feminist blogs

I don't know how many of you are sports fans (of any kind), but I am. Baseball is my favorite. Football is up there. I even take part in fantasy leagues for both sports. So I love stories like these: Japan's Eri Yoshida is trying to become the first woman to play professional baseball in the United States. She's already the first in Japan. And she's just 18 years old.

Then there's this: Natalie Randolph was just named the head coach of a high school football team in D.C. She isn't the first, per se, but this is so rare that most people wouldn't even consider the possibility of a woman being head coach of a high school football team. She sounds well-qualified: She was a "wide receiver for the D.C. Divas women's pro football team and a standout sprinter and hurdler at the University of Virginia. She has experience coaching boys, having been an assistant football coach for Washington's H.D. Woodson High School in 2006 and 2007." And she's just 29 years old. (Another story here.)

And while I'm not really a racing fan, this is cool, too: Four women will start in today's IndyCar Series race, the season opener. They are Danica Patrick, Milka Duno, Simona de Silvestro and Ana Beatriz Figueiredo. This is a first; previously, three women had started in the same race. Congrats and well wishes to all of these women.

In other reading:

• The Guardian: "In pursuit of flexible working." Yes please.
• The Abortioneers: "Sad Times," about the unsafe, unsanitary clinic in Pennsylvania that was closed.
• Slate: "Black Death: The selective crusade against black women's abortions." From the article: "But there's something odd about the billboards. The child who appears beside the text is fully born. Abortion doesn't kill such children. What kills them, all too often, is shooting."
• The Washington Post: "D.C. to be first U.S. city to give away free female condoms to fight HIV/AIDS." This is a great idea.
• The New York Times: "The world's best countries for women."
• The Economist: "The war on baby girls: Gendercide."
• Feminists for Choice: "A woman that deserves a year-long celebration." (It's Margaret Fuller!)
• CBS News: "Trouble for Mitt Romney? Mass. Health Plan Covers Abortion"
• Gender Across Borders: "Who Defines “Family Values?"
• Time Magazine: "Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I hate that these women are fighting for our country, and our country doesn't fight for them.
• Hurriyet Daily News: "Afghan women’s rights trampled despite new law."
• Merced Sun Star: "UAE's model behavior on women's rights."
• AP: "Minority births on track to outnumber white births."
• Quad-City Times: "Iowa House bans guns after domestic abuse convictions."
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Study finds median wealth for single black women at $5."
• New York Times: "Panel Urges New Look at Caesarean Guidelines."
• Salon: "How lesbians 'ruined' prom."
• The Scavenger: "Sex not specified: Australia leads the way with legal document."
• RH Reality Check: "Banning Abortion: The First Step Toward Theocracy."

At the Denver Motherhood conference, I’m listening now to a talk by Wendy Kramer, co-founder and Director of the Donor Sibling Registry.  Here’s an excerpt from the organization’s “About Us” statement:

The Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) was founded in 2000 to assist individuals conceived as a result of sperm, egg or embryo donation that are seeking to make mutually desired contact with others with whom they share genetic ties.  Without any outside support, the DSR has single-handedly pioneered a national discussion about the donor conception industry and families, with it’s many media appearances and interviews. DSR advocates for the right to honesty and transparency for donor kids, and for social acceptance, legal rights and valuing the diversity of all families.

The DSR’s core value is honesty, with the conviction that people have the fundamental right to information about their biological origins and identities. The donor conception industry is largely a for-profit enterprise, and after the “product” has been purchased, most doctors, clinics and cryobanks have not engaged in discussions and activities acknowledging the humanity and rights of the donor-conceived. It is our mission to bring these concepts to the attention of the public arena for discussion, as has been done in many European countries.

More information is here.

Ms. Kramer predicts that anonymous sperm donation eventually will be eliminated in the United States.  She is also critical of the fertility industry’s failure to study health histories of egg donors.

She referenced a study of 750 donor-conceived children (52% of those surveyed were not affiliated with the Donor Sibling Registry).  70% of respondents say they wished their known parent had used a non-anonymous donor.

