35th Anniversary of Roe v Wade

January 21, 2008 at 10:21 am (feminism, politics) ()

I’m a little late in announcing this, but Our Descent Into Madness will be blogging for choice tomorrow, which is Blogging for Choice Day 2008. It’s also the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade. This year’s Blogging for Choice theme is why it’s important to vote pro-choice. If you have your own blog, sign up and and join the feminist fun!

Blog for Choice Day

You can read Emily’s Blogging for Choice post from last year here, and mine here.

Advertisements

Permalink Comments Off on 35th Anniversary of Roe v Wade

This is your brain on continued survival.

January 17, 2008 at 4:29 pm (movies/video/clips) (, )

(Context: 1, 2.)

Found the following video in this post.

This is an incredibly accurate summary of my obsessive fears about medication before I started taking it. Emily can testify to that — she was there. These exact things came out of my mouth.

But you know what? For me, in my life, they weren’t true. I didn’t go numb. I didn’t stop being creative. I didn’t become a different person. I just stopped cutting myself. I stopped wanting to die.

At about 00:39, the man in the video says “Well this isn’t me. This is Paxil. This is me on Paxil.”

I believe, truly and unreservedly, the anti-depressants are the wrong choice for that man. He should stop taking them. I hope he recovers from his experience completely, and finds some other way to be a healthy human being.

But I really, really resent the dichotomy* between “me” and “me on Paxil.”

I sure as hell hope that “me on amitriptyline” is “me,” the real me. If it’s not the real me — if it’s the drug talking, some impostor, a pharmaceutical cuckoo — then the real me is not someone who can survive. The real me is someone constantly on the verge of a nervous break. The real me is someone who can’t sleep, someone who can’t eat, someone who hallucinates that the subway station is Hell, someone who hallucinates she is vomiting the serpent from Eden. The real me is someone so obsessed with her sadness she can’t form relationships. The real me is someone who hates herself so much she tries to cut pieces out with scissors. The real me is someone who sobs for hours when she spills coffee, who burns herself for getting a B. The real me is someone who has to down three glasses of vodka in order to stop hating herself for long enough to kiss the person she wants to kiss.

“Me on amitriptyline,” on the other hand, doesn’t want to die, doesn’t want to hurt herself, doesn’t hallucinate, can learn for her mistakes, can kiss someone sober, sleep through the night, eat three meals a day, be trusted with sharp objects, take care of herself. Anyone who’d like to think that version of myself isn’t real can step on her glasses, throw out her birth control, stop buying aspirin, stop buying toothpaste, and start picketing hospitals and medical schools.

Edited to add: I don’t know whether depression is a chemical imbalance. And I actually don’t care.

* I resent it as an idea that was in my head for years, preventing me from getting treatment, not as a description of this man’s experience.

Permalink 3 Comments

“Post-Abortive Men”: FUCK YOU.

January 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm (politics, sexism, stupidity) (, , )

Via both Melissa at Shakesville and Cara at the Curvature, I’ve unwittingly been prompted to confront (not really for the first time, but officially) the existence of a disgusting group of men whose intentions lie at the intersection of the men’s rights (so long as they’re posited and pursued as being oppositional to women’s) movement and the anti-choice crowd, and proclaim themselves victims of their sex partners’ decisions not to carry unplanned pregnancies to term. Lovely.

Now, I don’t deny that a partner’s abortion may have severe emotional implications for some men. And that those feelings should be assessed and dealt with. But…duh?…restricting women’s access to the health care they need, in this case abortion services, is not an acceptable method for moving past any possible grievance. Therapy, maybe? Some attempted compassion for the woman and the situation she found herself in, at least?

No, I don’t mean the kind of therapy or “compassion” offered by so-called Christian counselor Mark B. Morrow mentioned in the above-linked LA Times article, who claims that “We had abortions,” or, “I had abortions.” If, in this case, I’m not making a mistake by consciously assuming that this guy does not personally harbor his own female reproductive system, then this is an offensive and impossible over-reach of egocentricity. There is a distinct difference between being emotionally involved in another’s abortion and actually having one. And, you know, it’s that bit right there that makes all the difference and really matters when addressing that other person’s right to healthcare and physical independence, for pete’s sake!

And let me spoil the end of that wonderful piece of journalism for you with one of the last quotes from one of the men profiled, who had just been chronicled as re-imagining what his life might have been like (not for his present wife or children, but only for himself, of course) if his previous girlfriends had endured their unwanted pregnancies (emphasis mine):

In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.

