What She Said!

The next time some guy asks you where all the female bloggers are,
tell him What She Said!

Friday, September 30, 2005

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...

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

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 ";
    }
    ?>

Saturday, September 17, 2005

CALL TO ACTION: Women/Feminist Bloggers!

***If you are a woman or feminist man writing a blog, and you agree with the following statement, please copy it to a post on your own blog.***


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.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Look! Come and see! It's Sancho, Don Quixote's ass, braying out of both sides of his mouth. | Our Word

Our Word

A braying ass, indeed. Don't miss this most excellent rant!

REPRINT from The Goddess: Why Abortion Should Be Free

The-Goddess

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!

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

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.

Monday, September 12, 2005

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.