Posts tagged feminist

atheismfuckyeah:

This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women and minorities from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.

Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

And so Cummings, along with the Democratic women on the panel, took their request to the hearing room, demanding that Issa consider the testimony of a female college student. But the California congressman insisted that the hearing should focus on the rules’ alleged infringement on “religious liberty,” not contraception coverage, and denied the request. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) walked out of the hearing in protest of his decision, citing frustration over the fact that the first panel of witnesses consisted only of male religious leaders against the rule. Holmes Norton said she will not return, calling Issa’s chairmanship an “autocratic regime.”

AlterNet

See a video compilation of the exchange at the link.

I’ve bolded the part I thought needed the most attention.

You know what that statement says? That says that women shouldn’t be allowed to talk ever, the men are being important and making important decisions, so the women should shut up and just take it.

IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW MUCH THESE PEOPLE TALK ABUOT IT BEING A RELIGIOUS FREEDOM/RIGHTS MATTER, THAT’S BULLSHIT - BECAUSE GUESS THE FUCK WHAT? IT IS A CONTRACEPTIVE, REPRODUCTIVE AND SEXUAL AUTONOMY MATTER.

THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE WOMBS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS DECISION. THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN TO BE ABLE TO GET PREGNANT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS.

AND LOOK WHO’S ON THIS PANEL. OLD, WHITE, CIS-MEN OF A RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE BENT.

TELL ME THESE OLD, WHITE, CONSERVATIVE, RELIGIOUS CIS-MEN AREN’T JUST SCARED OF WOMEN HAVING CONTROL OF THEIR OWN BODIES.

GO ON. TELL ME THAT. WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND NO SNIGGERING.

Fuck the Republicans.

Sometimes I am so grateful to be British. I get to actually have control over my womb here.

~Mooglets

unfriendlyatheist:

Welp, welp, welp. Tumblr won’t take any more queued posts, so that’s that.

I frequently see some problematic attitudes towards abortion, misogyny, and cis-centrism on me dash.

Shit like this:

Abortion… women…

or

Abortion… females…

Now, before we get to the essence of this argument, yall need to get one thing straight:

1. Women are not necessarily affected by abortion. Some women are not uterus bearing people who would/could need abortions.

2. Women are not exclusively affected by abortion. Some uterus bearing people who would/could need abortions are not women; some are men, some aren’t in the gender binary.

However… The forces behind anti-abortion/contraceptive legislation do not see any difference. In their eyes, all women and all females are equally evil and should be equally discriminated against. Conventional religion- especially the kind relevant to this issue- does not recognize non-gender-binary and/or non-cisgender individuals, so non-woman people who could need abortions would still be women in their eyes. And since these religions also are so gender obsessed and hellbent on making women’s lives hell, they care not whether a woman can even get pregnant, or will. 

To continue rambling with no clear structure

3. All women are affected by anti-abortion legislation, regardless of whether or not they can get pregnant. Religions hate women, period. The beliefs behind these anti-abortion attacks lie in issues that directly affect all women- women are lesser than men; men are the default, women are special cases; women need to be legislated more strictly, etc.

4. All individuals able to get pregnant are affected by anti-abortion legislation, regardless of whether or not they are women. The reason behind this is fairly obvious, and quite similar- religions hate people with uteruses, period. The beliefs behind these anti-abortion attacks this time can be said to target those with reproductive systems that produce eggs, as those religious beliefs place all able to get pregnant in the “women” category, which in this case is problematic because the “women” category also happens to be the “worth shit” category.

So, in answer to many folks’ whining complain of “do we NEEEED to be non-cis-centric or blah blah detracting from the issue,” shut the fuck up, firstly. Secondly, religions don’t care whether women can get pregnant or not, or whether non-women can get pregnant or not. They hate all of them.

Thirdly, by refusing to acknowledge REALITY, you are both being a massive douche and ignoring how ALL PEOPLE who are not socially-worshiped cisgender men are negatively impacted and actively oppressed by these types of religious beliefs.

IMHO, it’s cis-centric to say “women”, and it’s also completely off from reality (may be a Christian at this point). It’s also completely off from reality to say “females,” as you are ignoring how the religious right does not differentiate and also how women who are not females are being negatively impacted by people hating them for being women. 

So include both. The end.

PS Not totally relevant but not totally irrelevant either, but have you noticed how, theoretically, the people who need affordable access to abortions the least (upper class privileged white cis-women) are also the ones that get impacted by anti-abortion legislation the least? To expand and explain somewhat, an upper-class privileged white cis-woman has the most resources for safe birth and discreet adoption in the first place, but she’s also the most able to bypass anti-abortion legislation.

The actual end.

ALL.  OF.  THIS.

(via unfriendlyatheist-deactivated20)

mimi-memeko:

Please help me out! I need at least 25 responses to the following survey by Monday. Either reblog this and enter your answers or email them to me at mimi_memeko at hot male dot com.

1. Should abortion be legal? Why/why not.

Yes, absolutely it should be safe and legal as any other medical procedure.

