Meet Paul Ryan, Or, Sound the Alarm Bell

If you haven’t heard yet, Mitt Romney has selected his running mate: Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan. He is a great choice - if you’re wealthy, white, and male. Otherwise, fuggettahhbouttit.

 Let’s review some key facts about Paul Ryan as they relate to his views on women.

• He co-sponsored a bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which defined a fertilized egg has a human being. If this horrible piece of legislation passed, it would criminalize most forms of birth control, including the pill and in vitro fertilization. 
• He supports banning all abortions for everyone. No exceptions for any woman or situation. Doesn't matter if the mother will die, if the mother is 13 and was raped by her father, if the fetus has terrible anomalies would only live a few painful minutes. He doesn't care.
• He voted for the Protect Life Act, which would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to women who would die otherwise. 
• He voted to ban federal health coverage from including abortion. 
• He supported the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act, which would allow employers to question women about what birth control they use and why, and to deny them coverage for birth control if they feel like.
• He voted to provide funding to health care providers who do NOT provide information about abortion.
• He has expressed support for states to prosecute women who have abortions as well as the physicians who provide the abortions. 
• He voted against family planning information in US aid abroad. 
• Like Romney, he wants to defund Planned Parenthood, which as we all know, is an important place for women and men to seek STD testing/treatment, breast, cervical, and testicular cancer screenings, birth control, etc.
• He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. So basically he doesn’t believe women deserve equal pay for equal work. 
• He authored a budget that would dismantle many government assistance programs, like food stamps, which women and children disproportionately rely on.

But really, I should just let him speak for himself:

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets . . . You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”

!!! Okay then. Since there's no "trucing" on women's rights issues, the only thing that we can hope for is that Ryan's extreme views will turn off moderate Republicans, independents, and all women everywhere. (Besides the fact he is completely unsupportive of gays, minorities, students, seniors, the environment, etc.)

Paul Ryan: I do not like him.

Defining Choice

I came across an editorial published online for the Chicago Sun Times about being pro-choice and whether that means defending one's right to have an abortion or to carry to term. I won't recount their editorial, but I think it's a pretty interesting read and recommend you check it out. It made me think about choice and what it means to be pro-choice.

For me personally, pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. I am pro-choice because I think that people have the right to make decisions about their life and their body. If your choice is lawful, why should it be any of my business? For me this means people should be able to choose abortion, choose to carry to term, choose to use their preferred method of contraception, or choose not to use contraception - all without stigma.

It frustrates me to no end when someone refers to me as pro-abortion, which is something anti-choice folks say all the time. First of all, abortion is only one part of what choice means to me. Also, and this may surprise or bother some of my pro-choice brethren, but I'm not pro-abortion. I don't necessarily think that someone should have an abortion. I think they should have the CHOICE. That's what it's about - the ability to choose what is best for you. This blog is the Abortioneers and a lot of what we do and talk about obviously revolves around abortion, but choice, for me, includes many different aspects of reproductive health. And I am happy to live in a country where people have the right to decide which choice is right for them and their families.

Animals and Abortion Part 2: Similar movements?

Hello readers of Abortioneers and Abortion Gang! Welcome to the second installment of our Animals and Abortion series, hosted by Vegan Vagina and ProChoiceGal. You may remember our last post, which dealt with how PETA gets things wrong. Today we are blogging about intersections, similarities, and differences between the animal rights movement and anti-abortion movement. We received some good comments in response to our first blog that started to address the tactics used by both movements and we wanted to delve deeper into the issues, so here we go…

Q. Can you give a brief overview of some of the perceived similarities between the animal rights movement and anti abortion movement?

VV: First off, I do want to acknowledge that there exists much diversity within each movement and not everyone uses the same tactics or even has similar philosophies about how to impact change around their issues. However, in regards to the “extreme” members of both movements, in terms of similar tactics I immediately think of the gory images that both groups use. Anti abortion trucks will parade near shopping malls and community events (especially where kids congregate) with alleged fetuses that were aborted plastered across the exterior of their vehicles. These fetuses will be positioned next to dimes for size comparison and they are often portrayed sucking their thumbs or curled up. Animal rights groups often show animals that are mistreated in factory farms and this past year a well-known group, Mercy For Animals, launched a Farm to Fridge tour where they went city to city showcasing the horrors of factory farming.Another similarity that I see is coercion; anti abortion groups will convince pregnant women to keep their babies with the alluring promise of baby clothes, financial support, jobs, or housing. Mercy for Animals was offering money for people to watch their footage of factory farms and often does “feed-ins” where they provide vegan food samples.

