Leave it to the Democratic women Senators to have the courage to demand Roberts answer for his views on abortion. Goodness, why can't the other Democratic Senators do the same? *Never leave it to men to fight for women's reproductive rights and autonomy.* In other news, Bolton hasn't been all that forthcoming in his past questionnaires and testimonies.Seven Democratic women Senators announced at a press conference yesterday that they will insist Supreme Court justice nominee John Roberts respond to questions about his position on abortion. The Senators are also demanding that Roberts clarify his position on the right to privacy, which underlies not only a womanÂs right to legal abortion but also to birth control and a host of other civil rights for women and minorities. The Senators include Barbara Boxer (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Patty Murray (WA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Maria Cantwell (WA).[...]
In an effort to give the public a say in Roberts confirmation hearings, the seven women senators have unveiled a new website that allows the public to submit questions that they would like the Judiciary Committee to ask of Roberts. ÂThe Supreme Court has the last word on issues that impact all of our lives .This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land We want the American people to have a voice, say the women Senators in a joint statement on the website.
During his confirmation process, John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be the United States ambassador to the United Nations, inaccurately stated in a questionnaire that he had not been interviewed as part of any administrative investigation within the last five years. After initially stating that Bolton had answered the question correctly, the State Department has confirmed reports that Bolton was interviewed by the State DepartmentÂs inspector general in an investigation into the false intelligence reports in 2003 that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa, according to the Associated Press.And as always with this administration when it comes to its members "behaving badly" or even outright illegally, I'm sure there won't be that much of a real outrage over it, no punishments, no sensationalised media circus, and nor will Bolton be properly reprimanded for it. Hell, look at Rove, he still has his job, and the media has been handling him with "kid gloves." How typical; no responsibility, no culpability, no admittance of ever being at fault, from this administration. But in more positive news today, a Judge found a company's refusal to cover women's contraception--so you know, women can keep working longer because they won't be on maternity leave--to be discriminatory and in violation of the Law.
Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesperson, told the New York Times, ÂWhen Mr. Bolton completed his forms for the Senate he did not recall being interviewed by the inspector general. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), who sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday asking about the inaccurate information provided by Bolton, said, ÂIt seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter  In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered.Â
BoltonÂs nomination has been stalled for months by Senate Democrats, led by Senator Biden, because of his history of hostility towards the United Nations, international law, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). President Bush has hinted that he will install Bolton in the position of US Ambassador to the UN in a recess appointment next week, even now that it has been confirmed that Bolton gave inaccurate information to the Senate during his confirmation hearing, according to Reuters.[...]
US District Judge Laurie Smith Camp has ruled that Union Pacific Railroad's failure to provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans was discriminatory and a violation of the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act. Many preventative medications were covered by the plan, including impotence treatments, and Camp ruled that the policy discriminates by treating “medical care women need to prevent pregnancy less favorably than it treats medical care needed to prevent other medical conditions that are no greater threat to employees’ health than is pregnancy,” reports the Associated Press.Notice the subtle "women should get pregnant, rather than afford to take contraception, and keep working" undertone there. Women can only take contraception for non-birth control purposes. In another words, if a woman is taking contraception because she doesn't want to become pregnant (and "fulfill her biological destiny as a woman") she isn't covered. Meanwhile I'm sure the hypothetical woman's boss complains about women being on maternity leave. But yes, just keep pushing women out of the workforce and back into the home with lots of babies...
Union Pacific argued that fertility is “normal” and therefore contraception is not “medically necessary,” although it did cover contraceptives prescribed for purposes unrelated to birth control.[...]
Planned Parenthood of Western Washington attorney Roberta Riley, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters that Union Pacific was one of the last major employers not to cover contraceptives, and that she hopes this case is “the nail in the coffin on this issue.” Union Pacific has 49,000 employees, and contraceptive coverage would affect not only the 1,300 female employees, but also the family members of all workers.I wonder if they cover Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, and Enzyte, just as numerous insurance companies do, but not women's contraception. Would keeping men's penises erect and keeping them aroused be more "normal" then making sure that your female employees can stay working longer because you help them pay for their contraception? Which is more profitable and beneficial for the company in the end?
