Jenny’s Pennies

In Northern Ireland, four main political parties have managed to come together and actually agree on something. Unfortunately, it’s not on a good thing: they want to keep abortions extremely restricted. Today, women in Northern Ireland have no right to an abortion even if they are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Abortion is only allowed in case of severe fetal abnormalities or a clear threat to the woman’s life. Some abortions are still done in Northern Ireland at the discretion of the doctor, but otherwise women are forced to go elsewhere in the UK or Europe to get the procedure and pay for it in private, which thousands also do. But this of course means that women without the financial resources (to obtain an abortion in the UK costs about £1,000) are left in an extremely difficult situation. It is reported that 11% of GPs in Northern Ireland have seen attempts by women to perform amateur abortions on themselves.

Now, there are attempts to extend the 1967 Abortion Act, so that it will finally apply to Northern Ireland as well. But the political parties the DUP, Sinn Féin, the UUP and the SDLP don’t want that, and for the first time they have overcome their political differences and agreed on a major issue: women in Northern Ireland should not have the same rights as women elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Read Laura Canning’s column on this issue over at the Guardian’s “Comment is free”.

I don’t think I have any readers in the UK, but if you happen to be a British citizen and support equal reproductive rights for women in N.I., go to Pro-Choice Northern Ireland and learn what you can do.

(I guess this post means I’ve sunk even deeper into the “Culture of Death”. I am, however, in good company: read this great column by George Monbiot!).

Via incoming links in my Wordpress blog stats I find that I have been linked to on a recent post at Birth Pangs. The writer April Reign shows us a letter written by a man named Michael who has compiled a list of bloggers who has written about the “Pill Kills”-campaign. And I, through my little post here, have made that list!

We who think that the campaign is ridiculous BS are called “Culture of Death bloggers”. And this is apparently just the “short list”. Gee guys, it’s such an honor to be nominated!

I reprint Michael’s letter below - yeah, I normally don’t want to give shit as this any attention, but I’ll do it this time - with the links to all my fellow “culture of death” bloggers.* Keep up the good work people!

Dear pro-life friends,

As many of you already know, American Life League is launching a campaign to inform the public about the abortifacient nature of oral contraceptives. (If you don’t already know about it, please take a moment to check out www.ThePillKills.com . Also, be sure to join our facebook page and invite your friends! www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=34501835075 ) Some of you have blogged about it, and we’re gearing up for a full-court press on this initiative.
But we need your help!
In just 2 days, “pro-choice” bloggers have filled the blogosphere with their vitriol and Culture of Death rhetoric. In fact, one blogger went so far as to state his hatred for babies, while a comment on another blog indicated a desire to show up to a designated protest area to “mess with” us.
Just to give you a sampling of who is saying what, I am sending you a “short” list of Culture of Death bloggers talking about The Pill Kills website. I don’t recommend wasting too much time reading their nonsense, but it is worth noting their overt hostility to anything that “just might” change their worldview of “promiscuity-made-safe.”
We present information. They present virtiol. Why is that? Makes one wonder what they’re so angry about!
Your voice is louder than theirs because you have the Truth! So let’s fill the blogosphere with the Truth! Send e-mails. Tell your friends. Post The Pill Kills button on your blogs! Do whatever it takes … just don’t let them silence our voice for those who don’t have one.
As always, thanks for everything you do for the pro-life cause. Our efforts would be a lot harder without yours!
–Michael

The Graduate
Birth Pangs
Medical-news-now.com
Citizen Girl
Melanie’s blog of good stuff
Signs of the times
Paging Lucina
Ms Magazine
Feministing
I’m A Feminist
Robotic squidling
Hangofwednesday
Church gal
Debate politics
Majikthise
Ravings of a semi-sane madwoman
Jenny’s Pennies LOOK, HERE I AM!
Matthew Yglesias
Tar hearted
Dark side of the mom
Power up
Overclocked drama
ifeminists
Eccentric bitch
Broken rubbers
Childfree hardcore
CelticBear’s musings
Feminist.org
Ginandkerosene’s blog
Items of interest
Feminocracy
The W.O.M.B.
Slog - the Stranger
Dead racists society
Lab Kat
Democratic underground

PS. sorry about the scattered posting lately, still feeling a bit off. Must be all that promotion of death and mayhem.

