Well if you're going down in flames already...

Bush Further Taints Legacy

Washington, D.C. – Today, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, expressed extreme disappointment over the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) issue of the final Bush administration rule that could undermine women's access to essential health-care services, including birth control.

"President Bush's campaign promise was to unite Americans and he certainly did, as Americans are united in their opposition to this dangerous last-minute rule," Keenan said. "This last-ditch effort to undermine women's health and privacy is a transparent payoff to the right-wing pressure groups. In the 2008 election, voters clearly rejected the use of government authority to advance divisive policies. We look forward to working with the incoming Obama administration to reverse this divisive rule and change the tone of the debate over reproductive rights by protecting women's access to contraception, which actually helps prevent unintended pregnancies."

The new Bush administration regulation purports to encourage enforcement of, and education about, the existing laws described above. If that were so, the regulation would not be groundbreaking, necessarily. But in fact, the regulation pushes the bounds of current law and introduces several very serious problems:

It jeopardizes women's access to birth control by leaving open the possibility that providers will be able to define contraception as abortion; allowing them to do so could thereby expand the conscience protections pertaining to abortion to apply to birth control as well.

It expands the universe of individuals and institutions that are explicitly afforded refusal rights. It offers broad rights to employees who are only tangentially involved in providing the services at issue (for example, receptionists scheduling appointments), and it may grant entire health-care corporations (hospitals, HMOs, insurance companies) the same "conscience" rights as those offered to individuals.

It allows individuals to refuse to give referrals and information about a broad range of services. Current law allows individuals the right to refuse to refer or counsel patients for abortion services, but the regulation may allow individuals to refuse to provide referrals and information about any health-care services. This could affect reproductive-health services and many other health-care services beyond.

It fails to take into consideration laws that protect patients' rights to services and information, potentially limiting patients' abilities to make informed decisions about their own health-care needs and to access legal health-care services.

Read more!

Take action!

Sexual violence education...for MEN

Damn, we kind of suck at updating this frequently!

Anyway, the Star Tribune had a great article in the Sunday paper last week and I wanted to share it with everyone. Minnesota State colleges are focusing heavily on educating men about rape and sexual violence, and teaching them how to stand up for women. It's the change we've been needing to see for years!!!

Here's an excerpt:

Instead of teaching women not to walk alone at night or to carry Mace, some colleges are trying something much harder -- changing college men.

It's a great article - definitely check it out!

Coming up: The decline in abortion in recent movies and perhaps a little something about harmful advertisement for women.

Jess Weiner - Self Esteem Expert

I recently had the pleasure of listening to Jessica Weiner (www.jessweiner.com) speak at Minnesota State Univeristy, Mankato. She spoke of sexual violence and it's effect on us and those around us. She started off the night with the discussion of what sexual violence is and what the student’s perception of it was. We came to a consensus that sexual violence is any sexual act forced against someone’s will. Everyone has a story and most of them stay silent in fear of being judged or embarassed.

My story: I was a sophomore in college and was having issues with my boyfriend. I decided to break it off with him. He started calling me names, posting things on his MSN about me and making me out to be a bad person. Continued telling his friends lies about me and make me feel like shit. Afterwards of course being single caught the attention of some guys but I had stuck to it and ignored them while confiding in my friends and trying to gain my own emotional ground. One who I was confiding in was one of my guy friends who I had known since freshman year. Unfortunately I had confided in him too much. I went to his dorm room emotionally distraught and he attempted to calm me down. He popped in a movie and let me just lay there...for a little. Next think I knew his hand was down my pants and he some how forced himself on top of me trying to make out with him and force me to go further. Prior to this he had been the one who would offer me back massages only to get a feel. I didn't let him have his way. He had gotten up to go to the bathroom and came back to find me missing. He had asked me what went on and I explained to him that it was unacceptable and it had better not happen again. After that, he refused to talk to me.

Stories like this are what can educate people. Don't put yourself in these situations...be smart! One thing that was discussed during this event was the fact that kids are uneducated about sex whether it be that schools don’t teach it or that parents don’t educate their children well enough on the topic. Most schools teach about abstinence which I believe doesn't do anything. Kids are still going to be curious and instead of teaching safe sex we try to teach them that sex is wrong and therefore kids have unprotected sex.

Another point that was stressed in the presentation was the different ways of saying no and knowing whether or not one can tell if the situation is good or not. Women and men alike need to learn to say no. Yes a woman may become labeled as a bitch, pussy, whore, cunt, and whatever else men use to slander them but "no" can save someone. Men may be seen as a pussy if he is still a virgin by a certain age or he may be called a man for sleeping with a certain quota. However, regardles..."no" can change the situation. Silence is not a way of saying no. "No" means no and Ibelieve everyone should find there own way of saying it and stressing it.

Some facts gained from this event:
-Most people know someone who has been or who themselves have been victims of sexual violence.
- Every 90 seconds someone in America is sexually assaulted,
-About 44% of rape victims are under age 18 and 80% are under age 30, and one in four college women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape.