-Bridget Crawford

So, I live in BK and work in Manhattan. That means that every morning and every night, I spend about 30 minutes riding the NYC subway -an hour total on a daily basis.

Now. Usually I don't mind this part of my day. I scrunch up tight in packed trains with my fellow commuters, willing to weather the occasional bump and jostle to get to work at a reasonable hour. I jam to my customized "commute" playlists. I read from my book-of-the-moment. I play mindless video games on my iphone (jellycar holla!).

Anyway, apparently, thanks to a new ad campaign launching this month on NYC subways, I will be adding "I am forced to read some f'ed up anti-choice ads" to my regular subway repoirtoire.

Metro US is reporting that, starting this week, the New York City subway system will be home of a massive ad campaign bankrolled by the San Diego-based anti-choice organization "Abortion Changes You".

More images and info on the ads after the jump.

The article warns that

The 2,000 ads, which straphangers will see in nearly every subway station beginning tomorrow [this week], depict either a woman saying, "I thought life would be the way it was before," or a man saying, "I often wonder if there was something I could have done to help her."

I call bullshit, and I'm not the only one. Samantha Levine of NARAL Pro-Choice New York is all over this one:

"The campaign suggests that feelings of sadness and self-harm are the universal experiences for someone who had an abortion. And there's no evidence to suggest that that's true. The organization behind these ads has an agenda. They aren't seeking to help women -- they're seeking to get abortion banned."

I totally agree. I'm all for validating and honoring the experience of women who have had an abortion. But there are already TONS of really great support systems for women who have had abortions that are equipped to address a RANGE of post-abortion emotions and outcomes- glee, relief, guilt, sadness, loss, pride, no reaction at all, or a million other possibilities. When an ad campaign chooses to ignore these very real experiences of women who have had abortions, you have to assume that they have an agenda other than helping real women.

So, "Abortion Changes You" ad campaign, I have a question for you: If you care about women so much, why push such an anti-woman agenda? I think that the hidden-agenda-cloaked-in-faux-concern-for-women trend needed to end with the Aughts, yet somehow, the bizarre and twisted logic behind showing women you care about them by cutting off their access to healthcare mysteriously, miraculously, persists in all its annoyingness. Unfortunately, these ads are only the latest to join the crowded ranks of people and initiatives who couch their anti-woman agendas in messaging about "concern" for women and families (Georgia Right to Life, and Howard Stern are two recent ones that come to mind).

Aside from all that, the pictures from the group's website are pretty funny when you think about the fact that all the models are fake and just had these words plastered over their faux-concerned images:

I'm sorry your wife gets depressed, Brett Favre, but that's no excuse to take away other women's autonomy.

Listen, if you thought you were doing your job, you were absolutely right! You're a model, and you're looking real melancholy in this generic print ad. So...congrats on that!

In sum, I'll take a cue from Maya who wrote on twitter "yes, abortion change you- it makes you not pregnant anymore!" Also, you know what else changes you? Being FORCED to carry a pregnancy to term against your will! Now that's an ad campaign I wouldn't mind seeing on my morning commute.

“No one has ever given me a good reason why we should obey unjust laws.” Helen Keller, 1914.

The same year that Helen Keller made the above statement, Margaret Sanger was publishing articles advocating birth control in her journal The Woman Rebel, and knowingly breaking anti-obscenity laws by doing so.

Margaret Sanger and Helen Keller shared more than a love of justice. The two women had remarkable lives that were intertwined in many ways.

The women’s names were first associated in 1915 when Keller publicly commented on the Bollinger baby case. In a manner similar to the Terri Schiavo controversy, the Bollinger’s story acted as a line in the sand for individuals to publicly proclaim their position on birth control and eugenics. And just like the Schiavo case, everyone in America seemed to have an opinion, making it one of the year’s biggest news stories.