A final similarity is violence. Many members of both movements feel violence is justified in order to take down leaders at the top. While those who advocate violence are in the minority, their extreme actions can have a huge impact. Abortion clinic workers are murdered, stalked, injured, harassed, etc, or threatened with these things constantly. CEOS who run animal testing facilities and labs are also stalked and threatened, and a common tactic of arson has done millions of dollars of damage to facilities that partake in animal cruelty. A common tactic used by both movements is picketing outside of homes and distributing fliers to neighbors in order to shame those who support abortion or animal cruelty. Members of both movements are tracked on FBI lists and are often labeled as domestic terrorists. I am currently reading a great new book by Will Potter that outlines the history of “eco terrorists” and there are many mentions to the anti abortion movement and how the government tracks crimes against abortion providers differently than eco crimes (I really recommend this book!).

Q. Do you think that gory images are an effective way or converting people, either to veganism or to anti-choice?

PCG: In general, no. There are exceptions, but I believe that gory images and videos, especially when they're forced upon the public, generally turn people away from both veganism and from the anti-choice movement. Whenever I hear people react to anti-choicers flaunting alleged aborted fetus photos in public, their reactions are always, without exception, angry, annoyed, and all around negative. This holds true for veganism, as well. I believe that one of the worst things that a movement can do for itself is forcing people to look at these kinds of pictures. People just do not react well to it in my experience.



Q. Did gory images or videos influence your decision to become vegan?

PCG: Somewhat. Gory photos and videos would not have given me enough of a push by themselves to convert me to veganism. They were, however, a small part of the big picture. I almost definitely would still be vegan even if I had never seen gory slaughterhouse videos and pictures. The thing is, I didn't need those pictures and videos to know that animals are sentient beings who are very capable of feeling pain. What I needed to push me to choose veganism were facts. For example, for the longest time, I had no idea that there was so much cruelty involved in the dairy industry. I did not know that it was so closely linked to the veal industry. It was facts like that that got me from saying "I could NEVER give up cheese!" to being the vegan I am today.

VV: I went vegetarian without ever seeing a gory picture, but I will admit that a PETA brochure is what pushed me over the edge to become vegan. The images still gross me out when I see them and I choose to look away, but it’s ok for me to look away because I don’t need convincing. I fear that everyone else looks away and just chooses not to think about the processes involved in where their food comes from, so ultimately the animal rights movement could spend their money in better places that won’t be ignored.

Q. Vegan organizations and anti-choice organizations have both been known for using coercive tactics to convert people to their movement, such as putting up fliers in the neighborhoods of people who oppose them, paying people to watch gory videos, etc. How do you feel about this?

PCG: I disagree with coercive tactics being used to convert people. I consider them not only morally wrong, but also highly ineffective. Putting up fliers in the neighborhoods of "higher ups" in order to shame them is a tactic that both groups have used in the past. I find this behavior awful. To me, it's stalking behavior. Anti-choicers have been doing this for ages, in order to shame, stalk, and draw attention to abortion providers and their families, and the pro-choice community knows very well that it incites violence. As for paying people to watch gory videos, while I think this is wrong, I actually don't think this is as bad as just flaunting huge gory pictures outside in public, so that anyone who walks by has no choice but to look. I also don’t see it as an effective way of converting people. Again, gory videos and pictures which are not backed up with facts hardly ever do any good.

VV: I disagree with any group or movement using coercive tactics, specifically money to win people over to their point of view. I also feel it is not a sustainable way to change behavior, because the money will eventually go away and people will go back to their usual ways.



Q. Do you think it's fair to compare the tactics of animal rights groups to the tactics of anti-choice groups?

PCG: I believe that vegans and anti-choicers are coming from two vastly different belief systems. As far as the message behind the movements, I see absolutely no comparison. Vegans fight for the bodily autonomy of sentient beings while anti-choicers do just the opposite. However, vegans and anti-choicers have both resorted to some of the same tactics. As a vegan, I think that it’s intensely important to recognize the problems that reside within veganism and to take action to fix them. Still, despite these similarities, I don’t think that the problems within vegan activism are nearly as prominent as those in the anti-choice movement. For example, when vegans resort to problematic bullying tactics, it’s targeted towards the “higher ups” in animal abuse. When anti-choicers resort to bullying and stalking tactics, it’s targeted towards absolutely anyone who opposes them. Veganism does have its problems which we need to recognize. I just don’t think that these problems are as extreme as the hatred that goes on within the anti-choice movement.

