Abortion » Feminist Peace Network

Presidential Candidates’ Misogynist Mashup

Feb 072012

Women’s health has long been a political football, especially during election season. This year unfortunately, it is beginning to look like both teams are trying to dunk our lives in the same basket. Okay, forgive the mixed metaphor, I’ll let the candidates speak for themselves as they have all done so eloquently this week:

Newt Gingrich upped his attacks against President Obama on Sunday over his administration’s requirement that some religious hospitals offer co-pay-free birth control under the new health care law.

Gingrich’s comments come after a week of outrage from the Catholic Church and his fellow GOP presidential candidates over the policy.

“This is a tremendous infringement of religious liberty,” Newt Gingrich said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Every time you turn around the secular government is shrinking the rights of religious institutions in America.”

And then there is this gem from Santorum making the absolutely false, debunked a gazillion times, connection between abortion and cancer,

“I don’t believe that breast cancer research is advanced by funding an organization where you’ve seen ties to cancer and abortion,” he added. “So, I don’t think it’s a particularly healthy way of contributing money to further cause of breast cancer, but that’s for a private organization like Susan B. Komen to make that decision.”

Romney also decided to jump on the anti-Planned Parenthood wagon,

“I also feel that the government should cut off funding to Planned Parenthood,” the former Massachusetts governor added. “Look, the idea that we’re subsidizing an institution which is providing abortion, in my view, is wrong. Planned Parenthood ought to stand on their own feet, and should not get government subsidy.”

Of course he doesn’t want the government to provide those services either. But the win in the right wing misogynist hate fest goes to Ron Paul for coining the baffling phrase, “honest rape”,

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked whether or not victims of rape should have access to abortion services. He said that while he believes that life begins at the moment of conception, the issue is too complex for him to give an answer that will “satisfy everyone.”

In an interview from Las Vegas on Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan asked whether as a man with daughters and granddaughters, Rep. Paul (R-TX) thinks that abortion is warranted if a woman has been impregnated by a rapist.

“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story.”

Okay, all of the above is revolting, but they are all Republican candidates, so ixnay on the surprise but here is the one that makes me spitting mad:

A top adviser to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign suggested on Tuesday that the administration was open to working with Catholic hospitals and universities over their objections to providing birth control services to women.

That the political dialog has reached a point where a Democratic President running for re-election feels he can sell out women with the same impunity that Republicans candidates assert, women’s lives are in deep peril.

Amnesty Says Claims That It Promotes Abortion As A Human Right “Grossly Misrepresents AI’s Policy” – Say What?

Comments Off

Jul 012010

As Words Of Choice found out recently, Amnesty International apparently does not consider reproductive choice to be a human right. Cross-posted with kind permission:

Words of Choice learned a painful lesson this spring: Amnesty International, one of the most important human rights organization worldwide, does not support reproductive rights.

Amnesty International USA singled out Words of Choice at the First Amnesty International Human Rights Art Festival, and insisted that a speaker be present at Words of Choice events to announce that Amnesty did not support the messages of the play (no representative had seen it or spoken with us).

Amnesty’s position on abortion, we later learned, is exceedingly narrow. It supports a woman’s right to make a decision about pregnancy termination only if she is a victim of rape or incest, or if the life or health of the mother is at stake. It also opposes prison for women who have abortions and supports post-abortion care for botched abortions.

I’ve delayed telling this story because it hurts. Here are the details:

In late April, Words of Choice set out to participate in the Amnesty International Human Rights Art Festival in Silver Spring, Maryland, which was organized by Tom Block, a visual artist. Words of Choice signed up in October 2009; over 150 artists and arts groups joined in.

At the beginning of the year, Words of Choice blogged about the promise of the event, fusing social justice and the arts.

Dates were set, money raised, rehearsals held, venues scheduled, travel plans made. After months of planning, Words of Choice arrived in Silver Spring in April. That afternoon, Block sent an email:

An Amnesty International representative will be onsite at both of your events to state at the beginning that the views of Words of Choice do not represent the official position of Amnesty International, as officially, Amnesty takes no position on abortion rights.

It is either this or cancel your event.Thomas Block
Producer

This was unusual because no Amnesty representative had seen the play, and no other artist that we know of received a similar demand. Nonetheless, we welcomed participation, especially since Words of Choice is meant to open up discussions about reproductive rights.

Our first event at the Human Rights Art Festival was a Creativity Workshop at Pyramid Atlantic art center. Folabi K. Olagbaju, (above,left) Director of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of Amnesty International USA, arrived while we were in process. He described, at length, Amnesty’s position — supporting the legal access to abortion only in cases of rape, incest or grave threat to life or health.

