Please check out this article from the New York Times on the case before the Supreme Court challenging the Indiana voter ID law. The law says that either you have to produce a photo ID when you vote or, if you don't have photo ID, vote provisionally and then go to the county courthouse within 10 days of voting to validate your vote. Proponents of the law claim that it is necessary to prevent in-person voter fraud. Challengers of the law claim that the law will, in effect, disenfranchise minorities, poor people, and elderly people, all of whom are less likely to have photo IDs. Voting is a fundamental right and this law infringes on that right, so the court should use "strict scrutiny" as their standard of review. (Sorry to use Wikipedia as a link, but I think this particular article does a good job summarizing strict scrutiny from what I can remember from my law school days.) Strict scrutiny means that the law must protect a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored and use the less restrictive means to achieve that interest.
The Times article does a pretty good job of summing up how things are going (not well; divided along party lines). It really pisses me off and makes me sad that Kennedy said the law causes a "minor inconvenience" for people. I feel like he's not thinking about how truly difficult it is for some people to get to government office buildings during their hours of operation, because of the hours the person works, or not having child care, or being physically disabled. It has not been proven that there is any problem in the U.S. with in-person voter fraud, but I think it's entirely apparent that we do have a problem getting people out to vote at all. I think it's horrible that states are writing laws that make it more difficult for people to vote.
If this law gets upheld, then I really hope that registration drives start to include helping people obtain photo ID. I wonder if there is some kind of fund that could be put together to help people with the fees that accompany getting a photo ID in some states.
*
In international news, the Times reported yesterday that abortion clinics are shutting down in Spain, while the workers go on strike to protest the lack of government protection from violent and threatening pro-life protesters. I do think the Spainish government should do all it can to ensure the safety of the clinic workers and the women who use the clinics, but I can't help but think that by shutting down the clinics to protest, the clinic workers are hurting their own clients (an estimated 2,000 women will be affected) more than making a statement to the government or to the pro-life movement.
(Why does the NY Times author call the pro-life people "anti-abortion?" I would call them anti-choice. Out of politeness, I have chosen to call them pro-life here, but calling them "anti-abortion" implies the other side is pro-abortion. As I have said before, I believe both sides of this debate are committed to reducing the number of abortion; pro-life people generally believe that the way to do this is to make all abortion illegal and teach abstinence-only sex education and pro-choice people generally believe that the way to reduce the number of abortions is to keep it legal [read: safe] and promote pro-contraceptive sex education. It's disingenuous to present one side as anti-abortion and, in doing so, imply that the other side is pro-abortion. Although maybe the pro-life movement in Spain is commonly referred to as anti-abortion and that is why the NY Times has chosen this nomenclature.)
Showing posts with label reproductive justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive justice. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Reproductive Justice
Over at The Curvature, Cara is discussing the different possibilities for "re-branding" within the pro-choice movement in order to encompass the ideas of reproductive justice.
It reminded me of Loretta Ross, the National Coordinator of SisterSong, who I saw speak in Charlottesville last year during the Festival of the Book. SisterSong is a women of color reproductive justice organization. Here's how they described themselves:
When Ross came to speak in Charlottesville last year one of the topic she touched on was SisterSong's involvement in the 2004 March for Women's Lives. Until they had become involved the march was called "March for Choice," but one of the conditions of SisterSong's involvement, Ross explained, was the name change. I remember feeling disappointed when I heard about the name change, because I thought it was about diluting what was to me, the primary issue, abortion rights.
My feelings at that time epitomize why the name change was necessary. To me, and to many Americans, pro-choice had become synonymous with being pro-choice about abortion (focusing on the right to choose to have or not to have an abortion). By changing the name to "March for Women's Lives" and by using the phrase "reproductive justice" SisterSong hopes to reconnect and recognize the links between abortion rights to other social justice issues and to other reproductive issues.
In their extremely interesting Funders Briefing Report from 2005 (seriously, read it; it's not that long and it's great), SisterSong explains that the Reproductive Justice framework "spells out affirmative obligations that the government has to ensure the necessary social support for our decisions." (p. 2)
SisterSong writes,
It reminded me of Loretta Ross, the National Coordinator of SisterSong, who I saw speak in Charlottesville last year during the Festival of the Book. SisterSong is a women of color reproductive justice organization. Here's how they described themselves:
The SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective is a network of local, regional and nation grassroots agencies representing five primary ethnic populations/indigenous nations in the United States:
- African American
- Arab American/Middle Eastern
- Asian/Pacific Islander
- Latina
- Native American/Indigenous
When Ross came to speak in Charlottesville last year one of the topic she touched on was SisterSong's involvement in the 2004 March for Women's Lives. Until they had become involved the march was called "March for Choice," but one of the conditions of SisterSong's involvement, Ross explained, was the name change. I remember feeling disappointed when I heard about the name change, because I thought it was about diluting what was to me, the primary issue, abortion rights.