VV: Obviously since I am vegan my natural tendency is to support most tactics used to convince the entire world to GO VEGAN. Although, I realize it is something people need to come to on their own, without coercion or bribes. However, people often need education on this issue since we are really told nothing about where our food comes from, and sometimes a picture of the reality of what animals goes through does hit home. I do not think this is the same as what anti abortion people do; I think their images are falsified and manipulative and taken out of context.

Thank you for reading the second installment of our series Animals and Abortion! You can look forward to more posts soon, including posts on topics such as vegan birth control, vegan sex toys, and more. Also, your feedback and ideas for future posts are more than welcome! We hope that you enjoyed this installment of Animals and Abortion!

Can you be liberal and anti-abortion?

Note: for the purpose of this post I will be using the words liberal/progressive/democrat interchangeably.

I have been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be progressive and if the issues that I consider to fall under this umbrella can be compartmentalized? I think we all know people who say they are “socially liberal but fiscally conservative”. But what about the people who say they are socially liberal EXCEPT when it comes to gay rights, or immigration, or interfaith relationships, OR choice? It confuses me. I see the intersections between all these issues and feel that the core of my being just naturally leans left and innately supports the entire liberal portfolio. So, when I meet these people who are extremely fucking diehard yellow-dog-democratic but then say, “well except I am against abortion” it really throws me for a loop. I understand why the religious right is against abortion. I understand why rich white men are against abortion. I can even understand why people who were adopted are against abortion. I do not get why progressives would be against abortion.

Ok, so maybe I do. I mean, on some level I do get it. A handful of these progressive antis are ridiculously privileged and therefore they can spout off their views from a place of “that-will-never-be-me” (until it is of course…). Progressive people are often idealists and so I can understand how they dream of a world without abortion and have some fantasy where it won’t ever need to happen (keep dreaming).

There are even legitimate groups who are anti-choice but would seem otherwise liberal; how could we forget about our good friends Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life, and my old friends PLAGAL (I wrote about them here)?

Overall though, these liberal antis piss me off. Way more than your usual run-of-the-mill anti. Can someone explain? Has anyone run into this unique brand of anti?

p.s. In case you need a refresher on all the other types of antis, anti-anti spells it out nicely in a previous blog post here

Two Years

Take at the St. Louis Vigil for Dr. George Tiller on June 1, 2009.
It was two years ago today that Dr. Tiller was gunned down in church and brutally assassinated. In the wake of his murder, there were many calls and cries for increased security, for better laws, and more protection for these doctors who provide legal medical services to our citizens.

Just six days ago, Ralph Lang was arrested after accidentally firing his gun in a motel room, located near a Planned Parenthood he was planning to attack the next morning.

Thank goodness Ralph Lang is an idiot and was caught before he could take any lives, but that was a really close call. What would have happened if he didn’t accidentally shoot off his gun? What if more doctors, or even nurses, were killed? Lang didn’t seem to have a particular bias in terms of who he was murdering, stating that he wanted to "...line them up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down."

Today, two years after the death of Dr. Tiller, are abortion providers safe? Are they at least safer? I don’t think they are. Between the House’s completely messed up agenda, the Planned Parenthood debacle, terrible new state laws, it just seems like the environment is so overwhelmingly toxic.



Though many doctors, nurses, clinic staff, volunteers, and others are stepping up to the plate to help fill the void left in Dr. Tiller’s absence, it is still very apparent that he is gone. On one hand, it seems like so long ago that I spoke with patients, trying to help them make alternate plans after his death, hoping there was someone else out there who could see them. Yet it seems like just yesterday I got a phone call from Placenta Sandwich, letting me know the terrible news that Dr. Tiller had been shot.

I still have his picture hanging in my apartment. I still look at it often, thinking of what he did for people; he really made a lasting impact on so many women’s lives.

RIP Dr. Tiller. You are missed.

Surviving partner violence isn't as simple as they make it sound

We were working with a patient living through extreme domestic violence. There was some concern that she might also be experiencing verbal abuse during the appointment itself. The security guard was asked to stay alert to the situation. Under their breath, the nurses were venting fantasies of retributive violence against the perpetrator. The counseling session was long -- such sessions invariably include attempts to verify that the patient is making as free a choice as she possibly can, discussions about involving the police, explanation of what resources exist that could support a patient (and any children) in getting away from the perpetrator.