And remember how cozy Roberts is with Operation Rescue, another violent anti-choice group. Imagine him on the bench when one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court. Explain how violent attacks are covered under the First Amendment again? What, the belligerent anti-choicer version of the First Amendment, who believe that Jeebus and G-d inspired them to commit violence and assault?Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take another look at the nationwide injunction the National Organization for Women (NOW) obtained seven years ago against the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joe Scheidler and others, to stop violent attacks on women's health clinics.[...]
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the injunction after a jury concluded that the defendants' actions violated Rackteer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. After that decision, instances of clinic violence plummeted, and the defendants have relentlessly challenged this injunction against violent acts.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that while anti-abortion groups did commit crimes and interfere with clinic operations, the lower court's injunction could not be supported by these acts of extortion because no money or property had been obtained from the clinics as a result. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for further action, where NOW argued that even if defendants' acts of extortion were not covered by RICO, their acts and threats of physical violence were.
The 7th Circuit Court did not decide that issue, instead sending the case back to the district court to hear arguments and make an initial ruling. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, demanding that the injunction be lifted without further proceedings in any other court.
"Of course they want to have the injunction lifted," Gandy said. "They want to return to the days of using physical assault to terrorize patients and providers as a way to shut down these clinics. But even if they win, they won't be able to do that—if they return to the violence we will pursue them under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act."[...]
A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.
The man's lawyer said the couple, with their families' support, "made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem."
Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.
After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.
"The idea ... is repugnant to me," said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. "These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile."
He said the marriage is valid, thanks to the "ridiculous" Kansas law, "but it doesn't matter. I'm not going to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old _ now 14-year-old _ girl."
A new poll found that the majority of Americans not only want to know Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' position on abortion but also want him to support a woman's right to legal abortion. According to a recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 64 percent of Americans said that before the Senate votes on his nomination, Roberts should publicly state his position on abortion. Sixty-five percent said that they want Roberts to favor upholding Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the US. The poll further showed that 61 percent of Americans want Roberts to respond to questions about how he would have ruled on past Supreme Court cases.And would this or anything else compel Roberts to answer us fluently and unambiguously on his exact position on women's reproductive rights and Roe? Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. And what's at stake with Roberts and his opinions on the bench should he be confirmed...*women's right to autonomy and control over our reprouductive destinies.*
Dear Ms. Miers:That's really not all that much to ask for from this White House, is it? Because we all know how forthcoming this administration is when it comes to factual information. ::rolls eyes::
Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, I am requesting records or descriptions of any contacts between your office, the office of Karl Rove, or any other White House employee with any of the groups named below concerning Judge John Roberts prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court.
Given the pressing nature of this information, and the upcoming U.S. Senate hearings on Mr. Roberts nomination, I ask that you consider this request on an expedited basis. Surely, the American people have a right to the same information regarding a potential Supreme Court Justice as do representatives of ideological pressure groups.
We request information regarding contacts with any of the following groups:
American Society for Law and Justice
American Values
Christian Coalition
Committee for Justice
Concerned Women for America
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Heritage Foundation
Judicial Confirmation Network
National Right to Life Committee
Operation Rescue
Progress for America
Third Branch Conference
Traditional Values Coalition
Q. I can't seem to find the word feminism anywhere on the pages related to WAM/SSM. What is WAM/SSM relation to feminism? Is it informed by feminism, is feminism its bedrock, is it an offshoot...? Does it draw on feminist thought? Does it have a feminist ideological bent? Etc.
There doesn't seem to be any position statement at the site, and, while it can be inferred (given your blog and Pseudo-Adrienne's), it would be helpful to clarify on this issue.