My feelings at that time epitomize why the name change was necessary. To me, and to many Americans, pro-choice had become synonymous with being pro-choice about abortion (focusing on the right to choose to have or not to have an abortion). By changing the name to "March for Women's Lives" and by using the phrase "reproductive justice" SisterSong hopes to reconnect and recognize the links between abortion rights to other social justice issues and to other reproductive issues.
Reproductive Justice, as defined by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (an original founding member oranization of SisterSong) is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction for ourselves, our families and our communities in all areas of our lives.
In their extremely interesting Funders Briefing Report from 2005 (seriously, read it; it's not that long and it's great), SisterSong explains that the Reproductive Justice framework "spells out affirmative obligations that the government has to ensure the necessary social support for our decisions." (p. 2)
SisterSong writes,
From the perspective of SisterSong, one of the key problems we collectively face is the isolation of abortion from other
Monday, October 15, 2007
Just scan and bag, please!
Awhile ago I had to buy a pregnancy test from CVS. When I got to the counter and paid the clerk somberly told me that he hoped it turned out whatever way I wanted it to. I know that the guy meant well, but I can't help but wonder if he says the same thing to some guy purchasing cream for his penis. (Not that they sell "cream for penis" at CVS. Do they? I have no idea. But you know what I'm saying anyway.)
I cannot even begin to tell you how intensely invasive the clerk's well-intentioned remark felt to me. Suddenly there was this new individual who had actively alerted me to his knowledge of and his opinion of what was, to me, a deeply private act (after it involved my urine and my hormone levels; I was going to take the test in a bathroom with the door shut, not at a party or in the street). I didn't want his well-wishes; I want him to keep the silent compact between clerk and customer, that the customer's purchases are her private business.
I don't think it's any shocker for me to say that when it comes to reproduction women's private space is being slowly eroded and has been for awhile. In some states pharmacists whose are personally against Emergency Contraceptives (EC) are legally permitted to turn away women seeking the drug. In these cases, the state is saying to the woman, "here is another non-medical and not personally related to you opinion that trumps your decisions regarding your body, contraceptives, and reproduction." The ethics policy of the American Pharmacists Association requires pharmacists who will not provide women with EC to direct them to a pharmacist or pharmacy that will, but EC must be taken within 72 hours to be effective, so time is of the essence. Also, many woman cannot take time off work to drive all across town to different pharmacies that provide EC. In addition, it must be incredibly demoralizing and humiliating to have to face the pharmacist's implicit disapproval.
Maybe that's at least in part what this law is about. Let's call a spade a spade; this law is not about respecting a pharmacist's opinion; it's about preventing women from effectively using EC. If I think I might need EC, but know that I might have to be humiliated in a store (potentially in front of other customers) and then forced to drive across town to another store to get it (where I might be humiliating again...what's to prevent a pharmacist from "mistakenly" sending a woman to another store that "doesn't stock" EC) all within my ever shrinking lunch hour, maybe I will just give up, bury my head in the sand, and "hope for the best."
For an easier way to get EC, please check out Planned Parenthood here.
I cannot even begin to tell you how intensely invasive the clerk's well-intentioned remark felt to me. Suddenly there was this new individual who had actively alerted me to his knowledge of and his opinion of what was, to me, a deeply private act (after it involved my urine and my hormone levels; I was going to take the test in a bathroom with the door shut, not at a party or in the street). I didn't want his well-wishes; I want him to keep the silent compact between clerk and customer, that the customer's purchases are her private business.
I don't think it's any shocker for me to say that when it comes to reproduction women's private space is being slowly eroded and has been for awhile. In some states pharmacists whose are personally against Emergency Contraceptives (EC) are legally permitted to turn away women seeking the drug. In these cases, the state is saying to the woman, "here is another non-medical and not personally related to you opinion that trumps your decisions regarding your body, contraceptives, and reproduction." The ethics policy of the American Pharmacists Association requires pharmacists who will not provide women with EC to direct them to a pharmacist or pharmacy that will, but EC must be taken within 72 hours to be effective, so time is of the essence. Also, many woman cannot take time off work to drive all across town to different pharmacies that provide EC. In addition, it must be incredibly demoralizing and humiliating to have to face the pharmacist's implicit disapproval.
Maybe that's at least in part what this law is about. Let's call a spade a spade; this law is not about respecting a pharmacist's opinion; it's about preventing women from effectively using EC. If I think I might need EC, but know that I might have to be humiliated in a store (potentially in front of other customers) and then forced to drive across town to another store to get it (where I might be humiliating again...what's to prevent a pharmacist from "mistakenly" sending a woman to another store that "doesn't stock" EC) all within my ever shrinking lunch hour, maybe I will just give up, bury my head in the sand, and "hope for the best."
For an easier way to get EC, please check out Planned Parenthood here.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Well worth the read
I don't have much to say today.
Please check out Russell Shorto's amazing May, 2006 piece in the New York Times, "Contra-Contraceptives." It's long, but that's because it's packed with really interesting information, so I suggest you read the whole thing. Shorto examines anti-choice groups' stance on contraceptives and makes the case that they are really struggling to make all sex marital and for procreation purposes.