*Hyperlinked, cause my layout got completely messed up by those long URLs.

So I read a lot of blogs from the US of A (the progressive/feminist/queer variety) and if I were to write about every wackiness I find out about through them, I wouldn’t do much else, so I do stop myself most of the time. But sometimes I run across something so mind-boggling that I just need to blog it.

It’s the “the Pill Kills Babies”-campaign, organized by the American Life League, along with Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International (that last organization should really be renamed “pharmacists that don’t do their goddamned job and should have their ass fired”). They want to ban birth control. Because it causes abortion. You see, when I take my BC pills I potentially kill a tiny baby boy or a tiny baby girl. Yes, that’s how they put it.

The so-called science that “supports” their BS can be debunked by picking up a high school biology textbook. What do they think? That a fertilized but not yet implanted egg is a teeny weeny miniature person that, when looked at in a microscope, will smile at you and wave?

At least this campaign makes it painfully clear that the so called pro-life movement isn’t about saving the precious baaaaybeeez at all, it’s about controlling women’s sexuality, and subsequently our lives. The protest the pill-day is June 7th. The reason for this is (from the Pill Kills website. Won’t link, Google is your friend):

June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today.

On that day in 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut case, it set a legal precedent for claiming that the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice.

Oh the horror! The right to privacy for women in matters of sexual practice, we certainly can’t have that! I file this under reason 17,314 (or possibly 17,315, I lost count) why I’m happy to live in Sweden. I stand firmly behind my American sisters in their fight against this, and I’m sure some pretty awesome counter-activism will be done on June 7th.

Via; more here.

(If you don’t get the headline reference, you lose, but thanks for playing)

People who say that if we outlaw abortion, it just goes away and a lot of lives are saved, should really, really read this:

Figures show that 10,000 women die every year in Nigeria from unsafe abortions, carried out by untrained people in unsanitary conditions.

That is 27 deaths every day.

According to the US-based Guttmacher Institute, that is one sixth of the total number of women who die worldwide from such procedures.

In Nigeria abortion is illegal unless the life of the woman would be at risk if she were to give birth.

But the Guttmacher Institute estimates that more than 456,000 unsafe abortions are done in Nigeria every year.

Some women go to traditional healers to terminate their pregnancies.

Methods include trying to break the amniotic sack inside the womb with a sharp stick. This causes infection and in extreme cases the tissue inside the body can start to die.

“They’re pulling out intestines,” says gynaecologist Dr Ejike Oji, of Ipas, an international organisation working to secure reproductive rights for women.

Another method is to pump a toxic mixture of fiercely hot Alligator chilli peppers and chemicals like alum into their bodies.

“The women go into toxic shock and die,” Dr Oji said.

Pro-life my ass.

Via Feministe.

I often wish I knew more about the law and legal matters. Because then I could understand things like this:

A pregnant teenager detained in jail only to make sure she’ll testify in court this week, according to her lawyer, is due to deliver any minute.
Noelly Mowatt, 19, who is not facing any criminal charges, and has been living in a jail cell at Vanier Women’s Centre in Milton since she was denied bail last Thursday, is worried the stress of her surroundings is affecting her health.
Expected to give birth to her second child April 15, Mowatt won’t be let out of prison until after she testifies at the April 11 assault trial of her boyfriend Christopher Harbin.
Harbin is charged with eight offences, including assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and breaching probation.
“She’s contracted the flu since she’s been in jail. She already had to seek medical attention,” defence lawyer Lydia Riva said yesterday. “She’s obviously stressed out and concerned about her pregnancy. She’s afraid to have her baby in custody.”
On March 20, a judge issued a material warrant for Mowatt’s arrest when she wasn’t in court for Harbin’s trial.
Riva said a judge can issue such a warrant if there is evidence someone won’t respond to a subpoena or is evading subpoena.
The Crown argued that after Mowatt called police in December to report that Harbin was abusing her, she refused to pick up her summons to appear at trial.

