SharonCobb.com: "I saved my life"

Sharon is currently recovering from surgery. While we wait for her to come back to her blog, make every woman you know read this. You might be saving her life, too.

She writes:

By the time ovarian cancer is diagnosed, it’s usually too late. The odds of long term survival are between 10-20 percent. Stage one ovarian cancer, however, has a long term survival rate of over 90 percent. It’s almost never caught at that stage. *Almost* never.

Last month when I went for my annual physical I insisted on a CA 125, as I have done for a decade. Every year my Doctor tells me he does the test to appease me. This year was no different. In fact, this year, he was a bit cranky with me and told me to bring in some concrete proof that a CA 125 will catch ovarian cancer before it has spread. I told him of British studies that conclusively and consistently demonstrated that women who had this test every year had a very good chance of catching it early. Indeed, one British study I read said the CA 125 will catch ovarian cancer 2-5 months before it can be seen on a CAT scan or ultrasound. And with that, my doctor rolled his eyes and filled out the papers for the lab work.

The following week I got a call from his nurse. She told me my CA 125 was slightly elevated. I told her I wanted to meet with the Doctor in person and discuss where to go from here. I was fairly sure they would dismiss me, but surprisingly, my doctor agreed to meet with me the following week. But first, he wanted an ultra sound.

I met with him the following week and my ultra sound showed several tumors and cysts, though they were not defined as cancer. He decided to repeat the CA 125. (Hey…now who is a believer in this test? First time I didn’t have to ask for it!)

I was driving with Jake, my dog, over to Weight Watchers. I have a thing for chocolate, and Weight Watchers has chocolate smoothies that are only one point. Cruising toward my chocolate fix, my cell phone rings. The caller ID shows it’s a call from Vanderbilt. It could have been anyone, since all my doctors except one are there, but being the middle of the day, I knew it was from my gynecologist’s office about the CA 125. I took a deep breath and answered and didn’t even wait for a voice, I just said, “What are the results of the CA 125?” The nurse told me the numbers had more than doubled in the short period of time from the original test. I knew what that meant.

The Doctor called me later that night. His voice was shakier than mine. I can only guess he was thinking about how he had tried to discourage me about taking the CA 125. I didn’t see any need or reason to rub it in. I only made one reference to my insistence about having this test once a year to catch ovarian cancer in time, and I said, “Well. Here’s the data and proof you wanted.”

Next came the CAT scans to see what was where, and today is the surgery. Assuming I don’t die from the anesthesia or surgery, then I will be living proof that a CA 125 saved my life. I saved my life.

Pass it on, Sisters...

FDA Commissioner resigns

(Huzzah!) Well there's some good news. Bush's 'golden boy' of the FDA has resigned from his post. Though I'm sure she's pleased in seeing this, Interim President of Planned Parenthood, Karen Pearl, calls for science to return to the FDA's decision-making, and for politics and ideology--namely *anti-women's-reproductive-rights* politics and ideology--to be abandoned. No doubt that politics and ideology has certainly impeded the FDA's ability to approve Plan B and deal with women's health in a responsible manner. Potentially dangerous breast-implants are okay, but not emergency contraception? Anyway...

"Women's health suffered under Dr. Crawford's tenure. The FDA has ignored its public health responsibilities, repeatedly refusing to issue a decision on the application to make Plan B emergency contraception (EC) available over the counter. During more than two years that the application has been pending, greater access to EC could have prevented 3.4 million unintended pregnancies and 1.6 million abortions*.

"The FDA has become a politicized agency and has ignored its mandate to safeguard the public health. In the process it has lost the credibility and respect it has traditionally enjoyed. The resignation of Dr. Susan Wood from the FDA's Office of Women's Health in protest over the delay in issuing a decision on EC was further proof of the politics that had trumped science under Dr. Crawford's tenure. Causing further confusion and illustrating its internal disarray, only last week, in quick succession, the FDA named two acting directors to replace Dr. Wood.

"The FDA has led an ideologically motivated effort to keep a safe and effective drug out of women's hands. We are hopeful that this resignation signals a new day for the FDA, one in which the FDA will resume its public health responsibilities and make decisions focused on science, not politics."

And I just can't wait to see Crawford's replacement, not that I'm expecting much. Now for some bad news which you saw coming a hundred miles away. The Senate Judiciary Committee has given Roberts the 'okay' by a 13-5 split. And I have to agree with my fellow pro-choice bloggers that it's now time for NARAL to withdraw its support of Chafee for obvious reasons, along with any pro-choice Democrat (and alleged "pro-choice Republican") who votes in favor of Roberts' confirmation. *It's time for all pro-women's-reproductive-rights advocacy groups to only endorse pro-choice Democrats who only vote for pro-choice nominees and pro-choice measures!* Next we have the 'fight-to-the-death' battle over O'Connor's replacement--whoopie. Will the Dems disappoint us again with another 'okay' vote, though it's to be expected when dealing with them? Oh and by the way, Ohio hates women's reproductive rights and is purposely trying to push an anti-abortion bill through, that lawmakers hope will act as a "trigger-case" to overturn Roe. Wow, what a fun week. But don't worry ladies, if things get any worse in the way of our reproductive rights (or the possible lack thereof, to be extremist just for a moment) just remember, we'll always have Mexico. (sarcasm)

Feminist Bloggers say NO to John Roberts

To members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate:

We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women’s basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.