Please check out Russell Shorto's amazing May, 2006 piece in the New York Times, "Contra-Contraceptives." It's long, but that's because it's packed with really interesting information, so I suggest you read the whole thing. Shorto examines anti-choice groups' stance on contraceptives and makes the case that they are really struggling to make all sex marital and for procreation purposes.
Monday, September 17, 2007
I'm so glad I don't live in medieval times
After remembering that I owe her a thank-you card for a birthday present, I started thinking about my maternal Grandmother (Grandma B) this afternoon. She and I started writing letters to each other on a regular basis about a year ago. When my paternal Grandmother and my maternal Grandfather died, I realized that I had a lot of questions I wanted to ask them that I never got to.
My Grandma B has told me a lot about her life in the past year, from the general details to her feelings at the times of some of the historical events that have taken place in her lifetime. She has lead a very interesting life. She recently wrote to me that her children are the most important thing in her life, which has got me thinking about my Grandmother and reproduction (er, not specifically, more generally: Women who were born in the 1920s and reproduction). My Grandmother was a practicing Catholic throughout her marriage to my Grandfather (and remains so today). She was pregnant nine times, had two miscarriages, and seven children. Because of her Catholicism and the number of times she was pregnant, I assume she practiced the rhythm method, but I was interested to find out what other methods of contraceptives were available during her lifetime.
Check this out for (as far as I can tell) a comprehensive look at the history of contraceptives, including information on how contraceptives have been used in the past in forced sterilization/forced population control efforts. (I would be remiss if I didn't mention the darkside of contraceptives' history.)
Here's some of the interesting stuff I ran into tonight while looking into the history of contraceptives. (All of the info comes from the above Planned Parenthood site, unless otherwise noted.)
The Condom - Using a new manufacturing process known as "dipping" (which as far as I can tell means dipping glass dildos into hot latex), the modern day latex condom was created in the 1920s. Before that they were rubber and had a large seam down the side (source).
The Diaphragm - Lemon halves may have been the modern diaphragm's medieval predecessor (source). In 1915 Margaret Sanger visited a Dutch Birth Control clinical and brought back with her their idea for a flexible diaphragm that was fitted by medical staff (source and also just a cool link about Sanger).
The Intrauterine Device (IUD) - IUDs have returned to the market and are considered safe, after a serious scare in the 1970s with the Dalkon Shield. (Speaking of the darkside of contraceptive history, the Dalkon Shield was dumped at a reduced price onto third world countries just before it was removed from the market in the U.S.)
Vasectomy -- In 1916 until 1940 (when the procedure for this purpose was discredited), a doctor began performing vasectomies to reduce the production of hormones that cause aging.
Birth Control Pills - In 1965, the Supreme court struck down a law banning prescribing, selling, and using contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court held that there is right to privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." (That whole right to privacy thing would come up again...)
Check out that main Planned Parenthood link above if you have time. There's a lot of really great info there.
My Grandma B has told me a lot about her life in the past year, from the general details to her feelings at the times of some of the historical events that have taken place in her lifetime. She has lead a very interesting life. She recently wrote to me that her children are the most important thing in her life, which has got me thinking about my Grandmother and reproduction (er, not specifically, more generally: Women who were born in the 1920s and reproduction). My Grandmother was a practicing Catholic throughout her marriage to my Grandfather (and remains so today). She was pregnant nine times, had two miscarriages, and seven children. Because of her Catholicism and the number of times she was pregnant, I assume she practiced the rhythm method, but I was interested to find out what other methods of contraceptives were available during her lifetime.
Check this out for (as far as I can tell) a comprehensive look at the history of contraceptives, including information on how contraceptives have been used in the past in forced sterilization/forced population control efforts. (I would be remiss if I didn't mention the darkside of contraceptives' history.)
Here's some of the interesting stuff I ran into tonight while looking into the history of contraceptives. (All of the info comes from the above Planned Parenthood site, unless otherwise noted.)
The Condom - Using a new manufacturing process known as "dipping" (which as far as I can tell means dipping glass dildos into hot latex), the modern day latex condom was created in the 1920s. Before that they were rubber and had a large seam down the side (source).
The Diaphragm - Lemon halves may have been the modern diaphragm's medieval predecessor (source). In 1915 Margaret Sanger visited a Dutch Birth Control clinical and brought back with her their idea for a flexible diaphragm that was fitted by medical staff (source and also just a cool link about Sanger).
The Intrauterine Device (IUD) - IUDs have returned to the market and are considered safe, after a serious scare in the 1970s with the Dalkon Shield. (Speaking of the darkside of contraceptive history, the Dalkon Shield was dumped at a reduced price onto third world countries just before it was removed from the market in the U.S.)
Vasectomy -- In 1916 until 1940 (when the procedure for this purpose was discredited), a doctor began performing vasectomies to reduce the production of hormones that cause aging.
Birth Control Pills - In 1965, the Supreme court struck down a law banning prescribing, selling, and using contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court held that there is right to privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." (That whole right to privacy thing would come up again...)
Check out that main Planned Parenthood link above if you have time. There's a lot of really great info there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)