one-track-mind, pro-life activists know what they snowball? Is the violence inevitable, fact-of-life statistical in light of mental illness, greed, narcissism, capitalism?

The question remains: who will stand to care...

Reading this book will either shake you like a 2-year-anniversary/every-day-the-dumb-and-dangerous-stigma-you-face monster, or it will sadly dash right over your head as you kneel in the gutter before the abortion clinic and shoot bullets in the backcountry soil.

Conscience Clause

So I finished the book that I reviewed/ranted about a couple weeks ago. Learned a lot and I highly recommend. Makes you very angry about the state of pro-choice affairs, especially internationally. And though I really don't need another reason to hate antis even more, I found one thanks to Christina Page. I'm even shocked that I, in my infinite wisdom, hadn't though of it before.

Why can docs/pharmacists opt out of learning about abortion/performing life-saving abortion services/writing scripts for or dispensing contraceptives, but pro-choice professionals can't opt out of reading the slime to their patients that abortion takes the life of a "little, tiny" person that is a separate being independent of the woman carrying it?

Take a look at all the states that have so-called "conscience clauses", reserving the right of providers and pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs. Consider a doctor in, say, THE GREAT STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, where the conscience clause exists, plus doctors are required to read this tripe to patients before an abortion:

"Under the law, doctors must say that the woman has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide."

Why can't that doctor refuse, based on his/her deeply-held scientific - or even religious - conviction, to speak to something that s/he does not believe? CAN THIS CASE NOT BE MADE?! WHY CAN'T WE TAKE THIS TO COURT?!

Legitimate questions, not just my own anger speaking. Why has this point not been brought up or acted on? (or am I just unaware?) It seems airtight to me, but then again I have common sense. THOUGHTS?!

Book Review

During Superbowl Sunday I was discussing abortion with a relatively pro-choice individual, and the question of the sexual health utopia arose.

Her version: all women would have unfettered access to contraception and would all use it scrupulously.

My version: all women would have unfettered access to abortion and would use it as needed with no fear of stigma or retaliation.

Now, I totally understand her side. A few years ago I was on that side too. But nowadays I understand that a) if abortion access is unfettered than contraceptive access has probably been unfettered for centuries, and b) some women, all types of women, simply don't want to use contraception. And as hard as that is for lots of folks to understand, it's true. And I'm not even talking unfortunate, hopelessly unaware women. I'm talking about fully aware, competent women who make the choice not to use a method. Maybe they don't like the way condoms feel, or they don't like the effects of hormonals on the body, or don't like OB/GYNs telling them what's best. Whatever the case, I'm finding more and more women out there who don't think twice about a) carrying as many pregnancies as they will because they don't practice contraception, or b) having as many abortions as they will because of the same.

And yet, and understandably so, my counterpart was horrified. Why would anyone do that? After the third abortion a woman must just be lazy or plain stupid. She even challenged my assertion that there was no limit to the number of abortions one could have before crossing an ethical line with all the disbelief of Fabio in an "I Can't Believe it's not Butter" commercial. And as strange as these things sounded to my reformed ears, I know that they are common sentiments. Any woman who has that many abortions on purpose must be crazy!

Now, it's not the road that I've chosen. I've never had an abortion or needed one, and I quite enjoy the daily hormones that have saved me over $100 in tampons over the last couple years. But when is it ever my place to tell Sue how many abortions she can have before I stop being her friend? I couldn't, wouldn't do it! The logical flaw is that I don't have an ethical dilemma with abortion, therefore the number of times a non-unethical act is committed makes no difference to me.

Man, that was a tough conversation to get through. Anyway, I relayed this incident with a friend of mine, who recommended to me the following book: [/rant] [actual blog topic]

I'm not really familiar with the author (Cristina Page, anyone?), but she's great because she says everything I already know to be true but in a way that makes you actually want to listen and not cringe at my boisterousness. And her basic premise is something we all know to be true, but don't articulate quite enough: Antis are not simply anti-abortion, or even anti-contraceptive. They are anti-sex!

This is true enough, and I enjoy that Page makes a series of logical steps to prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt. Most importantly, by pointing out how antis refuse to accept any scientific evidence you provide, make up their own to counter it, and reject the most sensible compromises that will ensure that abortion rates plummet.

Wanna hear some funny things about antis? (As if you haven't heard enough by now.) On the prolife.com website, masturbation is identified as a "homosexual" behavior, that is, "sex with a person of the same sex, namely, yourself." Ah, if only I'd had a nickel for every time an anti whacked off. But you can find this and other philosophical gems in the book. Very excited to finish it and report back to you all the musings of dumb-dumbs and do-dos.

Ta!

Thinkin' bout love

Valentine's Day has got me thinking about love. I once read an essay about "love" by bell hooks. As a writer bell hooks has explored the complexities of love in ways I have never even considered. In a women's studies class at the age of 19 years old bell hook's analysis of love changed my outlook on dating, love, and partnership. bell hooks made the point that love is a choice, when people look at love as though it happens to them it can be destructive. Its important to stand in love rather than "fall" in love and be victimized by "love". hooks has written a book called All About Love, in this book she looks at people's desire for love and difficulty communicating about the subject. As a black feminist writer she has covered topics that are far beyond relationships and love but this is writer has touched my heart and made me think about what it means to love someone and to be in relationships with other people.