A senior aide in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales resigned following newspaper claims his former girlfriend had an abortion nearly 20 years ago.
Missouri's corrections department plans to fight a judge's ruling that they must provide transportation to women inmates seeking abortion.
And in more Missouri news, a Kansas City program is offering drug addicts $300 to get on longterm birth control or be sterilized. I don't think drug addicts would make the best parents, but I definitely agree with Lynn Paltro of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, who says (of the program's founder), "She makes it all about individual blame. She creates the mythology that if you could just get a certain group of people to stop procreating, some social and economic problems would go away. … That’s the same economic argument that was used to justify eugenics."
Samantha Weeks just became the second woman in history to be invited to join the Thunderbirds, the top eight fighter pilots in the entire Air Force.
South Dakota Republicans are fighting amongst themselves over what to do about party members who opposed the state's abortion ban.
Meghan Daum discusses Batwoman's new sexual identity.
On Friday the Senate debated a bill that would make it a federal crime to take a teenager across state lines to have an abortion without a parental consent. The so-called Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act was passed by the House back in April.
Anti-abortion protesters with graphic signs have invaded downtown Baltimore, and most people aren't pleased. Says one woman, “I think it’s offensive and I don’t think it helps — and I’m against abortion. Women have abortions for reasons. Address the reasons and you address abortion.� Sounds a lot more rational to me.
The confrontation continues outside Mississippi's only abortion clinic.
Outrate.net interviews Camille Paglia.
While debating the gay marriage ban, Rep. Lincoln Davis (who's a Democrat) said he thinks Congress should “outlaw divorce in this country� and “outlaw adultery and make it a felony.� He also thinks divorcees and adulterers should be barred from running for office. Davis claims he said this to point out that all "threats to marriage" should be punished equally. Which is interesting rhetoricall, but then Davis voted for the amendment. Sigh.
The first issue of Australian feminist magazine Wo! hits newsstands August 2. They also have a blog.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Weekly Feminist Reader.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3673
here's a novel idea:
instead of giving drug addicts cash (drug money) to go on birth control, you give them access to affordable health care and different types of rehab?
i can see the upside of the idea, but that is far from a social solution.
These people don't believe in social solutions. $300 is a pittance compared to the cost of healthcare and rehab, and they're just druggies, so they'll OD and the city can sweep their bodies under the proverbial rug.
If smoking cigarettes while on birth control increases your chances of blood clots, what exactly does smoking crack do? I would look it up, but I'm really tired.
"instead of giving drug addicts cash (drug money) to go on birth control, you give them access to affordable health care and different types of rehab?"
sure, access to affordable health care and different types of rehab is a great idea, but you must take into account that many addicts don't want to get clean. and until they do, no amount of rehab will help.
so until that time comes, $300 to insert an IUD and prevent any number of crack-addicted babies being born sounds like a good idea to me.
I knew a woman who became addicted to crack after the birth of her first child. she sold everything -- her daughter's crib, etc. -- to pay for her habit. she walked out of her daughter's life and got pregnant about 7 more times in the next 10 years. a program like this could have saved all 7 of those babies who were born addicted and given up to the system immediately upon birth.
it's not a solution, I agree, but it is something of a start.
I don't like that $300 fee because what's unspoken is that it penalizes poor drug addicts. Are addicts of the Rush Limbaugh/Wall Street coke user/Keith Richards type likely to get vasectomies for a paltry (in their eyes) 300 bucks? Doubtful. But are wealthy drug addicts better parents? I doubt it. I mean, insofar as having more money always makes your life easier than having less, sure. But this strikes me as punishing people for being poor, not for being on drugs. Plus, if the concern really is about kids, why isn't this program being pushed for abusive parents, regardless of drug status?
I don't know; it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and possibilities for abuse are huge. For some reason the site won't let me see the article, so one of things I'm left wondering is, how are they defining "addict"? This country in general is not too good at making distinctions between people who smoke up a couple times a week and people who shoot up a couple times a day.
the article doesn't say how they define "addict." but regardless, the women do have a choice in the matter. it's not as though they're being told "you're an addict. you must do this!"
i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) that the program focuses mainly on women addicted to crack as they tend to have high numbers of pregnancies. also i THINK that you'll find crack use much more prevalent among a poorer population and therefore it's targeting the act -- not necessarily the "group" if that makes sense.
though i don't like the idea that they're offering depo. that's too easy to mess up. how many addicts will remember to get their shot every 3 months? i really think an IUD would be a better option. it works for years and must be removed by a doctor. and it's completely reversible if the woman cleans up.
and as far as treatment, in the article it says that treatment referrals are offered...
like i said before, this isn't a solution. but i do think it's a harmless way of preventing too many unwanted, crack addicted babies from being born. it's "affordable birth control" at any rate!!
i just don't see the harm in it...
