That first point makes sense—feminist women were thrown under the bus in order to pass the health care bill, and they’re right to be pissed about it. But what’s this business about forcing us to vote for lady politicians? “A major element in our battle for equality is getting women into positions of power,” Siskind explains. “The hope is that these leaders, once in place, would promote women’s issues and encourage the next generation of women leaders. Speaker Pelosi reveals a flaw in feminist thinking: There are exceptions. A powerful woman can in fact be an enemy to women.”

Speaker Pelosi has taught Siskind a very important lesson: Supporting female politicians is not the same as supporting women. If only Siskind had figured that out sooner, before she wrote a big ‘ol article entitled “Should Women Back Palin in 2012?”

The obvious answer to that piece’s titular question, of course, is “fuck no.” Sarah Palin is, officially, the worst. But Siskind defies feminist conventional wisdom by throwing out this compelling argument: “Here’s the difference: Sarah Palin played women’s basketball.”

Barring the possibility Siskind believes that sinking sweet jump shots is now a requirement for President of the United States (at this point, I wouldn’t put anything past her)—I’m going to guess that Siskind supports Palin for President because she is a lady. Siskind is willing to support a woman who definitely opposes abortion rights, is totally a firm believer in teen abstinence, and is most certainly opposed to sensible rape policy—but is a lady. Why, again? Oh yeah: Because “the hope is that these leaders, once in place, would promote women’s issues and encourage the next generation of women leaders.”

That is a really dumb thing to hope, Amy Siskind. And that false hope becomes—forgive me for borrowing the terminology here—a nightmare when you learn of the wide variety of women Siskind is willing to support as her leader, just because they are women:

We should embrace what the current Newsmax cover describes as The Newer Feminism, which has a home for leaders regardless of political affiliation: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Suzy Welch, and Kathy Ireland, among others.

So, in the next presidential election, I’m going to vote for Sarah Palin and hope she suddenly starts caring about women’s issues. I’m going to vote for Kathy Ireland and hope she suddenly turns into someone qualified to lead the nation in more than just underwear sales. And I’m going to vote for Hillary Clinton and hope she turns into a hippopotamus.

I kid. But just in case you weren’t convinced that Siskind doesn’t base her faith in female politicians on blind hope, consider this argument: “I know I’ll hear from critics who claim that Palin would not share my policy views,” Siskind writes. “But what makes them so sure?”

We aren’t stuck with Stupak because we have lifted an anti-woman woman to the Speaker of the House. We’re stuck with Stupak because we have elected plenty of representatives—male and female—who are really, actually anti-women in their policies. I’ll take a pro-woman man over Siskind’s theory of spontaneous feminist conversion any day. Besides, women are not the only group who need more representation in the U.S. government. It’s worth noting that Siskind converted from a lifelong Democrat to a McCain supporter because he chose a woman as his running-mate. On the one hand, that says a lot about Siskind’s eagerness to support women in government. On the other hand, I guess that means she doesn’t think it’s important for African-Americans to gain representation.

The most troubling thing about Siskind’s aggressive campaign to put more women in office—even if their policy positions directly oppose women—is its one caveat. Why support Palin and not Pelosi? To Siskind, we must always support female politicians, no matter what—unless that female politician does not aggressively campaign to put more women in office. Keep in mind—we don’t even know if Sarah Palin would support more women in government—that’s just another of Siskind’s “hopes.” If representation is going to be our one-and-only issue, we should all be supporting Amy Siskind for president. And that’s a very scary thought indeed.

The situation: “Eva,” a married woman, is raped by her boss on a business trip. She becomes pregnant. She decides to get an abortion. Her husband is supportive of the abortion, but not of Eva—”He drove me to a clinic for a consultation and waited outside in the car because he ‘didn’t want to hear me talk about conception dates,’” she writes. Eva later decides not to go through with the abortion. Her husband leaves her. She raises a beautiful baby boy on her own. Now, seven years later, she wants to reconnect with her ex. But there is a complication: “What happened on that trip wasn’t quite rape but I wasn’t exactly willing either. The man was my boss and he was very drunk and forceful. I tried to push him away without upsetting him, but he was too strong and I didn’t fight him.”

Now, if I were the advice columnist here, I know what I’d say: “your ex-husband is a dickwad.” But I’m not an advice columnist. Lesley Garner is. Her advice is of the “stop lying about getting raped and admit that it was selfish to not get an abortion” variety.

That’s right: Garner tells Eva that (a) she wasn’t actually raped; and that (b) any woman who refuses to abort her (made-up) rape baby is selfish for denying her husband’s feelings. Let’s start with the rape part:

Let’s look at the bit about telling the truth first. Your letter is full of confusion and chaos, and then I reached the end and saw that the story with which you began—the story that you told your husband—wasn’t even true. This was a shock to me, so you can bet it would be a very big shock to your husband.