We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.

We are dissatisfied with the leadership of the Pro-Choice movement and with some of the current political strategies of the Democratic party. Divisive TV ads, the botched approval of Plan B and 'negotiable' limits on abortion show how disconnected the pro-choice leadership is from the grassroots. For a woman, there is no negotiation when it comes to her own reproductive organs.

We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about the right to privacy.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about civil rights.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about state rights.

Yet what is at stake in the the reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, is the fundamental right to freedom for all peoples living under the Bill of Rights and unenumerated rights retained by the people. Roberts has consistently opposed the interests of the people in his career. The decisions, dissents and legal documents that have been released for scrutiny point to the man's willingness to find ways to use technicalities to curtail freedom and not expand it. Although it would be easy to demonstrate this willingness through his involvement in cases dealing with reproductive rights, it is the following three cases that show a road map to what could happen to the US Constitution under a Chief Justice Roberts :

1. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
2. Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir.2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2061 (2004)
3. Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004):

In defending a religious minority’s demand to impose their religious customs on the majority(1), in attacking Congress' right to regulate commerce under national standards (2) and in stating that using the full extent of the law in cases involving minors is necessary to promote "parental awareness of commission delinquent acts” (3); John Roberts has advocated positions which

(1) are skewed to the ideology of religious extremists,
(2) balkanize the country into a loose mesh of little republics
(3) coerce a moral outcome based on a restrictive fundamentalist view through legal means

The extremist religious minority in this country have used the excuse of states' compelling interest in children's welfare as a reason to seek limits to the Constitution. Parenting rights are being used to impose unfettered limitations of reproductive rights on the state level. All across the country laws have been passed curtailing the movement of minors from one state to the other in search of abortions. Some states have even made it a capital offense punishable with the death penalty to aid a minor with no parental consent. This is appalling.

September 20, 2005
Feminist Bloggers Say No to John Roberts
by Liza Sabater
To members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate:

We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women's basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.

We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.

We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many, not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about the right to privacy.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about civil rights.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about state rights.

Yet what is at stake in the the reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, is the fundamental right to freedom for all peoples living under the Bill of Rights and unenumerated rights retained by the people. Roberts' has consistently opposed the interests of the people in his career. The decisions, dissents and legal documents that have been released for scrutiny point to the man's willingness to find ways to use technicalities to curtail freedom and not expand it. Although it would be easy to demonstrate this willingness through his involvement in cases dealing with reproductive rights, it is the following three cases that show a road map to what could happen to the US Constitution under a Chief Justice Roberts :

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir.2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2061 (2004)

Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004):

In defending a religious minority's demand to impose their religious customs on the majority (1), in attacking Congress' right to regulate commerce under national standards (2) and in stating that using the full extent of the law in cases involving minors is necessary to promote "parental awareness of commission delinquent actsÓ (3); John Roberts has advocated positions which

(1) are skewed to the ideology of religious extremists,

(2) balkanize the country into a loose mesh of little republics

(3) use a restrictive fundamentalist view to coerce a moral outcome through legal means

The extremist religious minority in this country have used the excuse of states' compelling interest in children's welfare as a reason to seek limits to the Constitution. Parenting rights are being used to impose unfettered limitations of reproductive rights on the state level. All across the country laws have been passed curtailing the movement of minors from one state to the other in search of abortions. Some states have even made it a capital offense punishable with the death penalty to aid a minor with no parental consent. This is appalling.

These laws have been passed as an affirmation of parents' right to choose in private what is best for their families. Some of us are mothers and fathers and we would most certainly want the government to uphold our rights to choose how to parent our children without intervention of the government. But laws protecting parenting rights should do no harm nor become precedents in the limiting of individual rights.

These laws impose a view of parenting that may actually be harmful to many underage women in need of an abortion. To restrict their individual rights and define them as extensions of their parents or guardians endangers not only endanger young women's lives but are an attack on the very idea of individual rights and personal freedom.

Judge Roberts' rulings can become a weapon for extremists who would impose their reproductive agendas against the will of their underage yet sexually mature daughters. It exposes young women in abusive or coercive situations to further abuse and physical danger.

We advocate Freedom.

The right to determine one’s own sexual and reproductive behavior is a fundamental aspect of liberty. A woman’s ability to control her reproductive options has a profound effect on her health and on every aspect of her life. It can affect her educational opportunities, her career and is the single most profound change that can occur in her life. Pregnancy is a life-altering and potentially life-threatening experience. Consider these statistics:

• The United States ranks below 20 other developed nations in the rate of maternal deaths.
• The maternal death rate has not gone down since 1982.
• The Rate of maternal deaths for black women has been three to four times that of white women since 1940.
• Complications of pregnancy include ectopic pregnancy, premature labor, hemorrhage, blood clots, high blood pressure, infection, stroke, amniotic fluid in the bloodstream, diabetes and heart disease. Poor women suffer disproportionately due to lack of prenatal care and inadequate health insurance.
• The number one cause of death in pregnant women in America is murder.