A. Thanks for a great question – The main page doesn’t use the word Feminism because I deliberately left it out. The minute some people see it they stop thinking and start stereotyping. This is an attempt to reframe aspects of feminism and re-energize the movement. There’s to be no fund raising involved – it’s strictly what the Second Wave Feminists called “Consciousness Raising”. All that is required to join is to declare that you support it, and place a link, badge, or some mention of it on your website. We’re creating awareness and trying to bring some maturity and pragmatism to the political discourse.
I’m tired of people getting hung up on the “F” word. I am most decidedly a feminist, but I feel as if the leadership is too anxious to get along with the extant power structure. They’ve become very politic and somewhat fear-based. They are so eager to be “taken seriously” that they allow the derision from the power structure of the dominant culture to make us divide the community against ourselves. Straight women are embarrassed by being compared to the lesbians, the Christians are embarrassed by the Witches, and Atheists are afraid of religion altogether. We need to grow up and stand in solidarity. I don’t give a shit what someone in Washington thinks of me. I want to give them notice that we’re here and we vote in ever increasing numbers. We WILL be counted. Anything less cannot be acceptable to us, or it is all we’ll ever get. It simply isn’t in the nature of Western Civilization to cede any kind of advantage. Men aren’t going to give us anything. The women who fought to give us the right to vote were imprisoned and tortured. Women are systematically beaten, raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered in every country on Earth. There is a war against women that too many of us take for granted. It doesn’t have to be this way. It will only change if we demand that change.
I want us to focus on our own humanity. The big problem with the “Pro-Choice” movement is that we have allowed radical Christians to frame the debate. Abortion is not a choice if it’s your only chance of survival, or if you can’t afford to raise a kid. I want to take the focus off the fetus. Whether a fetus is a “life” or not cannot be proven, and is therefore a moot argument. The issue is whether I, as a living, breathing woman with my own goals and aspirations, have the right to make my own sexual decisions. If we acknowledge any authority by the state to regulate our reproductive choice, then we are owned by the state. To be free and equal citizens, we have to have autonomy in our most intimate decisions. Women are People Not Property.
Men never have to think about this. They have complete autonomy to be enjoyed and even abused as they will. Men can go around lying to obtain sex from women with impunity. What if a woman has a moral code that forbids her to be involved with a married man, yet her boyfriend lies about having a wife? She has no legal recourse available to her, though she behaved in an honorable manner. Why is it legal for him to violate her trust, and even impregnate her, with no greater risk than child support? He has destroyed her moral identity, endangered her life with pregnancy and possible exposure to STD’s, forever altered her lifestyle and will probably never even be forced to support any child that results.
The only way for her to mitigate the damage done by his lies may be to have an abortion. That way she can minimize the trauma to her body, and won’t be saddled with the considerable cost and responsibility of raising a child with no father. I never hear this scenario in the debate about Choice, but I see it played out all around me. Why isn’t there a penalty for what I call “male fraud”? It’s a unique situation that only affects one gender. Women can’t have more than one man pregnant at the same time, so why should we bear the burden of such atrocious behavior? Why don’t wives have recourse against spouses who expose them to AIDS with their lying and infidelity? The fastest growing population with new HIV infections is women in what they believe are monogamous relationships. This isn’t just infidelity – it is murder. How many men are punished for it? Zero.
I want women to be treated as full and equal citizens under the law. I want the law to stop tolerating men’s infidelity, and stop penalizing women’s sexuality. I reject the monotheist idea that sex is only for procreation, and that engaging in sex is somehow “wrong”. It is a normal adult activity that people should be free to enjoy in an honest, responsible manner. The state has no business in the bedroom. It’s only input to sexual activity should be to prevent the spread of disease, and it isn’t even doing that. Only women should have the power to make decisions that affect only women. No Uterus, No Opinion.
Yes, that phrase is harsh, and men bristle at it. I don’t care.