(From Canadian newspaper TheStar.com)

So, do I get this right:
The pregnant 19 year old, due to deliver any time now, is not facing any criminal charges but is detained solely to make sure she testifies against her boyfriend, who is on trial for abusing her? As I said, I’m not versed on the workings of the law, especially in Canada, but this seems too fucked up for me. Can you imagine being confined to a jail cell knowing that you basically can go into labour any minute (the expected delivery date is four days after the trial, but since when are babies always on the clock?), and to add to that stress, the reason you are in that cell is to make sure that you will testify against the man who has abused you. I understand that it’s important to make sure witnesses appear, but this just seems… cruel and unnecessary.

French writer, economist and psychoanalyst Corinne Maier, author of Bonjour Laziness, in which she encouraged workers to do as little as possible, has written another provocative book: No Kid: 40 Reasons Not to Have Children. Now it’s here in Swedish and Svenska Dagbladet has picked up the story.

On her list of reasons not to have kids are that they will kill your sex life, force you to eat junk food, and kill the dreams of your youth. From what I’ve heard about Maier’s last book, I think a lot of it is tongue in cheek - she uses humor and irony and exaggerations. Granted, I haven’t read either of the books, but I have skimmed through a bunch of comments and reviews and many of them are appalled that she is taking on the biggest taboo of them all: regretting having children. You see, Maier is a mother herself.

You know, I do think some of us childfree-by-choice people sometimes use an overly insulting rhetoric, but bear in mind that it is a reply to a society in which, especially if we are women, are constantly belittled, pitied, questioned and deprived of our agency, and sometimes even blamed for the demise of civilization. Just look at some of these comments on Svenska Dagbladet’s article on Maier’s book:

Immoral not to have children
To all those who think they have the right to chose not to have children. The classical question “what would happen if everyone did as I do” is pretty sharp. It’s hard for a fully healthy human being to morally defend the decision not to have children just because you can’t be bothered. We human beings exist because we have an ability and an urge to procreate. Those who don’t contribute to that even though you could, leech on us who have children and endured the first 8-10 tough years.

Well, how is this for a moral defense of not having children: every child should be wanted and loved, and forcing people to have them against their will isn’t really a recipe for that. And saying that you had to “endure” the first 8-10 years: that isn’t recruiting me either (and if your kid’s childhood was something you had to “endure”, well, maybe they had to “endure” it as well).

Evil
This woman have been manipulated by the feminists. For these feminist, the woman should become like a man and not have anything to do with children at all. It is the most terrible thing that can happen when the women are becoming more and more like men and won’t take care of the children. It is actually pure evil!!!

Yes, because once the manly man has spread his seed, the sole responsibility for the children lays with the woman. And it’s not like feminists ever have children. And it’s not like it’s the feminists who have been, and still are, working with issues relating to childbearing and parenthood, such as health care, parental leave, better education, daycare and preschools. But thanks for telling me I am actually pure evil. BTW, speaking of evil…

See through the propaganda!
For decades there have been propaganda saying that Europeans shouldn’t have children. The people behind this should be exposed for what they are, treacherous Marxists and cosmopolitans with a Europe-hostile agenda. This propaganda are mostly directed towards white western women who are encouraged to “fulfill themselves” and live some kind of teenage life until well over 40, and when they realize that they want children after all, then it’s too late.

Are you comfortable in that tin-foil hat?
I have known for years that I don’t want any children, I can’t tell you when it first dawned on me, but I was definitely a young teenager (maybe even younger). But thanks for letting me know that it was some sneaky Marxists and cosmopolitans out to destroy civilization who brainwashed me in to it. So, did they place subliminal messages in the horse magazines I read or in the Pippi Longstocking TV-series?