Keller sympathized with the Bollinger’s and cited the Sanger’s efforts to help poor families control the number of children they had through birth control. Keller applauded the Sanger’s efforts and even blamed capitalists for trying to keep poor families in poverty with many children in order to supply cheap labor to their factories.

Keller concluded that “Only by taking the responsibility of birth control into their own hands can they roll back the awful tide of misery that is sweeping over them and their children.”

Some of the other ways the lives of these two remarkable women were connected included:

• Both joined the Socialist Party and Industrial Workers of the World within a year of each other.
• Both were outspoken pacifists and wrote for New York Call (a leading Socialist paper).
• FBI kept files on both women.
• Hitler burned both of their books in the mid-1930s.
• Both saw birth control as a way to liberate women.
• Both named in Time Magazine’s “Most Important People of the Century.”
• Both women had offices on the same block, just a door away from each other. Despite this, the women did not meet until 1944 when a mutual friend introduced them in upstate New York.

I find it odd and almost disturbing that these two politically influential women would not have made a stronger effort to meet. I find it hard to understand how and why they did not meet while working a mere door away from each other. After all, Helen Keller was one of the most respected Americans during the time when Sanger faced the most backlash for her birth control activism. Surely Keller would have made a formidable ally for Sanger. Both women were highly connected in liberal New York circles, leaving one to wonder about the reason for the delay in their introduction.

After they finally met in 1944 the two remained close friends, socializing often and constantly making public tributes to each other. The women died two years apart, Sanger in 1966 and Keller in 1968.

After removing the word "reckless," this appalling bill has been signed by Governer Gary Herbert in Utah. The language of the bill was edited but originally proposed that "reckless and unintentional" death of a fetus would be criminalized, as in, a miscarriage.

Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law Monday a bill that would allow a woman who arranges an illegal abortion to be charged with criminal homicide.

The new law is in response to a case last year where a 17-year-old pregnant girl paid a man $150 to beat her in hopes of inducing a miscarriage. A judge ruled there was no law on Utah's books allowing the mother to be charged with a crime.

This language isn't really much better. Instead of recognizing that it could only be the most oppressive circumstances that would lead a young woman to have someone beat her in hopes of inducing a miscarriage, and therefore creating legislation that protects young women, they legislate against women.

Representative Bart Stupak, formerly an obscure Member of Congress who rose to notoriety when he introduced the anti-choice Stupak Amendment to health reform, is being challenged in the Democratic primary in Michigan. From TPM:

Connie Saltonstall, a former commissioner in Charlevoix County, told me this evening she's challenging Stupak over his refusal to allow health care reform to move forward without abortion language attached.

Saltonstall told me her "two passions" are health care reform and choice. And after spending the last 20 years voting for Stupak, Saltonstall said he managed to run afoul of both of them.

I don't know much about Saltonstall yet except that she is, in her own words to RH Reality Check, "Without a doubt pro-choice." That's already a big improvement over Stupak, who has been urged by the DCCC to run for re-election.

I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about Saltonstall soon. I hope she turns out to be a great candidate with a range of socially just positions, and that folks in Michigan help her create a positive campaign that can successfully unseat this anti-choice zealot.

Now is a great time, when the campaign is just getting underway, for folks in Michigan who want to help shape the agenda of their next Congressperson to learn more and get involved.

It's March 10th, the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. But the wonderful people who work in clinics to ensure that women have access to a safe and legal abortion deserve our appreciation every single day. Their work isn't easy, but they have many reasons to stick with it. I cannot thank them enough for being there for the women who need them.

Today also marks the anniversary of Dr. David Gunn's death in 1993. He was murdered by anti-choice activist Michael Griffin in Pensacola, Florida, becoming the first abortion provider to be killed simply because he provided abortions. And supporters of reproductive justice were greatly shaken when Dr. George Tiller was murdered last May. My heart goes out to the families and friends of Dr. Gunn, Dr. Tiller, and other abortion providers/clinic workers who have lost their lives.