2. Should abortion be legal in cases of rape/incest? Why/why not.

It should be legal in any case.  Because.  It is a life-saving medical procedure.

3. Should abortion be legal if pregnancy could cause health problems/threaten the life of the mother? Why/why not.

Same answer as above.

4. When do you believe life begins? (conception or birth)

Actual life does begin at conception, science can agree to that much.  But cancer cells are alive and we have medical procedures to remove them.  A human is granted full human rights when it becomes autonomous and no longer physically dependent on the person bearing it; in other words, birth.

5. Is abortion murder?

Absolutely not, and it is quite frankly insulting to call it such or even compare it to the actual murder of a helpless human being.

6. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, what should the charges be for someone who opts to abort? (imprisonment, fines etc.)

I know I didn’t answer “yes” to the previous question, but I just feel like I have to emphasize that ABORTION IS NOT A CRIME.  To even consider it as such is ludicrous.

7. Should abortion only be legal up to a certain stage in pregnancy? If so, when should the period in which it’s legal to abort be cut off?

It should always be legal, safe, and affordable.  Period.  No matter what.  No wanted child is going to be aborted in the second or third trimester unless the fetus is no longer viable and/or the health of the parent is at risk.  In those cases, abortion should be an option.

8. Should a fetus be granted personhood? (legally be classified as a person)

No, because it’s not a person, it’s only a potential person.

9. Some people who fall pregnant with multiple children (twins, triplets and more) opt to selectively abort fetuses in order to give birth to fewer children. Should this be legal?

Absolutely.  The health of the person bearing the children is of utmost importance.  The health of the family should also be taken into consideration.  Raising multiples is hard work and expensive.

10. Should there be age restrictions on how young/old you have to be to abort? Why/why not?

Absolutely not.  I think especially when you’re under 18 and pregnant you should have the option to abort.  Your own childhood isn’t over yet, to a certain extent; your future is ahead of you.  Becoming responsible for another human life at a very young age is a difficult thing and should not be forced on anyone.  Pregnancy in and of itself is difficult and should never be forced on anyone who does not want it.

11. Is your stance on abortion influenced or determined by religious views? If so, which religion?

I’m an atheist and an anti-theist, so I’m definitely not religious.  It wouldn’t matter anyway; no stance on any subject on purely religious grounds should be a basis for legislation of any kind in this country because there should be a separation of church and state.

12. Would you personally ever consider the option of abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancy? Why/why not.

Yes, immediately.  I have a crippling anxiety/fear of pregnancy and giving birth.  Also I’m childfree by choice and I shall remain that way.

13. Should the father have a say in whether the fetus is aborted or not? Why/why not.

Ultimately it’s not the other parent’s decision to make; it’s the decision of the uterus-bearing person because it’s their body and their choice.  Certainly the other parent should have some input, and they should have the choice whether or not to parent the child if it’s decided that the person bearing the child plans to keep it.  But it is the choice of the person bearing the child in the end.

14. Any final comments?

Thank you for completing my survey ^_^

Just want to reiterate what sanityscraps (the person I found this survey through) said: Abortion is not just a woman’s issue; it affects all people.  It’s very easy for most people to forget that men and people of other genders can get pregnant too.  It’s an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom for everyone.

(Source: grrrlfever)

mooglets:

[Trigger Warning: This article is about abortion, abortion rights and the reproductive rights and health of people who have a uterus]

Today the GOP-led House of Representatives, with the blessings and encouragement of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops and extremist religious groups such as the Family Research Council, passed a bill in a vote of 251 to 172 that would, among other things, allow doctors and hospitals to “exercise their conscience” by letting pregnant women facing emergency medical conditions die.

Yes. Die.

This is what the Republicans called the “Protect Life Act.”  And no, I am not kidding.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it what it is… “a savage assault on women’s health.”

Fifteen Democrats voted for what women’s groups are calling the “Let Women Die” Act.  These include anti-choice Congressmen Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Nick Rahall (WVA), Mike Ross (AR), Collin Petersen (MN), and Heath Shuler (D-NC).

“Extremists prevailed today in the House of Representatives,” said Debra Ness of the National Partnership for Women and Families, “proving again that they are badly out-of-touch with the majority of Americans who want lawmakers to focus on economic recovery, jobs and promoting, rather than restricting, affordable, quality health care ­— not [on] an extreme, anti-woman agenda.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called passage of the bill yet another reminder of how playing politics with women’s health and privacy is a priority for Speaker John Boehner.

“Americans are facing real challenges, yet House Speaker John Boehner is ignoring the public’s call for Congress to focus on jobs, “said Keenan. “Instead, he is coming up with new ways to give politicians more control over our personal, private decisions. The House’s attacks on women’s freedom and privacy are out of touch with our nation’s values and priorities.”

The bill, H.R. 358, about which we have written extensively, revives the earlier failed Stupak amendment, which would force health plans to drop comprehensive coverage in state health insurance exchanges, cutting off millions of women from the benefits they receive today and prevent women from paying for health insurance with abortion coverage with their own money.