Seriously though, by choosing not to have children, I am not stripping you of your choice (conscious or unconscious) to have them. Your life is in no way affected by my choice in this matter. And unlike others, I am not constantly trying to talk, scare or shame people over to my side.

Intimate partner violence and violence against women is an area where crimes are underreported. Shame, guilt and societal responses (shaming, trivializing, blaming) makes it hard for women to speak out about being abused by their partners.

Research from year 2000 found that about 2000 women each year in Sweden are subjected to violence by their partners during pregnancy and the first year thereafter. This is of course 2000 too many. Many antenatal clinics have therefore made the habit of routinely asking pregnant women if they have been abused by their partner, even when there are no indications of abuse. But is routine screening really a good way to address the problem?

Hanne Kjöller, editorial writer for Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest newspaper, thinks that routine screening isn’t a good idea. For once, I am agreeing with her.

Three researchers have written a letter to the editor in Läkartidningen, newspaper for the Medical Association of Sweden, regarding the screening for partner violence. They are critical of the process and calls for an ethical analysis of the practice, which takes into account both positive and negative aspects, for women who are subjected to violence as well as for those who aren’t.

Studies have shown that many women find it uncomfortable to be asked about partner violence. I understand them. I was asked the question, seemingly out of the blue, during a visit to get my prescription for the pill refilled, and my reaction was like “what? no!”. The doctor simply looked at me, ticked the box in her questionnaire and got to the next question. I often wondered what her reaction would have been if I had answered yes (I have never been a victim of intimate partner violence, but let’s say that I was). Should she have taken time out of her busy schedule to have that long and hard conversation? Simply ticked “yes” in her questionnaire and moved on? Handed me some brochures and the phone number of a women’s shelter and thought that was it?

That’s my second objection to this routine screening thing. What should be the ob/gyn’s response? If the woman answers yes and explains that the father of her child is abusing her, what should the ob/gyn do? It places them in a very difficult situation. As expressed by a midwife in a survey on the subject by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen): “It takes too long time to ask. You need time to listen to their response. You find those who have already gotten out of the relationship. It’s hard to catch those who are in it right now”. If the woman answers yes and then comes to the next visit with her partner with her, what does the doctor do? Legally they are obliged to report the abuse to the police, but it may put the abused woman in a much more dangerous situation. Without clear policies on how to handle “yes”-answers, it is quite contra productive to have ob/gyns and midwives ask the question.

The article in Läkartidningen also raises the issue that routine screenings for partner violence can make women skip their appointments at the antenatal clinic. There is a risk that women who are subjected to violence will face even more violence if their partner finds out that they have told someone about it, or that they have even been asked.

Obviously the ob/gyns and midwives try to ask the question on a visit when the partner is not present (in Sweden it is increasingly normal for the father to be present during the antenatal clinic visits). In the article, a midwife explains her strategy for keeping the partner away for one or more visits (apparently if a woman answers “no” to the question the first time, she is to be asked again), like saying that “he is not needed”. That just seems really dishonest to me.

And after hearing a radio program yesterday about the heteronormativity within our health care system, I can’t imagine what the response would be if a woman confessed to having been abused by her same sex partner.

As Hanne Kjöller points out, you’re always in a subordinate position when you seek health care and therefore it is the moral obligation of your caregiver to explain to you why they are doing or asking one thing or another and what relevance it has. If the reason for routine screenings of pregnant women regarding partner violence is to get statistics (which aren’t very reliable - reliability would increase somewhat if the woman was given a totally anonymous questionnaire), then I think that is a quite cynical way to treat these women - ask them about something so personal and then really offer nothing in return (e.g. counseling and legal advice). If the reason is to truly help women to get out of abusive relationships, then the state should instead put money into shelters, counseling, legal advice, education and so on, instead of, as it is today, rely on volunteers, charities and idealistic forces to provide those services.