The choice to have a child must be made by an individual, without coercion from any external source or influence, if the individual is to be considered truly free. The current anti-choice movement has revealed itself repeatedly as uninterested in preventing unwanted pregnancies or reducing the number of abortions performed in this country. If this were truly their goal, they would be anxious to make “Plan B” contraceptives readily available. We know it is not an abortificant, and merely prevents pregnancy from taking place. If the goal was to protect young women’s lives, they would encourage educating women about the use of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and other venereal diseases, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy

• Women are more likely than men to contract HIV through sexual encounters and about 42 per cent of all persons infected with HIV are women.
• Cancer of the cervix, the most common form of cancer in developing countries, is often linked to the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus. There are already moves to block the availability of a vaccine being developed which could prevent this form of cancer.

To withhold this information to young women is to literally condemn some of them to death. Those who oppose women’s reproductive autonomy oppose all of these things that could make having a child or even having sex a safer experience. It is clear that they are not interested in the healthy births of healthy children, but in controlling sexual behavior of women by codifying a particular, restrictive religious view in the laws of our country. It is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. It is the place of government to insure the health and well-being of its people. It is clear that if women’s reproductive freedom is restricted that women will die needlessly and many women and their children will suffer unnecessarily.

Opposing women’s reproductive autonomy is to oppose the unalienable right to Liberty with which each individual is naturally endowed. Freedom to live as we choose, freedom to love whomever we love, freedom to pursue happiness in our own way, without coercion from our neighbors or the state. This is why we oppose John Roberts: We believe it is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. We know that a woman who cannot control her own person is not free.

If Congress is to appoint conservative jurists, We The People demand they are mainstream conservatives that will uphold the Constitution as a common ground for all, not the playground of the few. It is the place of government to insure every single person in this country has an opportunity to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Moreover, as Congress comes together to consider the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, it has to ask how two years on the bench can possibly make a person qualified to be the top jurist in the land. We are deeply disturbed that Judge Roberts attempted to conceal his membership in the Federalist Society, and his role in Bush V. Gore.

We have seen the tragic consequences of George W. Bush's patronage appointments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We must be more vigilant in vetting the qualifications, experience and abilities of the nominees put forth by the Bush administration.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be a seasoned judge with a record that can be openly and completely examined. The White House's refusal to release all documents pertaining to the nominee is further cause for extreme caution in this matter. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. This choice will affect the lives of all Americans for decades to come. We must have transparency in the process, and it must be rigorous and thorough.

We oppose the nomination of John Roberts, and ask that our Congressional representatives stand firm in insisting that the people chosen to fill the two vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States of America be people on whom we can rely to uphold the ideals that make us uniquely American --equal protection under the law, justice for all citizens in equal measure, equal opportunity, and true Liberty -- the right to personal and individual autonomy.

Anything less cannot be allowed to exist if we are to call ourselves the descendants of Jefferson and Adams, or Washington and Franklin. Without a secular government and equal treatment for all, we cannot call ourselves Americans anymore.

$url = "http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display_raw.php?r=5586b1fea9773be0c4f1b0c97dffa75f";
if($my_blogroll = @fopen("$url", "r")){
while(! feof($my_blogroll)){
$blogroll = fgets($my_blogroll, 255);
echo "$blogroll";
}
}else{
echo "Signatory list is unavailable right now ";
}
?>

Calling a bluff and setting-up a standard

John Nichols of The Nation has set a bit of a standard for the Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have hinted they'll give Roberts a 'free pass' because he seems to be a "nice guy" with a satisfactory past judicial record. Shorter Nichols: if Roberts while under oath "promised" that he would not seek to overturn Roe as Chief Justice but then does so, then the pro-choice Senators who voted for him have an obligation to expose him lying under oath, and then call for his removal. Pretty harsh but then even cowardly, considering it would be a very convenient way for the pro-choice Dems in the Senate who would vote 'yes' for Roberts, then use him to shamelessly shift the blame away from their own failures should Roe fall due to a SC ruling. Roberts would then be their little 'scape-goat, not that I would shed a tear for him. Although it would be very interesting and outrageous to see the pro-choice Dems blame someone else for the destruction of women's reproductive rights, when a significant number of them have been standing by, compromising, rolling-over for anti-choicers, ignoring their voters--especially women-voters, dismissing abortion-rights advocacy groups, and enabling the process all along. Namely, by possibly voting next week to confirm someone who poses a threat to Roe and women's reproductive rights to the SC, as Chief Justice no doubt. But enough of that, Nichols.....

[...]Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination that the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is "entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the legal standard that long-established court rulings should not be casually challenged.

When pressed, Roberts suggested that only in extraordinary circumstances--when the precedent has proved to be "unworkable" or "difficult to apply"--should the Court even consider overturning settled law.

Since the Roe v. Wade precedent has survived basically intact through three decades of legal and legislative assaults, and since it has not proved to be unworkable or difficult to apply, Roberts has effectively promised the Senate--under oath--that he will not seek as the Chief Justice to outlaw abortion or other reproductive rights.[...]

Did Roberts seek to deceive the committee?

Don't all judicial nominees and even political candidates "deceive" their audience(s)--ie: a town hall meeting of potential voters or a Judiciary Committee--to some extent in order to woo them, and gain entrance into that much sought after office? It makes you wonder if some of them read Machiavelli's The Prince before even beginning their careers in politics or the Judiciary.