All too often, the counseling sessions also include a heartbreaking resignation by both parties that today is not the day that things will change. We've talked (and rambled) about partner violence before, and there are lots of informative reference materials online, so I know you know about the insanely cruel catch-22 of trying to escape violence and stay safe and not go homeless or hungry. A lot of times, no counselor (including one at a DV crisis center or a specialized police unit) is in a position to "convince" someone to leave their abuser. In these times, no matter how much you've tried it will probably feel like you haven't done enough to help.

And sometimes a patient is terribly unhappy with the idea of having an abortion, but never wanted to become pregnant in the first place and had little or no choice in it. I think about this every time I hear people oppose legal abortion on the basis that "most" women are "coerced" into choosing abortion. This twists a lot of situations into one word, when actually "I don't want to but feel I have to" can mean so many different things -- including "I don't want to, but my experience tells me I'll be in greater danger if I don't, and promises of support from the system won't make a difference." Whether the abuser wants her to have an abortion or doesn't want her to have an abortion is ultimately immaterial to whether we, the abortioneers she seeks out, act on the woman's own decision to have or not have an abortion. (Certain people seem to think that if a woman weighs the situation and decides to have an abortion, and this is also what her abuser wants to happen, then we should cut off her reproductive rights to spite his face. No, the punishment for violent partners isn't an unwanted baby! It's jail time.)

It's really draining to hear outsiders say things like "So your solution is that we should have legal abortion instead of fix the system to support women?" Duh, no. Why are such people always assuming you can EITHER support addressing systemic problems OR support assisting someone who has an immediate problem and faces limited possible approaches? Total false dichotomy. I favor doing both of the above, because both are needed! How is that difficult to grasp?

The patient wasn't happy about having an abortion, but she was firm in her decision. She wasn't happy with her abuser, but not confident that she and her kids would be able to survive if she left him, either. Despite our staff's efforts, this was not the day that she could decide to find a safer life.

If you know someone is abusing children, in many cases reporting is mandated and there are channels for it and the kids get "taken away" (sometimes out of the frying pan and into the fire, sadly) and they may gain state protection in the form of an undisclosed placement location or something like that. If you know someone is abusing an adult, that isn't usually the case. She cried in the recovery room and everyone was worried and angry but we had to discharge her into the care of the person who was hurting her, because she's an adult and that's what she told us to do. It sucked. 

Reality vs Bullshit

Welcome to a little game I just made up called reality vs bullshit. I have recently been reading some anti-choice blogs (like Banana Grabber), and man-oh-man…they are riddled with bullshit. It’s fascinating how they sell it too in the boat loads…big steaming piles of it.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Abortion is dangerous:
BULLSHIT!

Abortion is so incredibly safe! It’s ridiculous! As someone who has seen very sick pregnant women…and some pregnant women die from simply being pregnant…abortion is a helluva lot safer than carrying a pregnancy to full term…or as close to full term as you can get.

Those pictures of fetuses antis like to show off:
BULLSHIT!

I get this gets the message across in a disgusting way, but the reality is most products of conception are just tissue (and the majority of abortions are before 9 weeks). Fetal parts are not visible. I guess that wouldn’t be as compelling. Most of those pictures look like fetuses that were probably born spontaneously and didn’t survive or were intrauterine fetal demises. Which is why there are actually these close-up pictures of them. Of course facts and the anti-choice community never seem to go hand in hand.

Make abortion illegal!
BULLSHIT!

The reality is that making abortion illegal just makes it unsafe. Women who do not want to be pregnant will make it so they are not pregnant…legally or illegally. History will repeat itself, guaranteed. Which further proves my point that antis don’t care about women. They would rather a woman shove a knitting needle through her cervix than have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy safely. If you block a woman from terminating a pregnancy, that woman doesn’t magically say “oh, I do want this baby.” Most women think about this decision for weeks before even making an appointment. I guess we are just pregnancy vessels. Physicians in South America rotate through labor and delivery and also the septic abortion floor…because women self-terminate. It happens and it will happen again the more you restrict abortion and if you make it illegal.

Abortion hurts women!
BULLSHIT!