Outsourcing is normal in today’s globalized economy. But now the global south are not only offering services such as customer support and low skilled assembly work to their wealthier counterparts. From the New York Times:

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India’s mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

Yes, it’s wombs for rent. For about 25.000 US dollars, you get payments for the surrogate mother, medical procedures, plus plane tickets and hotel nights for two trips to India, one for the fertilization and one for collecting the baby. The egg donor and the surrogate are different women, as it is said to be less likely for the surrogate to bond with the baby if there is no genetic connection.

The surrogacy business in India has made a sharp upturn in the last years, and people in the business are afraid that less scrupulous providers will smell the money and leave ethics aside.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development said in February that it was weighing recommending legislation to govern surrogacy, but it is not imminent.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: “In a country crippled by abject poverty,” it asked, “how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?”

Some people might argue that we should view this as any business transaction, but I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of viewing reproduction as a commodity, especially when there is such huge power differentials in play.

“Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop,” Dr. Kadam said. “This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don’t think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other.”

Mr. Gher agreed. “You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth,” he said. “We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India.”

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signature.

This kind of globalization makes me very uncomfortable, and I think the practice should be examined with a critical eye. That does not mean that we should pass judgment on the persons on either side of the transaction - the couple who can’t conceive for whatever reason (Mr. Gher and his partner who are featured in the article are gay), and the woman who by carrying someone else’s baby can make a lot more money than she would on a normal job.

But there are so many issues here: what if the surrogate changes her mind? What if the couple changes their mind? What if the surrogate mother wants out? In India, this is regulated with contracts, but once again we have to look at the wealth and power differential here. As far as I can tell from quickly researching the subject, in the US, while surrogacy may not be illegal, contracts relating to it have been declared unenforceable. In Sweden, surrogacy is illegal, while in neighboring Finland, it’s legal. However, no money is allowed - the surrogate is doing it for altruistic reasons.

One thing which also makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing is that one reason why Indian surrogates are increasingly popular (besides the relatively cheap costs, good medical professionals and favorable legislation) is that Indian women are easier to “police”. As it says in the article:

Dr. Naina Patel, who runs the Anand clinic, said that even Americans who could afford to hire surrogates at home were coming to her for women “free of vices like alcohol, smoking and drugs.” She said she gets about 10 e-mailed inquiries a day from couples abroad.

Just how much say should the couple using the surrogate have to say over what the surrogate mother does to her body? You’re using her womb, yes, but the whole body is affected by the pregnancy, and so is the mind. No drinking, smoking or drugs during pregnancy - perfectly fine and reasonable of course, but what else can you compel the surrogate to do? I think with this international reproductive outsourcing there is more potential for abuse and for using the power/money leverage to make unreasonable demands.

Oh sweet Blind Io and all minor deities!
In today’s Dagens Nyheter, there is a letter to the editor signed Jakob E:son Söderbaum. Now for some reason DN doesn’t publish their readers’ letters on their website, but fortunately Jakob E:son Söderbaum has a blog (that I don’t want to link to, but if you read Swedish you can google his name and go on an adventure in a parallel universe). Jakob E:son Söderbaum is a “progress friendly conservative” (by “progress” he means returning to some unknown decade when we honored the king, kept our hands above the covers and our women in the kitchen), in his upper twenties or lower thirties. If you thought that Sweden was free of the “sex is gross, ewww icky icky icky”-crowd, think again.

Some background: a few days ago, Folkpartiet (the Liberal Party of Sweden) suggested repealing the law that makes it legal for parents to take their children out of certain lessons at school, such as sex ed or PE, due to religious or cultural reasons, and to force all children to take all classes. There has been some discussion on whether the Liberal Party’s idea is the best way to address the problem that some children aren’t allowed to learn about their bodies or to be seen in a bathing suit. I’m not sure how I feel about their proposal, but let’s leave that aside and focus on Jakob E:son Söderbaum.