[...]But Roberts has clearly indicated a position with regard to Roe v. Wade. And that position is that, no matter what his personal opinions, he would not serve on the nation's highest court as the sort of conservative judicial activist who sets out to overturn established law.

It appears at this point that a number of senators who support a woman's right to choose will vote to confirm Roberts's nomination, which in all likelihood will gain the approval of the full Senate. It also appears, from the comments of these senators, that many of them were impressed with Roberts's performance before the Judiciary Committee--even if they would have preferred that the nominee be more forthcoming in response to questioning from Democratic and Republican senators.

While your correspondent continues to hold to the view that there are more than enough reasons to reject Roberts--beginning with his record on voting rights issues and certainly including his radical pro-business track record--he also recognizes political reality. In recognizing reality, however, it is important to set basic standards.

If and when senators who are supportive of reproductive rights cast their votes for Roberts, they ought make note of the nominee's statements to the committee with regard to this issue. Get it in the record again. And then add to the record a notation that a nominee who intentionally lies to the Senate must necessarily be subject to impeachment and removal from office.

These senators should also make it clear that, if John Roberts turns out to be the judicial activist that some fear, and if that activism takes the form of an attack on what he has described as "settled" law, then they will move the impeachment resolution immediately.

Damn, and here my solution would have been to simply refuse to vote for any Democratic Senator (or anyone else) who would vote 'yes' for Roberts' confirmation. Which I can pretty much count on doing since--sigh--Roberts is due to get a pass from the Senate in about a week. Or, for a more extreme solution, depending on the mood of everyone else in the pro-choice movement, insist that the women of this country who value their reproductive rights and wished to be viewed as autonomous citizens in the eyes of the Law, form their own political party much like the feminist women of Sweden, or perhaps one similar to Canada's 'feminist initiative' party still in progress. As already mentioned that would be the extreme. But hey, let's just watch how things turn out with Roberts on the bench.....and for me at least, despair all the while. And on a final note, a hat-tip to the New York Times for publishing a very powerful article about women and abortion--' Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly'.

The BLOGSHEROES Community opposes the nomination of John Roberts

We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women’s basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.

We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.

We are dissatisfied with the leadership of the Pro-Choice movement and with some of the current political strategies of the Democratic party. Divisive TV ads, the botched approval of Plan B and 'negotiable' limits on abortion show how disconnected the pro-choice leadership is from the grassroots. For a woman, there is no negotiation when it comes to her own reproductive organs.

We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about the right to privacy.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about civil rights.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about state rights.

Yet what is at stake in the the reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, is the fundamental right to freedom for all peoples living under the Bill of Rights and unenumerated rights retained by the people. Roberts has consistently opposed the interests of the people in his career. The decisions, dissents and legal documents that have been released for scrutiny point to the man's willingness to find ways to use technicalities to curtail freedom and not expand it. Although it would be easy to demonstrate this willingness through his involvement in cases dealing with reproductive rights, it is the following three cases that show a road map to what could happen to the US Constitution under a Chief Justice Roberts :

1. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
2. Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir.2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2061 (2004)
3. Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004):

In defending a religious minority’s demand to impose their religious customs on the majority(1), in attacking Congress' right to regulate commerce under national standards (2) and in stating that using the full extent of the law in cases involving minors is necessary to promote "parental awareness of commission delinquent acts” (3); John Roberts has advocated positions which

(1) are skewed to the ideology of religious extremists,
(2) balkanize the country into a loose mesh of little republics
(3) coerce a moral outcome based on a restrictive fundamentalist view through legal means

The extremist religious minority in this country have used the excuse of the states' compelling interest in children's welfare as a reason to seek limits to the Constitution through unfettered limitation of reproductive rights on the state level. All across the country laws have been passed curtailing the movement of minors from one state to the other in search of abortions. Some states have even made it a capital offense punishable with the death penalty to aid a minor with no parental consent. This is appalling.

Some of us are mothers and fathers and we would most certainly want the government to uphold our rights to choose how to parent our children without intervention of the government. But these laws act completely to the contrary. They do not protect the right to privately decide how to raise a family, but rather prevent it.

These laws impose a view of parenting that may actually be harmful to many underage women in need of an abortion. To restrict their individual rights and define them as extensions of their parents or guardians endangers young women’s lives. Judge Roberts' rulings can become a weapon for extremists who would impose their reproductive agendas against the will of their underage yet sexually mature daughters. It exposes young women in abusive or coercive situations to further abuse and physical danger.

We advocate Freedom.

The right to determine one’s own sexual and reproductive behavior is a fundamental aspect of liberty. A woman’s ability to control her reproductive options has a profound effect on her health and on every aspect of her life. It can affect her educational opportunities, her career and is the single most profound change that can occur in her life. Pregnancy is a life-altering and potentially life-threatening experience. Consider these statistics:

• The United States ranks below 20 other developed nations in the rate of maternal deaths.
• The maternal death rate has not gone down since 1982.
• The Rate of maternal deaths for black women has been three to four times that of white women since 1940.
• Complications of pregnancy include ectopic pregnancy, premature labor, hemorrhage, blood clots, high blood pressure, infection, stroke, amniotic fluid in the bloodstream, diabetes and heart disease. Poor women suffer disproportionately due to lack of prenatal care and inadequate health insurance.
• The number one cause of death in pregnant women in America is murder.