He later sent an email further explaining the position of Amnesty and it is reprinted in full here.

Olagbaju writes that Amnesty’s current policy enables it to:

1. Support women who seek a safe, early medical termination of pregnancy in cases of rape, incest or when a woman’s life or health is at grave risk.
2. Urge governments to make medical care available to women who suffer complications from unsafe abortion; and
3. Oppose imprisonment or other criminal penalties for abortion against women or their providers.

Olagbaju described the adoption of this policy, dating only to 2007, as a step forward, despite the fact that Amnesty’s policy is approximately equivalent to an abortion ban proposed in South Dakota in 2008 (and voted down).

On its website, the Amnesty policy can be found on fact sheets and descriptions of Sexual and Reproductive Rights. Of particular interest is a FAQ on Sexual and Reproductive Rights.

Olagbaju said in person and by email that our events would not have been cancelled.

Note: Here is the specific wording of AI’s position on abortion. I have always considered their work to be of the utmost important and their organization to be a significant ally on women’s human rights issues. While I continue to believe that they do valuable work, this incident and their stated position is extremely disturbing and I will not promote contributing to their work until that stand changes.

AI takes no position on whether abortion is right or wrong, nor on whether or not abortion should be legal. The particular right AI works to protect is the right of all women to be free of any form of coercion, discrimination or violence as they make and put into effect informed decisions regarding the regulation of their fertility.

AI’s sexual and reproductive rights policy emphasizes access to contraceptive services and to sexual health information so that the risk of unwanted pregnancies can be reduced.

4. Does AI promote “abortion as human right”?
No. Some media reports and individuals have claimed that AI promotes a “human right to abortion.” This grossly misrepresents AI’s policy on sexual and reproductive rights.

5. Is it accurate to say that Amnesty International has a neutral position on the abortion question?
AI takes no position on whether abortion is right or wrong. AI has long opposed forced abortion, sterilization and contraception in all circumstances. AI currently does not take a position on laws regulating the termination of pregnancy other than in cases when pregnancy results from rape, sexual assault, or incest or where it poses a risk to the woman’s life or a grave risk to her health.

The Oily Logic Of Right-Wing ‘Family Values’

Comments Off

May 242010

I no longer work in the visual arts, but I do remember what happens when you mix pink and green–the result isn’t pretty. And when you mix green-washing with pink-washing, it is even uglier and that is exactly what the so called family values folks are doing with their new The Pill Kills campaign when they argue that the pill is bad for the environment so therefore you shouldn’t take it. Lisa Hymas eloquently explains the problem with that line of reasoning over at Grist so that I don’t have to:

It’s true — studies do show that the Pill has adverse effects on marine life, and that’s also worrying for those of us who drink water. It’s just one of many reasons why we need new and better birth-control options, as I’ve argued before.But what the “Pill Kills” site doesn’t make immediately clear is that the American Life League opposes all contraception of any kind (other than the good ol’ rhythm method). If the group gave a rat’s ass about the environment, it would acknowledge that unplanned pregnancies and resultant unplanned births ultimately lead to umpteen times more environmental degradation than the Pill.

I was going to include some of American Life’s talking points for your edification, but the link to them didn’t work when I tried to take a look-see, so just sit back and enjoy the irony of that, you can probably figure them out on your own anyhow.

Meanwhile, the right’s newest wingnut, Rand Paul, fresh after getting his ass whipped after putting his foot in his racist mouth on The Rachel Maddow Show, stepped in it again,

“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’” Rand said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”

And the less than six degrees of separation between these two items is this–One of the issues that has barely been discussed as the Gulf oil catastrophe unfolds is the impact on human health, especially on reproductive health and for children whose smaller still developing systems are particularly vulnerable. Via of all places Fox, based on what we know about the impact of the Exxon Valdez catastrophe,

Will this oil spill affect our health?The short answer is, yes. There are well-documented analyses on the effects of environmental pollution of previous oil spills — some which have occurred inland and certainly the Exxon Valdez spill in the Alaskan waters of the Prince William Sound in 1989. You have to remember that it only takes about a quart of crude oil to pollute 150,000 gallons of water. Crude oil contains substances such as benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that have been proven to cause severe reactions in humans — some mild, such as nausea, vomiting and fatigue. But studies have also linked exposure to these compounds to more serious conditions like leukemia and certain types of cancers.

Another negative health effect that could come from this massive environmental catastrophe is the potential for exposure to heavy metals, such as lead — which we know can be very detrimental to the health of an unborn child — resulting in low birth weight, developmental delays, miscarriage and even stillbirth. So pregnant women are especially vulnerable to these heavy metals.