Please educate those around you that sexual violence (assault, rape, harassment, etc.) is not allowed. Explain to your friend, child, spouse, or whomever you know what "no" means and that "no" does not make you a bad person. Like I said, everyone has a story including myself and if those who do have stories are kept silent, the word will not get out and this problem will continue.

Uh oh...

Letter from the President

I received the following email from Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America:

Gov. Palin had a good applause line last night about hockey moms and lipstick on pitbulls. Well, we have an expression here, too: Dress it up any way you like, but the McCain-Palin rhetoric about women’s freedom and privacy is nothing more than lipstick on a pig!

John McCain and Sarah Palin would leave American women with no choice and no privacy. And we can’t let voters be deceived. Not when reproductive health is on the line. And make no mistake, it is!

When you take away the rhetoric, chants, signs, and spin -- the McCain-Palin ticket is one of the MOST anti-choice campaigns we’ve seen and the platform on which they are running is the most anti-choice ever put forward.

Quite right...it's terrifying!! And of course, you don't actually hear this in their speeches b/c they know it would turn away the voters they're attempting to get by taking on a woman VP pick. For proof, here's another lovely McCain quote (be prepared):

John McCain on NBC's, Meet The Press, 1/30/00

Mr. Russert: “A Constitutional Amendment to ban all abortions?”
McCain: “Yes Sir”
Mr. Russert: “But, Senator, women across the country would say, prior to Roe v. Wade, hundreds of thousands of women a year went to the back alleys to have abortions.”
McCain responded: “I understand that.”
Mr. Russert: “Many died.”
McCain, “I understand that.”

Heartless.

Presidential views on choice

I find it amusing that McCain chose a woman for his running mate (presumably to get the chicas to vote for him), seeing as how he's completely anti-choice. Here are some quotes/opinions of the dear Republican candidate (special thanks to GlassBooth.org!):

If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. "But I would not prosecute a woman" who obtained an abortion. -- Boston Globe, Jan. 31, 2000

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." -- Associated Press article, Feb. 18, 2007

Here he acknowledges what women would have to resort to without a choice - and still disagrees!!!

But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." -- Washington Post

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. -- Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services, 2005

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." -- NowPublic article, August 27, 2007

"I would do everything in my power to ban that horrible procedure...of partial-birth abortion." -- GlassBooth

McCain was asked whether he would reinstate the Reagan era rule that prevents international family planning clinics that receive federal funds from discussing abortion. "I don't believe they should advocate abortion with my tax dollars," McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, "I think [bold font ours] that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that." -- NYT, Jan. 25, 2000

He supports abstinence-only programs...even though countless research have shown that they DON'T WORK:

Senator McCain has a long legislative record of supporting abstinence-based initiatives in his record in the U.S. Senate, said Trey Walker, McCain's South Carolina campaign director. "He thinks that abstinence is healthier and should be promoted in our society for young people." -- Associated Press article, Feb. 16, 2007

On his own Web site!!

On a decision by the Supreme Court to uphold a ban on "partial birth" abortions: "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children...as we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."

And my personal favorite:

"I am pro-life because of my belief in the dignity of human life." -- ABC News: Political Radar post

Right...let's kill everyone except unborn babies.

Aussie inflation deflation

ABC News in Australia reported the following today:

The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index measures the happiness and wellbeing of Australians.

The latest findings have shown that for the first time in seven years, the wellbeing of men is higher that that of women.

Report author Professor Bob Cummins, from Deakin University, found that women are more sensitive to rising costs as they make more of the household purchasing decisions.

Well, that made me curious, seeing how our economy isn't so hot in the good ol' US either. So after doing a little research, I found the following in a Wall Street Journal blog by Wendy Pollack:

In addition to the well-documented disparity between men’s and women’s pay, there is a persistent gender gap involving consumer prices. Lately, that gap has been widening, Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg tells BusinessWeek. The cost of consumer goods and services targeted at women — including clothes, shoes, cosmetics, jewelry, housekeeping and appliances) have been rising faster than those for typically male products (men’s clothing, sporting goods, televisions, and auto parts and repairs). Using U.S. consumer price inflation data for the past year, Mr. Rosenberg pegs the “female inflation rate” at 3.6% year to year, 18 times the 0.2% rate for men.

Dubs T F? Cause we're not already at a disadvantage?? Of course, there are some reasons for this. WSJ goes on to say:

There are a number of factors driving the disparity. For starters, women currently are experiencing greater job growth than men, fueling an increase in their consumer confidence to six-year highs. That bolsters demand, and consequently, prices, for the things that women are more likely to purchase.

What’s more, women are marrying later than they used to, or not at all. That affects price inflation because single women spend a greater proportion of their income than single men. Unmarried women also tend to spend more money on themselves than men, according to the Census Bureau’s Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Hmmm...makes you take a little different look when at the mall.