The choice to have a child must be made by an individual, without coercion from any external source or influence, if the individual is to be considered truly free. The current anti-choice movement has revealed itself repeatedly as uninterested in preventing unwanted pregnancies or reducing the number of abortions performed in this country. If this were truly their goal, they would be anxious to make “Plan B” contraceptives readily available. We know it is not an abortificant, and merely prevents pregnancy from taking place. If the goal was to protect young women’s lives, they would encourage educating women about the use of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and other venereal diseases, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy

• Women are more likely than men to contract HIV through sexual encounters and about 42 per cent of all persons infected with HIV are women.
• Cancer of the cervix, the most common form of cancer in developing countries, is often linked to the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus. There are already moves to block the availability of a vaccine being developed which could prevent this form of cancer.

To withhold this information to young women is to literally condemn some of them to death. Those who oppose women’s reproductive autonomy oppose all of these things that could make having a child or even having sex a safer experience. It is clear that they are not interested in the healthy births of healthy children, but in controlling sexual behavior of women by codifying a particular, restrictive religious view in the laws of our country. It is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. It is the place of government to insure the health and well-being of its people. It is clear that if women’s reproductive freedom is restricted that women will die needlessly and many women and their children will suffer unnecessarily.

Opposing women’s reproductive autonomy is to oppose the unalienable right to Liberty with which each individual is naturally endowed. Freedom to live as we choose, freedom to love whomever we love, freedom to pursue happiness in our own way, without coercion from our neighbors or the state. This is why we oppose John Roberts: We believe it is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. We know that a woman who cannot control her own person is not free.

If Congress is to appoint conservative jurists, We The People demand they are mainstream conservatives that will uphold the Constitution as a common ground for all, not the playground of the few. It is the place of government to insure every single person in this country has an opportunity to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Moreover, as Congress comes together to consider the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, it has to ask how two years on the bench can possibly make a person qualified to be the top jurist in the land. We have seen the tragic consequences of George W. Bush's patronage appointments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We must be more vigilant in vetting the qualifications, experience and abilities of the nominees put forth by the Bush administration.

We also are deeply disturbed that Judge Roberts attempted to conceal his membership in the Federalist Society, and his role in Bush V. Gore. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be a seasoned judge with with a record that can be openly and completely examined. The White House’s refusal to release all documents pertaining to the nominee is further cause for extreme caution in this matter. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. This choice will affect the lives of all Americans for decades to come. We must have transparency in the process, and it must be rigorous and thorough.

We oppose the nomination of John Roberts, and ask that our Congressional representatives stand firm in insisting that the people chosen to fill the two vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States of America be people on whom we can rely to uphold the ideals that make us uniquely American – equal protection under the law, justice for all citizens in equal measure, equal opportunity, and true Liberty - the right to personal and individual autonomy.

Anything less cannot be allowed to exist if we are to call ourselves the descendants of Jefferson and Adams, or Washington and Franklin. Without a secular government and equal treatment for all, we cannot call ourselves Americans anymore.

REPRINT from The Goddess: Why Abortion Should Be Free

Why Abortion should be Free.

Have you ever been to an abortion clinic? Not the kind frequented by wealthy women with insurance - I mean the kind where poor women beg for an appointment and don't dare miss it. The kind where you wait in line some Saturday morning, and hopefully get in before the Christian fanatics show up to harass, intimidate or murder you. The kind where they do the procedure with only a local anesthetic.

Think about that one for a minute: only a local anesthetic. You see, poor women don't get the "luxury" of general anesthesia. The dignity and comfort- not to mention humanity- of sleep cost extra. A Poor woman has to stay awake. She feels the cold of the famous (or should I say infamous) stirrups in a room full of doctors and technicians. She endures seven needles plunged into her cervix. Men don't even have a body that comes close to causing that kind of pain. Some men will pierce their penis or scrotum for social or decorative reasons. True, you can't see the cervix, but as the owner of one, I can tell you, it's not a place you ever want to feel a needle. Men cannot begin to perceive what it's like, which is one of the main reasons they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about abortion. To quote Rachel on FRIENDS : "No uterus, no opinion." Once the shots have been administered, and the "numbing" begins hard metal is used to pry open the cervix to allow access to the uterus. Penetration of the cervix is not equivalent to anal penetration, so don't dare make that comparison. Again, this is pain only women ever get to know. And I put quotation marks around "numbing" because it's not as if the woman doesn't feel all of this. She does. She feels the center of her being being spread wide and she feels the scraping of her uterus. The scraping of her uterus. Or the "vacuuming". Either way, it's not a way a human should be awake for on a Saturday morning.

When the procedure is done, the woman walks(!) into a room full of reclining chairs or chaise lounge type chairs with a bunch of other women. Some are crying. Some are sleeping or unconscious. Some are cramping and throwing up- or rather, heaving, because they haven't eaten. When she's feeling stronger, she might have a little orange juice or peanut butter and crackers. After a couple of hours, they send her home. Goddess help her if she hasn't got someone to care for her, or especially if she has children or others that she must care for. Even worse, if she lives alone and begins to hemorrhage in her sleep. You can't call 911 if you can't afford a phone.