The thing that strikes me most about your whole story is that you seem to have very little understanding of how your husband might feel. It is all about you and your needs. I think it is highly unlikely that your husband will welcome you back but I guarantee that, should you get to sit down and talk together, the further revelation that your rape wasn’t exactly a rape but a situation between you and your boss that got out of hand would be the final blow.

. . . Something isn’t right here, which makes me wonder whether you are telling the truth to yourself, never mind your husband.

Ah. It wasn’t a “rape.” It was a “situation.” Situations! Anything goes in them, really! Remember this next time the man responsible for your paycheck gets drunk and forces you to have sex with him, but you decide not to physically fight him, because he is a strong, drunk, forceful man responsible for your paycheck: What were you doing turning up in that “situation” to begin with? Add that to the list of things to avoid if you don’t want to get raped, ladies: Short skirts, beer, and “situations.”

Again, I’m not an advice columnist, but isn’t the more troublesome detail here that Eva would describe her “situation” as “not quite rape”? Shouldn’t we address the fact that Eva appears to be in such denial about that “situation” that almost a decade later, she can’t come to terms with what actually happened to her? No time: We still have to deal with Eva’s horrible decision not to get an abortion!

Garner writes:

I see a complete mismatch between what has actually happened and the fantasies that you are weaving around the relationship. So I feel I should spell a few things out.

. . . You made a unilateral decision. You decided to continue with the pregnancy in the absolutely unrealistic expectation that your husband would be happy to bring up the child of another man, his wife’s rapist. This is a no-brainer, Eva. No man could contemplate this. He would have found your decision inexplicable.

. . . On the whole, men’s hearts are not melted by children who are not their own. Even a tender-hearted man is going to find it hard to be charmed by the child of a man he believes raped his wife. There is no bond between your former husband and this child, and I doubt there ever could be.

Oh, that “unilateral decision” to have an abortion! Whenever women make that decision all on their own, without even thinking of the “feelings” of their husband, government, or Telegraph advice columnist, some bad shit is bound to go down that will ruin their lives forever, right?

One last time—I’m not an advice columnist—but if I were, I would focus on reminding Eva about what a total dickwad her husband was after she had to endure being raped and impregnated by her boss. Perhaps we just gently tell Eva that, really, the problem is not in her decision to carry a pregnancy to term, but rather the decision to continue to allow this fucking guy to have any sway over her child, her happiness, or her life.

It’s clear that both Lesley Garner and I aren’t really down with the idea of Eva and her ex getting back together. We just happen to disagree on a few of the minor details—like what rape means, and whose feelings should be most valued in the case of abortion. Nevertheless, Garner’s conclusion is a good one: “As for your lovely son, yes, it would be good if he had a father but he will also thrive if he has a happy, stable mother who has the support of a network of friends and family . . . become a happier and more fulfilled person in yourself and you have a much better chance of a strong relationship in the future.” A good place to start? Ignoring every piece of advice that preceded Garner’s final thought.

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of romance born out of  aggressive homophobia?

This week: pro-life gay man worries that if he could have children, his pro-choice boyfriend might kill them; how to talk to a girl without being a creep; your boyfriend is cheating on you to avoid rumors he’s on the down low.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

Sex Tips: In this edition of the AU Eagle’s triple-threat sex column, Buster Darkhole, Maxwell Hillcrest, and Amber Sparkles take on the issue of  . . . ideological rifts in on-campus relationships. How apropos!

The inspiration: A pro-life man writes in to ask if his crush on a pro-choice man is too immoral to pursue. “While he and I can’t have children, it’s more the idea that if we had children he would be OK with killing them,” he writes. “Is this enough to kill a relationship?” I bet you weren’t expecting Buster Darkhole’s response: “let me just say that it is a relief to find another pro-life gay on this campus.”

Life Lesson: The American University community contains at least two pro-life gay men.

Progressive Meter: Sorry, my brain just exploded attempting to accurately gauge the progressiveness of this situation. I think we’ll split the odds and go for a 5.

—

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Sex Tips: The Diamondback’s latest advice column schools undergrads on how to “start up a conversation without seeming creepy.” Columnist Esti Frischling’s suggestion: ” The rule is this: Any guy can get any girl. . . .  If you approach this situation knowing without a doubt that you are going to get some serious ass, your actual chances improve drastically,” she writes. “Seeing as you already know you’re going to get with this girl in the near future, you can certainly start to relax around her. Suddenly, imagining her naked in class changes from awkward and creepy to fun and clairvoyant. . . . Keep in mind: You are the man.”

Life Lesson: She wants to fuck you.