H.R. 358 contains other provisions revealing complete disregard for women’s health and lives. It permits states to enact sweeping refusal laws that would allow health plans to refuse to cover women’s preventive services, including birth control, without cost-sharing — undoing a new protection under health reform supported by 66 percent of Americans.  It also codifies and significantly expands an already expansiverefusal clause (also known as the Weldon amendment) without any regard for patient rights or protections. Under current law (through the 2004 Weldon amendment), hospitals, health care facilities, and insurance plans can refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.  The Weldon amendment has no protections for patients to ensure they have access to care and information in a timely manner.  H.R. 358 codifies this unfair and discriminatory provision.  H.R. 358 further allows health care entities—hospitals, clinics—to refuse to “participate in” abortion care.  This could mean that a hospital employee with no medical training or role in a patient’s treatment decisions could refuse to process bills, handle medical records, or even set up an examination room for a patient seeking abortion care.

And finally, it overrides protections for pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.  EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay, including women in active labor. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her—including an emergency abortion—or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her. 

H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die. 

Read it again.  It is that breathtaking.

As Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) stated during floor debate, had this law been in effect 20 years ago she might not be here, because she was one of those women who needed an emergency abortion to save her life. 

But the real lives of real women don’t seem to be of great concern to the predominantly white male Congress.

“This bill is a collection of dangerous ideas that will undermine women’s health,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  “Most devastating, the bill eliminates protections for patients seeking care in emergency circumstances, and would allow a hospital to deny lifesaving abortion care to a woman, even if a doctor deems it necessary.”

President Obama has said he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk. “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358,” said the statement of policy put out by the White House, “because, as previously stated in the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3, the legislation intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.”

“America’s women and families are counting on the Senate to reject this measure,” said Ness of the National Partnership, “and, if necessary, for President Obama to make good on his promise to veto it.”

From R.H.Reality Check

I’ve got a very angry letter in the works to Rep. Shuler; I think any of my fellow US citizens who live in a state where their congressmen—ESPECIALLY their Dems—have voted in favor of this piece of shit bill should do the same.

primordial-rectitude:

Sign Here

(via veganmudblood)

allineedarecats:

nategiven:

murphysbride:

a-mock-turtle:

Nothing.

Because it’s a fetus.

A cluster of cells incapable of thinking, feeling, writing, or saying anything.

It doesn’t know who you are, it doesn’t know what it is, it doesn’t even know it exists.

It’s not writing you fucking prose from your uterus.

S/he is scientifically accurate, albeit completely insensitive and kind of an unnecessary prick.

Aggression on either side of the abortion debate pisses me off.  Why does anyone have to be wrong?  Why can’t individual people be individually right?  The sixteen-year-old girl who develops an emotional attachment to the cluster of cells in her uterus and decides that her complete love and dedication to her child are enough to successfully keep and take care of her baby is just as right as the sixteen-year-old girl who decides to put it up for adoption, and both are just as right as the girl who decides to abort that cluster of cells because she knows she is incapable of loving or caring for the child the way it would need and doesn’t want to put another human being through the psychological trauma of being adopted or in foster care.

If you claim to be a proponent of choice, do not criticize or minimize those noble women who make the hard choice to keep their baby in the face of whatever situation created that unexpected child.  While she is no more noble than the woman who aborts her fetus, she is certainly no less noble than the woman who makes the best decision she knows how for her body, psyche, and fetus by aborting it in the face of criticism.  Both women face difficult situations and require tremendous strength to endure them.

If you claim to be pro-choice and then pick on or make fun of the pro-lifers who romanticize the unborn child, you are not being pro-choice.  You’re being pro-abortion.  Sure, they might seem a little silly in your eyes, but it is still a pro-life mother’s choice to love that cluster of cells, and damnit, she deserves your respect for that.  This kind of disrespectful nonsense is hate speech, and if it’s not okay for the pro-lifers to do, you are no better than they are when you do it.

That’s what objective and mature pro-choice looks like.  Now, shut the fuck up, and grow the fuck up.  You are not awesome.

Nate, they were not mocking the mother. The were mocking those dumbfucks on Facebook who post a first person story as a fetus. Idiotic pro-lifers.

Seriously, overreact much?

In any case, I’m fucking sick of being nice to people who are attempting to guilt-trip the general public into restricting human rights with scientifically inaccurate hyperbole.  This anthropomorphism of the human fetus is designed to manipulate people’s emotions and is a fundamentally inaccurate sentiment.

The choice of the individual is something that I will forever advocate, but if you think that I’m not gonna point out the misinformation that affects a person’s choice, you are wrong, sir.

(Source: dwemerkin, via andersonsnooper)

a-mock-turtle:

Nothing.

Because it’s a fetus.

A cluster of cells incapable of thinking, feeling, writing, or saying anything.

It doesn’t know who you are, it doesn’t know what it is, it doesn’t even know it exists.

It’s not writing you fucking prose from your uterus.

(Source: dwemerkin, via brashblacknonbeliever)