But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?

Aubert looks startled. “I never really thought about it for the woman,” he says slowly.

Clearly. Because the importance of his retrospective feelings about their potential life-altering choices and actions eclipse the actual human experience of the women who found themselves face-to-face with whatever options they had to choose from to better their own living situation.

GAH.

Permalink 9 Comments

Public Health Alert

January 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm (frightening things) (, )

A trailer hauling 14, 800 pounds of beef, thought to be infested with E. coli, has been stolen in Texas. Consumers are warned to avoid beef packaged with the label “EST. 13116.”

Watch out!

Via The Ethicurean.

Permalink Comments Off on Public Health Alert

The inhalation of pigs’ brains may cause illness. Who knew?

December 8, 2007 at 7:44 am (frightening things) (, , , , )

Yikes.

On the slaughterhouse floor at Quality Pork Processors Inc. is an area known as the “head table,” but not because it is the place of honor. It is where workers cut up pigs’ heads and then shoot compressed air into the skulls until the brains come spilling out. But now the grisly practice has come under suspicion from health authorities.

Over eight months from last December through July, 11 workers at the plant in Austin, Minn. — all of them employed at the head table — developed numbness, tingling or other neurological symptoms, and some scientists suspect inhaled airborne brain matter may have somehow triggered the illnesses.

Via Boing Boing.

Permalink 8 Comments

Candidates’ Health Care Plans

December 6, 2007 at 9:48 pm (politics) ()

Take a look at this handy set of summaries of the US presidential hopefuls’ various plans for health care reform, including the proposed methods of payment (via Alas). They’re simple, readable, and roughly soundbite-sized. It might not be much that isn’t already common knowledge, but it’s great to have them all in one place for comparison.

Permalink 2 Comments

When Satire Accidentally Serves as Prophecy

November 15, 2007 at 5:30 pm (frightening things, sexism, stupidity) (, , , )

From Pandagon:

I wrote an article for RH Reality Check about how anti-choicers could try to ban menstruation without missing a beat. It was supposed to be satire.

But unfortunately, it was close to the truth
. Anti-choicers are pushing a Colorado ballot initiative to define a fertilized egg as a person.

Since a large number of fertilized eggs never actually implant in the uterus, this would effectively make all women who have sex with men and menstruate suspect of murder?

See Fitness for the Occasion for more on this absurdity, and let’s not allow anti-choicers this chance to hijack our language to set the groundwork for outlawing contraceptives (think of the implications this rhetoric could have on access to/use of birth control pills, for example). Or, you know, abortion.

Permalink Comments Off on When Satire Accidentally Serves as Prophecy

E. coli contaminated beef sold to consumers: not an accident.

November 12, 2007 at 1:16 pm (frightening things) (, , , )

That’s right; and it’s in large due to what is sometimes referred to as the “E. coli loophole.” The USDA allows contaminated meat to be sold as long as it’s done so under the “cook-only” category. Every year, millions of pounds of E. coli infested corporate slaughterhouse beef is sold in this manner.

Cooking the meat, the USDA and producers say, destroys the bacteria and makes it safe to eat as precooked hamburgers, meat loaf, crumbled taco meat and other products.But some USDA inspectors say the “cook only” practice means that higher-than-appropriate levels of E. coli are tolerated in packing plants, raising the chance that clean meat will become contaminated. They say the “cook only” practice is part of the reason for this year’s sudden rise in incidents of E. coli contamination.

“All the product that is E. coli positive, they put a ‘cooking only’ tag on it,” said one inspector, who like other federal inspectors interviewed asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs. “They [companies] will test, and everything that’s positive, they slap that label on.”

Oh, and it’s covered in shit.

E. coli can be difficult to detect and prevent. The bacterium lives in intestines of cattle, which tolerate it. It can contaminate meat during the slaughter process if fecal matter comes in contact with the meat portions of a carcass. That can happen in several ways, such as when workers accidentally puncture the digestive tract during removal, or when a cow’s hide, which might carry fecal dust, is taken off.

Yummm.

Via The Ethicurean.

Permalink 1 Comment

In Which All Anti-Fat Bigotry Is Disproven With One Factual Sentence

November 8, 2007 at 2:16 pm (Uncategorized) (, )

From Boing Boing: Overweight people have a lower death rate than people of a so called normal weight. Overweight people also have a lower death rate than those who are underweight or obese.

Some who studied the relation between weight and health said the nation might want to reconsider what are ideal weights.