My uterus is not a political issue, and no male is authorized to negotiate the disposition of it. Ever.
Having a child is an awesome responsibility. I admire the people who choose to do it. Stewardship of another human, whether through parenting, teaching, or healing, is a sacred act that should be taken on with an open and loving heart. We cause only harm by forcing people to have children they don’t want. The current declines we are seeing in the crime rate are in direct correlation to the availability of legal abortions. It is wrong to force a woman to risk her life if she is unwilling or unable to carry a pregnancy to term. It is pointless for society to create a burden on women, social services and the legal system when we have a perfectly viable alternative to unwanted pregnancy.
Adoption is not always an option, as the Radical Right would have us believe. Adoption can carry enormous emotional scars for everyone concerned. I’ve seen the damage that can happen when child of rape is rejected by her birth parent. There aren’t enough adoptive and foster homes to effectively deal with the children we already have. Right now, tonight, 3 million children are homeless in America, the richest country in the world. We have no business even discussing “slave birth” until we can care for the kids we have.
There are two co-existing political movements represented here. The Women’s Autonomy Movement is about our rights to our own bodies, and our own lives. It’s the “Pro-Choice” side of the coin. The other side is the Sexual Sovereignty Movement, which asserts the rights of adults as sexual beings. It incorporates the LGBT rights movement, and opposes the monotheistic view that sex is “sinful”. Sex is a normal, healthy part of life. We are biologically hard-wired to need touch, movement, love and yes, even orgasms. It’s good for us, and we shouldn’t punish people for being human. People are going to have sex, no matter what society says about it. At least 10 per cent of the population is gay, and that’s a normal variation that occurs all through nature. There’s also a strong emphasis on sex and marriage being for adults. A fifteen year old girl can’t legally sign a contract to rent a DVD player, but she can be forced into marrying by her parents or her church, sometimes to much older men. The marriage contract should be reserved for adults. It makes no sense for the state to sanction a situation that would otherwise constitute child abuse or statutory rape. There is no way a teenager can make a commitment that is ostensibly supposed to last the rest of their lives.
I couldn’t find a phrase that embraced both concepts completely, and I’m very aware that there might be people who support one and not the other. I want to be as inclusive as possible. I don’t want people to back out on a technicality. This is too important. We’re trying to re-educate people’s ideas of gender and sexuality, and that’s going to take a lot of people to get the idea into the public consciousness. I envision this as a populist movement that will take on a life of its own.
The ugandan parliament have enacted a new anti-homosexual law and with this the Ugandan police yesterday stormed the house of lesbian activist, Victor Julie Mukassa. Victor tried to contact me today but unfortuantely I missed her call so the details on her present situation are still sketchy. However there is a report on the raid in Behind the Mask as follows:So if the intention behind the raid (without a warrant), degradation of Victor's guest, and attempted arrest (again without a warrant), was to stifle all LGBT civil rights activistm and Ugandan LGBT people in general, then add their government to the list of belligerently homophobic governments that would use terror to silence their own LGBT population and its leaders. Gee, you don't think the U.S. will ever end up on that list, do you? Or are we already on that list? This was a gross violation of Victor's and her fellow activists' human rights and I hope for the best for her and her friends. Malignant government sanctioned homophobic bigotry should be combated in every country.
On the night of 20 July 2005, Victor Juliet Mukasa, who is the chairperson of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), had her residence raided by the Ugandan government police officials. The officials confiscated all documentations and other materials that had homosexual content.
Unfortunately for the police contingent which was clearly intending to pounce on Mukasa, they didn't find her at home as she had not yet arrived back home from town.
On the house they found a gay activist from Kenya who works closely with SMUG. She was detained for the night. According to Kasha Jacqueline, a lesbian human rights activist, "They took her [the Kenyan activist] in so Victor and the other LGBT activists [from SMUG] would want to fetch her from the police and then they can arrest Victor specifically and or the other activists.[...]