Antis hurt women. When you scream at women making a difficult decision, you are hurting them. When you try to make legislation blocking women’s access to abortion services, you are hurting them! Looking at anti-choice organizations -- so many of them are led by white, privileged people. You don’t see the struggle we see in the clinics, in the hospital. You are hurting these women and it’s disgusting. Frankly, it’s bullshit.

Vent Sesh

As I continue to spend more and more time in Abortionland, I get more and more pissed off at antis. I have never in my life encountered a group of people who were so closed-minded, selfish, and delusional. Normally, I do a pretty good job of avoiding anti-information,* but recently I was doing some totally work for my job, and I stumbled upon several blogs that were attacking our blog. I don't feel like naming names, thereby increasing their sites traffic, giving them some type of credence, etc... but I did find it at minimum extremely annoying. A woman responded to my post about abortion funds, stating that she simply "didn't believe" that a woman might have to pawn Christmas gifts she had purchased to pay for her abortion,** and that she couldn't believe the fathers wouldn't help out and pay for part of the abortion, or help with her prenatal care, etc. I just really have a hard time understanding how people can be so woefully misinformed. If she spent ONE DAY working on a pregnancy hotline, like NAF or ACCESS, she would find out that 1) women DO have to sell or pawn things like intended Christmas gifts to pay for their abortion, and 2) men are all too often totally absent from the equation. If I had $1 for every time I spoke with a woman seeking an abortion where the guy involved was MIA, wouldn't give her money, etc, I would have several hundred dollars, possibly over a thousand.

My point is that everyone in this debate, no matter how pro-choice or pro-life you are, could benefit a lot from finding out about what women who are choosing or not choosing to have an abortion are going through. To presume that you know what is best for a 23 year old pregnant woman living of off food stamps with 3 kids is totally fucked up. You don't know anything about her life, where she is coming from, where she is going or what she has been through. Why do you get to choose for her? Why do you get say if she can or cannot access a legal medical procedure? I have really spent a lot of time trying to understand how you can believe a woman should never be able access abortion ever because she is "murdering a person." Instead of focusing on the pregnancy or "baby" or whatever you want to call it, why can you not focus on the living, breathing woman standing before you? Do you not see the pain in her eyes? I understand having personal reservations about abortion. HOWEVER, just because I am not sure if I would choose to have an abortion if I were pregnant, does NOT mean that I get to dictate another woman's life for her!

:LKDSF:LEKTHE:ORSEILRJSKLDJBFK I just get annoyed sometimes. And this is not even taking into account the Crazies. A Crazy somehow got my email address and started sending me pro-life BS. Any social networking site I am on I have very ramped up security settings, and I don't just blab my email all around the interwebs... So.... what gives. I have plenty of co-workers, collegues, friends, etc that have:

1) gotten threatening phone calls
2) been followed home on foot
3) been followed home by a car
4) gotten harrassing messages on Facebook
5) oh yeah, been murdered.

WHAT THE HELL. WHAT GIVES. BLERG>>>

*NOTE: I am always interested to read pieces by anti-abortion folks who are reasonable, thoughtful, and don't live in a world of hatred. Unfortunately, most of the anti stuff I have read tends to be uninformed and vitriolic, but I just wanted to say that I don't just avoid allllllllll anti-abortion material and live in a bubble of WHEEABORTION. I do think it's very important to have a well-rounded view of "the issues."
**For anyone out there wondering, that is totally true!!! Things of that nature happen way more often than the average Joe would think!

Note to Self: DON'T MOVE TO MISSOURI

Or as a friend of mine would say, Missour-uh.

I'm not an angry person, but laws like this make me seethe, and I'm not talking about the strip clubs. ""The life of each human being begins at conception," according to Senate Bill 793" -- this is the name of the bill! I had no idea that becoming a state senator made you a qualified medical professional, allowing you to make such a statement. This bill mandates that abortion clinics give pamphlets to women stating this (religious agenda) and detailing fetal development, among other gems.

Due to the awesome foresight of the Missouri legislature, women will not only have to wait 24 hours to "think about" their abortion. Because they haven't thought long enough. Now they will also have to be given misleading information that, let's face it, is meant to make them feel guilty.

The Courthouse News Service had one of my favorite quotes. "State Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that this 'information' 'is not a religious statement; it's a scientific statement.'" Oh, it's a scientific statement is it? Ok, Sen. Jim Lembke, show me this scientific data that supports your claim. Sen. Lembke's bio on the Missouri State Senate website says nothing of any medical or scientific background, so I'm curious to know where he is getting this information.

Why do we let politicians control our lives?