And marine biologist Dr.Riki Ott reports that,

Fishermen responders who are working BP’s giant uncontrolled slick in the Gulf are reporting bad headaches, hacking coughs, stuffy sinuses, sore throats, and other symptoms. The Material Safety Data Sheets for crude oil and the chemical products being used to disperse and break up the slick — underwater and on the surface — list these very illnesses as symptoms of overexposure to volatile organic carbons (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide, and other chemicals boiling off the slick.

When the fishermen come home, they find their families hacking, snuffling, and complaining of sore throats and headaches, too. There is a good reason for the outbreak of illnesses sweeping across this area.

Last weekend, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted its air quality monitoring data from the greater Venice, Louisiana, area. The data showed federal standards were being exceeded by 100- to 1,000-fold for VOCs, and hydrogen sulfide, among others–and that was on shore. These high levels could certainly explain the illnesses and were certainly a cause for alarm in the coastal communities.

Ott goes on to report that it appears that little is being done to protect residents of the area and fisherman who are helping to clean up the disaster from these dangerous chemicals.

But in Tea Party and Family Values wing-nut land, we should be worrying about the chemical impact of taking the pill and not questioning BP’s right to poison water, air and land or their right to kill off sea life or to damage human health because that is the American way and God’s word all rolled into one.

As has been pointed out on the Feminist Peace Network blog many times, adverse impacts to the environment, regardless of cause have a gendered impact. We will continue to monitor and share information regarding that impact in regard to this latest assault on the planet by the oil companies.

Jane Roberts–Expanding The Definition Of Gender Based Violence

Comments Off

Apr 072010

As long-time FPN members and blog readers know, when FPN began, our focus was on the impact militarism had on women’s lives. Within a short time that expanded to include a definition of all violence against women as terrorism and over the years the lens has expanded to include the full range of women’s human rights and the myriad of ways in which they are violated.

Jane Roberts, co-founder of 34 Million Friends of UNFPA and a member of FPN has an excellent piece out that looks at the need to use a broad brush when discussing gender based violence that amplifies much of what we address on this blog and her piece is a very important read. Here is an few excerpt:

Whether there is an epidemic of gender based violence now, which seems to be the prevailing view among knowledgeable people committed to its curtailment, or whether it has always been just as prevalent but without the communications technology to holler it to the world is debatable. I suppose it really doesn’t matter. What matters is how broadly we define it now, and depending on that definition how we deal with it.

The web site of the United Nations Population Fund lists 16 forms of gender based violence. “Violence against women takes many forms: sexual assault, child marriage, incest, wife beating, prostitution, female genital mutilation, dowry-related violence, trafficking, sexual violence during wars, femicide, sexual harassment, ‘honour’ killings, forced sterilization, date rape, pornography and bride kidnapping. Violence against women may also take many forms of psychological abuse, intimidation and harassment. All are unacceptable violations of human rights. Together they form a huge obstacle to gender equality and genuine human progress.”

My view is that psychological abuse, intimidation and harassment are as equally unacceptable as physical violence. In fact they may in some cases be worse. I believe there is a huge opening for scholarly research into the effects of the psychological abuse of women and of the psychological effects of gender inequality on women and on men.

I would like to expand the definition of gender based violence. Maternal mortality, dying in the process of giving birth, is the ultimate gender based violence. This should not happen in the 21st century. It is just a question of priorities.

Gender inequality where the male model is preferred to the female is a form of violence. To hazard a guess I would say that perhaps sixty-five percent of pro-creating couples would prefer a boy baby at least for the first born. Is this psychological preference a form of gender-based violence? Yes, because when the girl baby appears, at least at first, the parents have a feeling of let-down. At some level, this must have an effect on the baby. And then think of the psychological and cultural ambiance that has made both parents prefer the son first.

We all know that there are 1 billion hungry people in the world today. Joan Holmes, the former head of The Hunger Project has stated: “In much of the developing world, a little girl eats last and least. She is up to three times more likely than boys to suffer malnutrition.”

Now, I ask you, isn’t this gender-based violence?

With the world’s present balance of decision making power, if men could get pregnant, family planning would be universally available and abortion would be legal and safe everywhere. The present system is violence personified.

I have never in my life been aware of militant pro-lifers admonishing men to prevent abortion by the most obvious means. Men share equal responsibility with women for abortions that result from “not wanting a baby at this time.” Only women are screamed at, prosecuted, prayed for, and blamed. It was Eve who ate the apple. Only she is the embodiment of sin.

There is so much more to this article–usually it is easy to pick out an excerpt that really stands out–that was not the case here, the whole article, particularly Jane’s conclusions, difficult as they are to read in their truth-telling, is a must read.