The harm I see is related to what nubian and blackamazon were talking about on the interview thread, before it shut down: there's a history of pressuring and forcing certain groups of women (black, poor, those deemd "mentally incompetent") to be sterilized in this country, and this policy leaves a bad taste in my mouth. $300 is a lot of money for some people--a lot. It's a chunk o'cash to me, and I'm not in dire straits. It takes control over a woman's body away from her by first weighing the scales with, as I mentioned, a prize that's going to be a big deal only to poor people, and then by using bc methods (depo) that some people have bad reactions to and that can't easily be undone.
I'm intrigued by the idea that there's enough cash in this area to provide free tubal ligations and depo, as well as $300 cash bonus...and nobody there can come up with a less obnoxious health initiative? Nobody wants to set up a free clinic or devote that cash to harm control outreach or teach people how to sterilize their works or provide opportunities for education or anything like that? How come the "health" initiative that gets promoted has to do with controlling female fertility?
EG --
while i agree with you that there is a LOT more that needs to be done (education, free clinics, etc) you do need to look at the reality of the situation. as i said, i've known someone who lives just this lifestyle. i know her daughter and i see how her choices have affected all around her. she's been in jail, cleaned up, off of the streets, in rehab, educated, had support from family to help her through, but she always goes back. addiction is powerful. and while there is SO much more that we can do, this initiative is a start in focusing on ONE area of the problem.
think about the kids who are born addicted to crack and wind up in foster care. i'm sure that many of them also wind up drug addicted and on the streets when they grow up, depending on what type of care they get from their foster homes, adoptive parents, etc. taking a step to at least try and slow down the viscious cycle is at least ONE step for right now...
as for the measley $300, well, i agree that because of the small amount, it does seem target poor women. however, chances are that regardless of the amount of money given, it will be spent mostly on drugs. most addicts live just to get their next high. and they often do dangerous things to accomplish this task (prostitution, robbery, etc). therefore, if they give more money to the women, that's just more money that will likely go to drugs...
sure, the focus should be getting them clean and off the street. i agree with that. and i would propose that if these women are coming in every 3 months for a depo shot that they should undergo counseling and some sort of education program. however, these women are addicts... and chances are, they won't follow through. at least not until they really want to and are ready. and that time is different for everyone.
i would argue that the women DO still have control because they get to decide whether or not they want to participate and also which method they choose. some may experience side effects from depo but if that is the case, they don't need to go back after 3 months and get another shot. and i would wager that the side effects from the drugs and/or withdrawal and/or hunger and the other effects of living this lifestyle would way override the bc effects.
i actually don't believe in the sterilization part of this. only women in their right minds and for the right reasons should be making such decisions. but i think the reversible methods are a good idea. though again, i would think the IUD (or even the new Norplanon) would be much better than the shot.
veela:
There actually aren't any, to speak of. In-utero crack exposure doesn't generate a physiological dependence in the baby, and of course there isn't sufficient cognitive ability for a baby to have a psychological addiction.Doctors have been trying to dispel this myth for a while now.
i'll take a look at the article. maybe it's the lifestyle in general, if not an addiction, but the "crack baby" phenomena is more than a myth. a relative of mine used to foster many of these kids.
another relative is a heroin addict whose daughter was born addicted to methadone. she had been on no form of birth control when she got pregnant but due to the fact that she was stealing anything she could get her hands on to sell for dope money, i'm sure a program like this could have prevented that pregnancy. her daughter is a bit older now and while her mom is clean at the moment, is in no shape to take care of her and i slowly see this girl evolving down a similar path... it's very scary.
there IS a cyclical element. that's what i'm trying to get at...
Indeed there is. My point is that there's a cyclical element for alcoholism and straight-up child abuse, as well as smoking, but this policy isn't directed at them, as deeply damaging as they are to children. That tells me it's not really about protecting children, and that's why I'm opposed to it.
you're right, EG, the program should go beyond simply drug addiction. but maybe if it starts here and seems to be successful, it will... i can't say that i'm aware of the long term goals of the program.