This purported trap to arrest for SMUG officials is suspected to be part of an elaborate plan by the Ugandan government to obliterate gay and lesbian activities in that country.
[...]Meanwhile she (Victor) cannot go home as people near where she lives planned to attack her. Once the matter comes out in the press she will be in even more danger. She is staying and moving from hotel to hotel. Victor's human rights have been grossly violated. There was no search warrant on her home and her guest was stripped naked by the police and detained and both their lives are now in danger.[...]
[...]Legislative control might be more “democratic”–if you believe that a state senator balancing women’s health against a highway for his district represents democracy. But would it be fair? The whole point about constitutional protection for rights is to guarantee them when they are unpopular–to shield them from majority prejudice, opportunistic politicians, the passions and pressures of the moment. Freedom of speech, assembly, worship and so on belong to us as individuals; our neighbors, our families and our legislators don’t get to vote on how we use these rights or whether we should have them in the first place. Alabamans may be largely antichoice, but what about the ones who aren’t? Or the ones who are but even so don’t want to die in childbirth, bear a hopelessly damaged baby or drop out of school at 15–or 25? If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women–and only women–confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can’t prevent some clod from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic.[...]It's hard to imagine because it's true. Women won't be free and equal citizens if Roe goes, or even if Griswold suffers the same fate. It would come down to how convenient our right to autonomy would be in the eyes of the mostly male politicians who would decide this.
Blacktown.netOf course, there are reactionary slanders made by racist Whites against Black feminists as they also stride for racial equality. I'm sure it would reference some big evil "Black Panther 'kill Whitey' lesbian feminist witchcraft" conspiracy. Misogyny and patriarchy know no color. Thankfully the sexist sentiments of this particular group of African-American men does not reflect the 'gender issue' sentiments of all African-American men, and not all of the male leaders of the Black Civil Rights Movement were sexist (and not all White feminists were racist). There are sexists and racists found within just about every community. This is just an example of sexism perpetrated by the male members of a community against its female members. And I wonder since I'm only half-African-American and feminist, does this mean that I'm only bisexual and half-pagan to them?
EXPOSING THE DAMAGE THAT 1970's WOMEN'S LIBERATION HAS DONE TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY...
EXPOSING HOW BLACK FEMINISTS HAVE FAILED TO LEAD THE BLACK RACE ANYPLACE...
EXPOSING THE FAILURE OF BLACK LEADERSHIP...
(LIKE BILL COSBY!)
REMINDING BLACK MEN THAT IT'S TIME TO JOIN THE GROWING MEN'S MOVEMENT...
WE ARE THE ONLY BLACK ORGANIZATION THAT EXPOSES AND OPPOSES LESBIAN FEMINISM WITCHCRAFT!!
Deeply ignorant.
[...]"Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is a very well qualified candidate with a reputation of being a strict interpreter of the law rather than someone who legislates from the bench," said Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum.[...]Gee, I could say the same for the extremist, fundamentalist Christian Rightwing, who through their neoconservative Republican allies in Congress (and the White House), attempt to impose a particular ideology (guess what the *ideology* is) on the rest of us--and even violate our civil liberties or even the Law in the process. But remember this is coming from the IWF, whose reputation for appeasing their [male] conservative Republican bosses at the expense of women's civil liberties and rights proceeds them. It just goes to show that women can at times be their very own worst enemy. 'We' too delay our own liberation by selling each other out, all in order to receive validation from misogynist male politicians or pitifully attempt to gain some small degree of influence or "power" in a patriarchal society--which only leads to a backlash.
"We look forward to the confirmation process and hope that the Senate will focus on Judge Roberts' record, intellect, and judicial philosophy and not try to apply a 'litmus test' by questioning his views on specific matters that might come before the Court," said Pfotenhauer.
"We should not allow the feminist left and other extremists to dictate a political agenda for our courts, which should remain independent. Our courts should not be super-legislatures subject to political winds instead of the law and our constitution."[...]