The cruelest thing the anti-choice movement does is to call abortion the "easy way out". There is nothing easy about this process. Aside from the actual physical pain, we need to tell young women about all of the effects of pregnancy. Once a woman has been pregnant, even for only a few weeks, her body may never be the same. The same hormonal changes that cause depression, nausea, weight gain, etc. are active at the earliest stages, and sudden termination of a pregnancy can cause severe postpartum depression and/or psychosis. This is a life altering event. Some women never recover completely, physically or psychologically. Thankfully, the social stigma is gradually going away, but we have a long way to go before this process is guilt-free.

I wish for a world in which every child born is wanted. Bringing a child into an impoverished, abusive or loveless environment is unnecessary if we will all be conscious of our choices. Accidents do happen, though, under the best of circumstances. When they do, or when a woman is raped, or when the birth control just doesn't work, we can't point to a social system that provides all of the support needed for the mother or the child. We don't have an adequate safety net for families who can't afford another mouth to feed; another mind to educate; insurance, health care or childcare. Unwanted children are a burden on society. They are abused, abandoned, and mistreated in every way possible. In an ideal world, pregnancy would be a gift and we'd have adequate support available for those willing to raise the next generation, but it isn't and we don't. Until we do, I don't want women to die from illegal, back alley abortions; I don't want women to bleed to death from trying to do it alone or with another unqualified person. I don't want poor women enslaved by a power structure in which we have no say.

The idea that a bunch of rich old white men have any right to tell young women of any color what they can and cannot do with their bodies makes me ill. I am a sentient being. I am not chattle, I am not a slave, and I have the rights to my own body. It's my right to have sex or not; it's my right to host a fetus or not; it's my right to have all of the information I need to make my own choices. So abortion should be legal, and free. And for Goddess' sake, give the girl a general anesthesia. It's the only humane thing to do.

Howard Dean speaks out on John Roberts

The Democratic Party

And the answer is: NO.

It's quite well done - he works Katrina in and everything.

Now, go read the whole thing, then pray like crazy that the people who are supposed to be looking out for us actually will this time!

Just gut 'em to death so they're meaningless

...That's the strategy of many state-based anti-women's-reproductive-rights zealots when it comes to undermining Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Conn., and women's reproductive rights all together. Waiting periods, very biased so-called "counseling" sessions, parental consent/notification, physicians being legally forced to tell false information to their patients about abortion and other reproductive health issues, and bullshit 'women's right to know' bills--assuming that women are too stupid to research information on abortion and their reproductive health all on their own, and they need big strong anti-women's-reproductive-rights male politicians to do it for them. And the list of restrictions goes on.

But these zealots also insist that state lawmakers "protect" pharmacists who get their jollies from imposing their anti-women-having-sex-for-pleasure-rather-than-babymaking-dogma on women, seeking to have their contraception prescriptions re-filled. Then there's abstinence-only "education"--we already know about that. So what's the point of Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Conn. if fanatical anti-choice ideologues and their allies in political office will just pass laws undermining them all willy-nilly? (well I know the point of Roe and Griswold and we still them to be upheld by the courts, but I'm just being sarcastic and rhetorical)

This article from Planned Parenthood details the toll all of these anti-choice legislations and tactics have taken on women's reproductive rights, and it even reminds us the tenuousness of women's reproductive freedom in this country. Also remembering that in other countries such as in Africa and South America, some women there practically have almost zero reproductive rights, or control over their reproductive destinies. But that certainly does not mean that American women should just 'shut-up, take it, and be thankful,' though others would say and think to the contrary. Yes, "thankful" that our reproductive freedom hangs in the balance with a few votes, vague and easily misconstrued words in the Constitution, and a male-dominated government.

[...]It was then, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that the Supreme Court ruled that individual state governments could pass laws that restricted abortions within state boundaries. Abortions would still be legal, but states now had a significant say in the circumstances under which they could be performed.

In recent years, laws requiring mandatory delay periods before an abortion may be performed, coupled with biased, scripted anti-choice "counseling" sessions, have proven especially popular among anti-choice state lawmakers. Such laws, which prohibit women from obtaining abortions until after they've listened to a state-mandated lecture and waited anywhere from one to three days, are currently in effect in about half the states.

Increasing Costs and Risks

Pennsylvania is just one of several states where these laws are currently in effect. Because more than 80 percent of counties offer no abortion services at all, most women must travel a significant distance just to reach a provider.

Upon arrival, women must listen to a lecture that includes information about potential medical-assistance benefits for birthing and neonatal care, agencies offering alternatives to abortion, and state-prepared materials graphically describing the "unborn child" and outlining the "possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion."

After the lecture, women are forced to wait at least 24 hours before they can get an abortion. If the clinic has room in its schedule, the woman may finally receive an abortion when the 24-hour waiting period is up.[...]

A Private Matter

[...]"These laws are insulting to women," says PPSP's Steinberg. "They assume that women haven't thought about what they want to do with their pregnancy until they walk into the clinic, when most women have been thinking about it since after they missed their period, or longer."