“If we use the criteria of mortality, then the term ‘overweight’ is a misnomer,” said Daniel McGee, professor of statistics at Florida State University.

“I believe the data,” said Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. A body mass index of 25 to 30, the so-called overweight range, “may be optimal,” she said.

Permalink 3 Comments

Some reactions to “the abortion controversies” and women’s vanishing rights to full citizenship in the U.S.

October 24, 2007 at 12:41 pm (frightening things, injustice, racism, sexism, stupidity) (, , , )

From what seems like the beginning of time, women from all across the globe have been personally and systemically coerced into making reproductive choices that may or may not have been their own, and that may or may not be the best for them. This coercion, like all others, plays out differently for women of different ethnicities, races, sexualities, etc. A perfect example of this is a clip from Fox News which I watched online about a year ago that features one crazed straight-white-Christian-American male or another raving about how white women in the states should have more babies and less abortions because more white American babies=more white American workers=less room for Mexican immigrants=less threat to his straight-white-Christian-American male birthright. Or something. I think I saw this on Feministe, but I’m not sure, and I haven’t been able to locate it anywhere (if any readers know which clip I’m thinking of and where to find it, please let me know). Compare this to the histories of eugenics and forced sterilization of women of color in poor “overpopulated” countries.

The debate surrounding reproductive choices and who gets to make them is commonly centered around “selfish” middle-class white women who presumably have access to the care and procedures they may seek despite economic and legislative barriers; the ones that have the ability to make a choice should it be offered. It is also centered around abortion and other aspects that factor into the subject of choice, like comprehensive sex education, proper maternal care, and access to contraceptives are routinely ignored or placed elsewhere categorically in political debate. They shouldn’t be. But because the faction which I will generally call the heteronormative Christofascist conservative right (or just, you know, right-wing for short) has been so successful at establishing their rhetoric in the public sphere, this is the narrow and simplistic framework in which the debate commonly exists, and is also the one that I am usually reacting to when thinking/discussing about the issue of reproductive choice. This is true of many. It’s simplistic and a unfortunate, but regardless, it is the water through which we must now wade.

All of which is an attempt to provide some sort of context for what I actually feel compelled to write about. I say “feel compelled” rather than “wish to” because I don’t like to do it. I am unshakable in my conviction that women know what they desire and what they need from the legal and medical establishments to make the best decisions for themselves regarding their reproductive choices and health, that it is their human right to pursue their own personal option of choice, and that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all of the options that women require are available and safe. The. End. Any more consideration of the topic, even if helpful and compatible to that conviction, is exhausting (for me) and generally results in fuming rage at the fact that this matter is in any way controversial.

So after attending a panel discussion last night on the subject of “The Abortion Controversies” featuring Caitlin Borgmann (editor of the Reproductive Rights Prof Blog), Daniel Maguire (professor of Moral Theological Ethics and author of such titles as Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten World Religions) and Nancy Keenan (president of NARAL Pro-Choice America), moderated by Marjorie Heins, I was distraught and filled with information and thoughts that I no longer want bouncing around in my mind. Not because they aren’t correct, or righteous, or necessary and true, but because it’s a frustrating subject to be stuck on and, dammit, I need some of that head-space back. Hopefully in typing this, these neurological firings will find a new place to reside. Besides, it’s been a while since we’ve really posted on the issue.

SO. The panel focused on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Gonzales vs. Carhart to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This ban is the first of it’s kind to offer absolutely no health exception for the women undergoing certain methods of late-term abortion. It turns doctors into criminals that face real jail-time unless they allow government regulations to come between themselves and their patients and, because it’s supported only by hollow rhetoric (“partial-birth abortion” is a made up term that is not recognized by the medical or legal establishments) it’s not even made clear what exactly is illegal (though it has come to imply the method of dilation and extraction, really). More about the ban here. What’s more frightening than the ban itself- the probability that not one fetus will be “saved” but that many women and doctors have undeniably been placed at risk- is that it’s enactment warrants the metaphor of “opening the floodgates.”

Caitlin Borgmann spoke of how this ruling was shaped by problematic right-wing language which has been reverberating through the public mindset and is now being used to write law. Obviously, there are the examples of “partial-birth abortion” and “life.” It’s been demonstrated countless times that the “pro-life” banner is a fallacy and that “pro-life” policies (and advocates) hurt, maime, and kill (which is why the phrase about how anti-choicers think life starts at conception (or fertilization) and ends at birth originated). And then there’s the way that fetuses and developing clumps of embryonic cells are personified as “babies” and women are really only considered as “mothers” if they’re considered at all, even and especially when they are actively avoiding this role. Not only is fetal personhood a deceptive concept, it is not employed consistently by those that support its use either outspokenly or implicitly.