Progressive Meter: Assuming that a strange woman wants to have sex with you whenever you like will inevitably lead to complications. As one commenter notes, it ain’t the first time she’s doled out this advice. So much for the “without seeming creepy” part. Zero.

—

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Sex Tips: In this Howard University Hilltop opinion piece, Morgan Winbush attempts to get to the bottom of Howard’s “dating double standard.” She writes: “in a man’s world; you have to be on top of everything including your woman and your relationships. . . . Messing around with other women feed into the need for a man to feel as if he is needed. The more women who ‘need’ him the more he is solidified as a man possessing the qualities that are ‘manly’ and thusly proving himself to be the leader of the pack when it comes to female dependency. ‘Is he gay?’ ‘Is he on the DL?’ — the more female partners a man has the less likely these labels will be placed on him.” But aggressively proving one’s heterosexuality ain’t just for men any more: “times have progressed and women want just as much ego rubbing as their counterparts.”

Life Lesson: Your boyfriend is cheating on you so that nobody thinks he’s gay. At least now you can get in on the homophobic fun, too.

Progressive Meter: Winbush makes a good-faith effort to encourage fellow students to embrace female promiscuity alongside the traditional male version. In the meantime, she raises the specter of the guy on the “down low” without even giving a positive shout-out to the campus LGBT contingent. Three.

Photo by Ollie Crafoord, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

When Laura Ingraham covered hosting duties for Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor last week, she sought out to answer the age-old question: Why do feminists hate Sarah Palin so much? Hmm—I can think of a few reasons. The resulting discussion between Ingraham, Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn, and Republican pollster KellyAnne Conway produced some pretty interesting theories. Let’s check them out:

Theory #1: We hate her because we’re childless spinsters.

CONWAY: I think of some of the spinster childless columnists who have attacked this woman for her right to choose . . .

INGRAHAM: Can you name names?

CONWAY: . . . and have five children. There are too many to name and then it would make them relevant on such a great show.

INGRAHAM: Spinster columnists, OK.

—

Theory #2: We hate her because Todd is cute.

CONWAY: . . . I think she makes some women feel inadequate because she has five children, no household help. Not only is she not anti-man, but she has, as we could tell, a supportive husband and father.

INGRAHAM: And cute, too. He’s real cute.

CONWAY: . . . the extended family. He’s cute to go.

—

Theory #3: We hate her because Palin lost weight after having the 5th baby we never had because we were too busy being childless spinster abortionists without cute husbands:

CONWAY: . . . And look, she lost all her baby weight. It makes some women crazy. They’ve got 1.3 children and a Pilates schedule they have to keep, and it makes some of them crazy.

QUINN: . . . Well, let me just say first that she has a point about people being jealous about her losing her baby weight. I have to say.

NGRAHAM: OK, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

CONWAY: But you did too, Sally.

INGRAHAM: I got that.

QUINN: No, I’m crazed about that.

INGRAHAM: Right.

QUINN: And I have to admit it right here.

INGRAHAM: You’ve always been fit.

QUINN: Yeah.

INGRAHAM: So we’re not going to hear that from you.

—

Theory #4: We hate her because she’s a woman:

CONWAY: And look, I just want to say this, that with Palin, she looks so feminine. She acts like a woman, but governed like a man.

—

Theory #5: We hate her because we’re jealous that she’s pro-life:

INGRAHAM: Admit it right now. Palin is hot. She is pro-life. She shoots. She hunts. She has a big family. And all these feminists are like just seething with jealousy about it.

—

Theory #6: We hate her because she is against everything that we stand for:

QUINN: . . . I have to say that of all the people I know, I don’t know a single person who feels jealous about her. I think that most of the people I know who are not Sarah Palin fans just don’t like what she has to say.

Photo by lifeisaprayer, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

This week, anti-abortion activists staged an eBay auction to help raise a legal defense fund for Scott Roeder, who was charged with murdering abortion provider George Tiller back in May. With the auction, anti-abortion activists were hoping to capitalize on Roeder’s newfound notoriety by selling off a series of his signed, pro-life memorabilia.

But before the items could hit the virtual auction block, eBay announced that the memorabilia would be removed from the Web site. In a statement, the company said that it would “not allow listings that promote or glorify violence, hate, racial or religious intolerance, or items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.”

St. Louis cartoonist Gary McCoy had a more personal beef with the auction: It totally ripped off his work.

Among the offending items listed for auction: A cartoon presumably penned by one of Roeder’s fellow inmates and kindred spirits, Jason Dubrowski. The cartoon depicts a newspaper clipping that reads, “Late-term abortion provider killed. Pres. Obama ’shocked and outraged.’” Beyond the paper is the cartoon’s ironic payoff: rows of graves, each marked “Aborted Baby.” It’s signed: To all you prolifers, thanks for your support. Scott Roeder.