Bill Crowden, associate director of Planned Parenthood of Waco/Central Texas. "These women don't decide to have an abortion overnight," says Crowden. "They've thought about it, and by the time they come to us they tend to know what they want. The law makes things complicated and inconvenient. But it's not changing any minds."

Recent Developments

State governments continue to consider and pass mandatory delay and counseling laws at an alarming rate. In 2004, 25 states considered 130 such measures. Among the measures calling for counseling sessions, 30 included recommendations that health care providers warn women of a potential link between abortion and breast cancer — a link rejected by mainstream medical authorities.

On June 28, 2005, the Rhode Island State Senate approved by a vote of 27-9 the so-called "Women's Right to Know Act," which imposes a 24-hour mandatory delay between the time a woman is presented with abortion-related information and the time an abortion may be performed. A proposed amendment to the bill, providing an exception to the 24-hour delay in cases of rape or incest, was rejected.

A Small Victory

Better news comes from South Dakota, where on June 30 a federal district court preliminarily enjoined a law — before it took effect — that would have required doctors to provide women with medically inaccurate information prior to receiving an abortion. Among other false, misleading, and blatantly anti-choice information, the law would have compelled doctors — in violation of their First Amendment rights — to tell women that abortion increases the risk of suicide.

Of course, victories like this are scarce when it comes to biased counseling and mandatory delay laws. But that doesn't diminish the resolve of providers to expand access to reproductive health services — in fact, it only strengthens it.

And we know that Roberts will be confirmed but everyone is speculating as to exactly how many Dems will vote for him, and what will be the split (if any--I doubt there will be a split, sigh). Then we get another anti-choice nominee from Bush--joy, it just never ends. As for the Roberts hearings for today, he claimed that nothing in his past record and opinions as a judge suggests that he is an ideologue. Well when edited enough before going in front of the committee of course they're not. And when asked about them, you can just spin them any way you damn well please or refuse to answer for them all together. As already mentioned it's called the 'Judicial Fifth', and he and any judicial nominee has a right to invoke it.

**UPDATE!**: NARAL Pro-Choice America's release for Day Four of the Roberts hearings.

MediaGirl: Life begins at Birth - duh!

MediaGirl has had a lot of great posts lately, but this one really gets to the heart of the issue.

Quoth MG:

When a baby is born, there is a birth certificate. The birth certificate is used to confer rights. When you can vote, when you can drive, when you can drink, when you can marry, when you join catechism, when you have a bar/bat mitzvah, when you qualify for Social Security, when you go to kindergarten, when you can sign legal contracts by yourself, when you are eligible to be drafted, when you qualify for Medicare, when you can get a discount at the movies, and every other way we as a society determine age-contingent matters. We say, "Since the day I was born," to indicate our entire lives. Our tombstones show the year of death following the year of birth.

We celebrate birthdays, not erections, not that moment Mom and Dad did the dirty in the back seat of the car. We talk of "one on the way" (but not yet here). When a baby is born, we say, "A new life came into this world." We send out birth announcements. Christenings happen after birth. And as we have bridal showers before the woman is a bride, we have baby showers before the woman gives birth to a baby.

When a woman menstruates, we don't have a funeral. When there's a miscarriage, there can be terrible suffering and grief, but there's no funeral or death certificate. When a birth delivers a dead fetus, it is called "stillborn," not the death of a 9-month-old baby.

I would describe this as the point at which the child is no longer attached to the mother. As long as it is connected, it's a part of her, not a separate entity.

Confirming Roberts could be the end of America as we know it.

There's just no other way to say it. I know some of our sisters are live blogging the confirmation hearings, but just can't. I'm overwhelmed with the feeling that the Democrats have already abandoned the women of America. We haven't been able to depend on them for some time, and now, when our most basic rights to autonomy may be at stake, I don't know that they'll have the fortitude to stand up for our rights. There's a conference call with Senator Kennedy soon - I'll check in again after.

"A Covenant of Privacy"

Yesterday, the Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments from Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri and Women's Health Care of Wichita in their appeal against the actions of 'grand anti-women's-reproductive-rights inquisitor,' the Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. If you will remember, Kline had been going after women's clinics in pursuit of obtaining medical records of minors under a bullshit subterfuge claiming to investigate and search for evidence of child sexual abuse and rape. Comprehensive Health's and Planned Parenthood's appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court; protection for the "covenant of privacy" between doctor and his/her patient. (via Planned Parenthood)

TOPEKA, KANSAS — On Thursday, September 8, 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court will hear arguments in Comprehensive Health's appeal to protect the covenant between a doctor and his or her patient — a covenant of privacy that all citizens expect and deserve.

Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri and Women's Health Care of Wichita are fighting to protect dozens of confidential patient records that have been subpoenaed as part of an "inquisition" (K.S.A Chapter 22) pursued by anti-choice Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. [...]

The subpoenas, prepared by Attorney General Kline's office and issued by a Topeka court in September 2004, ordered Comprehensive Health and Women's Health Care to hand over dozens of complete medical records of abortion patients, including identifying information and full medical and sexual histories.[...]