Daniel Maguire expanded upon this concept and urged us to expose right-wing hypocrisy by following its “logic” to its inevitable conclusion. To accept the anti-choice definition of life is to truly believe that the fetus is a person eligible for full legal recognition and citizenship just like any born person. Let’s assume the country were to seriously implement that idea into its many codes of conduct. Would fetuses conceived in other countries, on vacations, let’s say, need to be registered as immigrants upon the pregnant woman’s return home? Would women be able to charge fetuses for taking control of their bodies without consent? Of course not, that’s all just preposterous and clearly exposes the ridiculous unreality behind the linguistic justifications for fatal right-wing agendas (though clumps of embryonic cells, apparently, are entitled to lawyers). Ugh.

In fact, it’s apparent that most anti-choicers haven’t even considered the obvious repercussions of outlawing abortion (at all!): namely, that women seeking abortions would be criminalized and, if fetuses accepted as people, potentially charged for attempted murder. From watching this video, we may determine that even anti-choicers are not quite ready to adopt such standards or threaten 1.3 million American women (some of whom undoubtedly identify as pro-life in the anti-choice sense) with jail time each year:

But legally, we have threatened our doctors with this risk.

Daniel Maguire was the highlight of the night, I thought, and provided much-needed comedic relief. He posited that, though it’s tempting to completely dismiss the religious moral arguments inherent in the anti-choice argument on the grounds that they have no rightful place in the discussion, ignoring them won’t change the fact that we live in a fearful, irrational, patriarchal theocracy. And if we’re going to be forced to engage in the debate within the framework set up by this theocracy, then there is no reason that we cannot do so in a straight forward manner. Abortion is a moral good, after all, and contrary to popular belief, highly compatible to honest religion. There are tenets of all the world’s major religions that can be interpreted as pro-choice and many influential religious leaders have been pro-choice themselves. It’s just that the anti-choice narrative necessitates a re-write of history and manipulation of truth. As an impatient secular atheist, much of what Daniel said came from an angle I never thought I’d care to entertain. Indulging in this facet of the debate is not a favored tactic on my part, but I’m glad it’s his and can see why it might be increasingly valuable. But, as Daniel reminded us, don’t entertain misogynistic notions merely cloaked in religious doctrine–do point out the ways in which many religions have become entangled with patriarchy.

And then, of course, Nancy Keenan talked about political strategy and how it is absolutely necessary, in every election “from the courthouse to the White House,” to protect and elect, as the NARAL slogan says. We simply can not afford to have any more anti-choicers in such positions of power. Certainly not in the Supreme Court. And, nope, no room in Congress either. One election cycle could render years and years worth of progress obsolete. Nancy also brought the discussion full circle effectively by emphasizing that electing pro-choice candidates is about more than securing the right to abortion: it’s about securing the right to protect ourselves from STD’s and unintended pregnancies with knowledge, to make maternal and reproductive healthcare available and accessible, and to encourage solutions to problems that work (hint: these do not include federal programs for abstinence only classes, the Global Gag Rule, or the appointment of people to do very important jobs for which they’re not qualified).

Everything I ever want to say on this subject is included, if not in this post, then in the links therein. I’m sure of it. Never again do I want to spend so much time and energy explaining what should be obvious; that women are humans and therefore deserve the rights that other humans are awarded. Among them, the right to one’s own body. Bottom line. Regardless of Any. Other. Thing. But of course, I will. And I will continue to do so again and again, until it is not considered even remotely acceptable to argue otherwise.

Hopefully, now that this is all out and in a semi-tangible form, I can just link back or review next time I feel compelled, and can get on with the rest of my day.

P.S. To the late-term abortion provider who stood up during the Q and A session of the panel discussion and told us about his pre-Roe med school experience when each day the numbers of women seeking care after failing to find safe ways to terminate their pregnancy overwhelmed the hospital where he worked and many left unhealed, or without a uterus, or not at all…and about his fears that anti-choice nurses he works with might accuse him of performing a “partial-birth abortion” and send him to prison even though he doesn’t perform D&E…and about how he worries that he might be unable to give a patient the care she needs because these guys would prefer she didn’t have it: Thank you.

NOTE: because of the nature of this post, I urge readers who have not reviewed our comment policy to do so, and to respect our choices (punnnn).

Permalink 3 Comments

« Previous page · Next page »