There are many things you can do to honor today. A simple, but powerful, action would be to send a thank you card to your local abortion provider(s) and/or clinic workers. You can also (if you have the means) make a donation to any of several organizations that work towards reproductive justice. The National Network of Abortion Funds allows you to find a local fund for low-income women who need abortions. There's also Medical Students for Choice and Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

Also, be sure to head over to the National Abortion Federation to add your name and thank you note to their collection.

As I sat in the audience at Friday’s symposium on “Law, Gender & Citizenship: Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrants,” I was shocked by what I learned about the endemic sexual violence perpetrated against Native American women in the United States.  Data indicates that a minimum of one out of three Native American women has been the victim of sexual violence.  One of the speakers shared that in conducting her research she had yet to talk with a Native American woman who had not been the victim of sexual violence.  Research further shows that 80% of perpetrators of these crimes are non-Native American persons.  High rates of women being violently sexually assaulted by men not of her ethnic or racial group, like this, are the type of statistics I have come to associate with war zones rather than common life experiences. 

The violence perpetrated against Native American women, however, is only one of the many offenses carried out against them.  The U.S. government under the responsibilities assigned to Indian Health Services (HIS) is responsible for providing all health care services Native American Indians.  However, the U.S. government and IHS have failed to meet this mandate.  Native American Indians must often travel long distances to reach health facilities whose services are limited.  (more…)

Courtner Joslin (UC Davis) has posted to SSRN her encyclopedia entry, “Legal Regulation of Pregnancy and Childbirth.”  Here is the abstract:

This piece, a short entry in The Child: An Encyclopedic Companion, examines the legal regulation of pregnant women. In particular, the article discusses whether and under what circumstances the state can force pregnant women to undergo unwanted medical treatments or physically restrain or punish pregnant women for engaging in otherwise legal conduct when the state believes that these interventions are necessary to protect the fetus from potential harms.

The full piece is available here.

-Bridget Crawford

When Angie Jackson live tweeted her abortion she was speaking about what women have been told must remain private, secret, and yes, shameful. I support women telling their own stories without judgment or stigma. I want a culture where women can talk comfortably about their abortions, even if it is still a difficult choice for some, where women's choices aren't judged. Speaking openly about abortion helps to create this world.

In a piece published yesterday at Salon, former Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island Mary Ann Sorrentino argues Jackson's choice and the procedure she underwent shouldn't be talked about in public. Sorrentino attempts to make a generational argument, claiming pre-Roe feminists understand how bad illegal abortion was and how hard they fought for it, and know their aim was to gain a private right. The author spins the legal right to privacy argument into a condemnation of uppity women who give voice to their own abortion experiences - this private procedure shouldn't be talked about so flagrantly.

Sorrentino's argument has nothing to do with generational divisions. It's an argument that women shouldn't speak their truth in public.

Sorrentino suggests Jackson is irresponsible for not choosing sterilization. Not wanting to carry another pregnancy to term does not equal wanting or being able to have a tubal ligation. But I get the sense Sorrentino has limits on what she considers morally acceptable, and tying your tubes when you decide not to have more kids but still want to have cis hetero sex is apparently the responsible choice.

Sorrentino says Jackson caused the rest of the universe "anguish" and calls her public tweets an "abuse of reproductive rights" - as if abortion is always a severely painful decision that must be kept secret, or you're doing it wrong. She accuses Jackson of having "bad judgment." Sorrentino makes sure to point out Jackson has the right to speak publicly about her abortion, but it's just not the proper thing to do.

Sorrentino's piece reads like she's telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a "good girl." There are certain things a woman just shouldn't speak about in public. This isn't the feminism of a previous generation - it's an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women's experiences kept in the private sphere. It's an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn't listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

Jackson's live tweeting of her abortion actually has its roots in pre-Roe work for abortion access. Sorrentino's argument has its roots in anti-feminist understandings of the appropriate place for women's decisions and experiences - out of sight.

To hear Angie Jackson's reasons for sharing her abortion experience in her own words check out this CNN interview:

Full transcript here.