He does not agree with the Liberal Party’s idea. No, he wants to excuse all children from sex ed. And he’s not even in with the abstinence only-crowd. He’s in the no mention of gross icky sex in school ever-crowd. Some of his arguments, put forth in the letter and in the ensuing discussion on his blog, are (with extra-craziness in bold, and my snarky responses in brackets):

- Sex ed teaches girls that they need to spread their legs for anyone, otherwise they are abnormal. (Because telling girls that they are not sluts or hoes if they like sex automatically means that you encourage them to do it anywhere with anyone. There can be no balance.)
- Sex should be taught by parents, only then can the serious nature of sexuality be properly conveyed to the rising generation. (And the parental version of sex ed should go “sex is gross and disgusting so you must save it for someone you love”.)
- Sex is for procreation only and sex ed teaches how to avoid procreation (Yes, let’s conveniently forget about reality: that the majority of adults will have sex a number of times without wanting to get pregnant. And that it could be a good thing to learn how to avoid STDs. And that not all people are heterosexual. But to base education on reality is such a bad idea.)
- Sex ed teachers are raping our children because talking to young girls about sex if you’re not their parent is akin to raping them. (He trivializes rape. What a surprise.)
- Sex ed teachers must be perverts, how else can they stand there talking about the subject day in and day out. (Yes, just like language teachers constantly mumble verb declinations and home ec teachers are unable to have a conversation that doesn’t revolve around pie crusts and cleaning products. Ohmigod, imagine what it must be like for OB/Gyns. They must be the most perverted people out there ever, staring at women’s icky parts all day and talking about stuff related to teh sex!!!!11!!!!eleven!)
- There’s too much sex in today’s society, it was better when it was a shameful secret. (So why are you discussing it? Doesn’t that add to the sexual fixation too?)
- Girls enjoying sex are almost whores. (And there he throws in some slut shaming to. Lovely.)
- Sexual pleasure is the lowest form of human feeling, and to acknowledge and seek sexual pleasure will lead you to become a sex addict who constantly think about and seek sex. (Oh, me thinks someone doth protest too much. Söderbaum says he’s in a “steady relationship”, but he doesn’t say he’s married, so he must be a virgin. For someone who’s not married, he seems awfully focused on sex. Doesn’t he know that subject is reserved for married people? Oh, I see, it’s only unmarried girls who aren’t allowed to think about sex. If you’re an unmarried conservative man - then it’s a-okay!)

Thank heavens that people like Söderbaum are a minority here and that he is sure to get some serious counter-arguments against him - it has already started on his blog. Now I need to go read some deviant and sex positive stuff before my head explodes.

Hoe-looking man writes too, and titles her piece “hardcore porn pussy anus lesbian sex dicks huge cock fuck ass pictures”, so that Söderbaum will find it when he goes on nightly internet adventures. LOL!

(Update: Here you can read more about the proposal from the liberal party, and reactions to it, in English)

So, over in US of A, republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg.

“This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception,” Huckabee said in a statement.

“With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value,” Huckabee said. “Passing this amendment will mean the people of Colorado will protect the sanctity of life from conception until natural death occurs.”

Burton’s initiative, if approved by voters in November, would extend state constitutional protections to every fertilized egg, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

About 76 000 signatures are needed from registered Colorado voters to get the initiative on the ballot in the November election. From what I have understood from reading various comments on this, it will be possible to collect the signatures needed, but it is, thank god, highly unlikely that it will pass.

Nevertheless, the idea creates some interesting questions. Will the “fetus citizen” get a social security number (if it is a separate person, it needs to be identified somehow, right)? Will you be able to claim tax deductions for unborn children, just as you can for born ones? Does the “fetus citizen” need a passport if it leaves the country?

And of course, we somehow need to control women’s periods. Loads of of fertilized non-implanted eggs are flushed out with periods every year, without the woman ever knowing that she actually had that “person” in her. Like one of Pandagon’s commenters said: Tonight on CSI: “You only think it’s a bloody tampon. But there’s a fertilized fetus American in there - natural death or murder?…”

Pandagon has more, Feministing too.