Comprehensive Health is a trusted provider of high quality reproductive health care and fully complies with the law. We share the goal of protecting children and young women from abuse and of ensuring compliance with Kansas abortion law. Comprehensive Health's health care providers consistently cooperate with law enforcement to provide compassionate care to sexual assault survivors and to report suspected abuse.[...]

It's increasingly clear that Attorney General Kline is mounting an all-out assault on the rights of women and men to make their own decisions in the most private and personal areas of their lives, free from intrusion by politicians.

General Kline's recent suit against the Governor to block Medicaid clients from lifesaving care makes his objective more apparent. He clearly intends to deny women access to abortion, even to save their lives. Little wonder that he is willing to violate a woman's privacy to pursue his extreme political agenda.[...]

Patients entrust the privacy and safe-keeping of their medical information to their doctors. Comprehensive Health cannot and will not violate this trust to serve the political agenda of the Attorney General. [...]

Nothing like a little abuse of power in order to push a scare/intimidation-tactic based agenda against women's reproductive rights, eh, Kline? Best of luck to PP of Kansas in their struggle to preserve and protect women's reproductive rights from the political agendas of zealous anti-reproductive-rights ideologues such as Kline.

Alas, a blog : California Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Law; Schwarzenegger hints he'll veto

Alas, a blog

My Comments:

Look, the goal of America was to create a society where individual liberties are respected above government interference and that every citizen have equal treatment under the law. An adult citizen should be free to "marry" any other adult citizen or citizens in any configuration they choose. As long as the parties involved are in agreement, the government should have no say in limiting them, except with respect to incest, which can be viewed as a genetically unsound practice.

The fact is that there is a fundamental right to designate one's own spouse(s) and the government's only role should be to recognize that relationship. They need to either open it up to everyone equally or get out of the marriage business altogether.

I would have no objection if they wanted to decalre a "marriage" to be a religious practice, and get states out of it completely - no tax breaks, no favoritism under inheritance law, etc. However, marriage was not invented by Christians, so it would be inaccurate to say it is only a religious practice. There have been many societies where a marriage only signified an agreement to share the same living space, and "divorce" involved taking your belongings and going elsewhere.

As to hypocrisy, I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be a Republican and have a functionaly super ego. If you have a conscience, care about being consistent, honest, or moral, you simply can't do it within that framework. Arnold's job as a Republican is to do what the party wants, and the party says gays can't marry. Therefore, Arnold will say whatever it takes to oppose gay marriage. If the legislature approves it, claim it should be decided by the courts. Conversely, if the courts approve it, call them activist and demand it be left to the popular vote. Ultimately, it should be up to neither the legislature, the courts, or anyone except the individuals involved.

The Constitution clearly states that all rights not specifically addressed wothin it are reserved to the people. Marriage rights were not addressed, so it is up to the people to decide how they will approach marriage. Personally, I think that those thousand-plus laws are that favor married couples are
unconstitutional. I don't agree that the nuclear family benefits society, nor that there is a compelling interest in the state supporting it.

Most families are extended, and have been throughout history. The idea of mom, dad and a couple fo kids only is a modern myth that rarely occurs in any stable form now. Most adults practice a form of serial monogamy, and most children have at least one primary caretaker who is not a biological mother or father. It would make far more sense to have each individual exist as a separate entity in the eyes of the government, and to have health care, child care and education provided equally across the board. We already have structures in place to deal with child custody - why should the legal relationship betweeen the child's custodians be an issue in determining what is best for the child?

To borrow a quote fromBill Maher "We're either drinking from the same water fountain in this country, or we're not." It is time to put an end to the special rights of heterosexuals.

ROBERTS IS WRONG CHOICE FOR CHIEF JUSTICE, SAYS AMERICANS UNITED

Head Of Judicial Branch Of Government Should Not Be An Ideologue, Watchdog Group Asserts

John G. Roberts is the wrong candidate to replace William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

President George W. Bush has announced Roberts’ nomination to the nation’s top judicial slot. Americans United, which opposed Roberts’ nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, says his proposed elevation to chief justice raises the stakes.

“The chief justice is the head of the third branch of government,” said Ayesha Khan, legal director of Americans United. “This key position must not be filled by an ideologue with a far-right agenda. Roberts is the wrong person for this extraordinarily important job.”

Last week, Americans United issued a detailed report on Roberts’ hostility to court decisions upholding religious freedom. The report concluded that Roberts would seek to dramatically lower the wall of separation between church and state, endangering the rights of religious minorities.

“Our nation must have a chief justice who respects church-state separation and will ensure proper constitutional protections for all Americans,” said Khan. “Americans deserve a chief justice who seeks to protect, not undermine, the handiwork of our Founding Fathers.”

Americans United also called on a prompt release of all relevant White House documents relating to Roberts and called on the Senate to closely question the nominee about his past statements and actions.

Khan noted that the next chief justice could end up leading the court for decades. In light of that, she said, it is imperative that a nominee be chosen who believes in freedom of conscience. Roberts, she said, fails that test.

This goes beyond Reproductive Rights. He's not qualified with only 2 years as a judge. He doesn't believe in a Right to Privacy, which could vastly reshape American law. Remember that this is the Crony Conservatives we're dealing with here. There's some reason we don't know that Bush wants this guy. He has to be stopped.