McCoy, a conservative cartoonist who regularly addresses abortion in his work, published that very same image back on June 1—minus the alleged murderer’s salutation. Today, Cagle Cartoons, which syndicates McCoy’s work, recognized Roeder and Dubrowski’s cartoon as a near replica of McCoy’s effort, and called the incarcerated duo out for their plagiarism. As the syndicate’s blog notes, Roeder “seems to admit” the theft in the cartoon’s eBay listing: “His name is Jason Dubrowski and is one of the best artists I’ve seen in here . . . The drawing of the field of babies tombstones with the newspaper headline comments of Obama was done after a Christian newsletter printed this illustration which a lady in Valley Center sent to me.”

McCoy was not impressed with the tribute from “one of the best artists” in prison. “I was extremely upset to learn that my cartoon was being plagiarized in order to defend Scott Roeder,” says McCoy, who was alerted to the misappropriation this morning by friends, colleagues, and even Roeder’s estranged wife, Lindsey. Lindsey called McCoy to inform him that Roeder had previously sent both her and her son a copy of McCoy’s original cartoon from prison. Clearly, Roeder was a fan.

McCoy claims he only intended the cartoon to condemn abortion, not support murder. “It was merely my attempt to comment on the contrast between Obama being outraged over Dr. Tiller’s murder, and his lack of action on abortion,” says McCoy. “Look, I’m pro-life. But I don’t condone the killing of abortion doctors. Most legitimate pro-lifers condemn that action. Only the fanatical fringe do that sort of thing, and it really upsets us.”

Roeder and Dubrowski aren’t the only ones who have insulted McCoy’s work this week. eBay’s response to the auction “kind of irked me as well,” says McCoy. “They say they don’t allow listings that promote or glorify violence, and it kind of bothers me that they thought my cartoon promoted violence. I’m glad they took the cartoon down, of course, but I wish they had made it clear that they removed it because it was a plagiarized cartoon, and not because my cartoon was violent.”

The folks at Overturn Roe have put together an instructional video to help you burn your very own effigies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid this Halloween, instead of engaging in normal human activity like dispensing candy to children. According to Overturn Roe’s set of “Marching Orders” [PDF], demonstrating that our Congressional leaders are going to burn in hell if they don’t repent for making us pay for child killing in the health care bill is not going to be easy. “Decide you are going to do this—no matter what—even if it is just you and 2 other people,” the orders read. “Do not ask permission; do not ask for peoples’ opinions as to whether or not you should do this.”

Alright then. Let’s get started!

1. Be sure to spend a lot of money on this. Pick up your corporate effigy at Kinkos and Home Depot: “Hi, I just sent you a PDF of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I want that in full color, on paper, 3 foot by 5 foot.”

2. And time.

3. Even when it’s not burning, it should look like it’s burning.

4. Alienate your friends. When you invite people to your effigy burning, “Get a FIRM answer. ‘Maybe I’ll be there’ means ‘no.’ ‘I’ll try to be there’ means ‘no.’ Your heart will be grieved before this is over, because people who you thought would join you won’t. (Some people are terribly afraid that their reputation will be hurt.)”

5. Don’t tell your religious leaders. “If you have a pro-life Priest or Bishop, invite them to come. If they are not really pro-life, don’t waste your time. And if you are afraid of them trying to talk you out of it, do not ask them, unless you can ignore their bad counsel. (That is why I said in #1 to just decide that you are doing this no matter what.)”

6. You should probably also get these sunglasses.

7. Annoy the media. “If you do a great event, and a few hundred cars see you, this is good. If your local TV or Radio or Newspaper or Internet Papers cover you, you reach thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions. This is great. It is critical that you follow these instructions EXACTLY as we give them to you.”

8. Then, ignore them. “You are free to say the same thing, over and over, hammer your point. If you feel a reporter is trying to get you to say something you do not want to say, just ignore the question, and say your message. For example, you could say: ‘That’s not the point: The point is it’s immoral to perform abortions and distribute contraception’ and ‘Would Notre Dame honor Pilate after he condemned Christ to death?’”

9. Burn. “If you don’t know how to start a fire, ask a Boy Scout.” Or, just unload a shitload of lighter fluid into your backyard.

10. Buuuuuuuuurn. “We suggest you check what your local ordinances are on open flame.”

The danger of swine flu in pregnant women has received a great deal of press attention recently. As concerns over the health of pregnant women rise, the abortion debate has slyly emerged as a a central influence in the dialogue.

Yesterday, the New York Times told the story of Aubrey Opdyke, a 27-year-old woman who was pregnant when she contracted swine flu last June. What began as mild symptoms of aches and fatigue turned into a harrowing four month ordeal. Writes reporter John McNeil:

In the four months she was hospitalized, she spent five weeks in a coma, suffered six collapsed lungs and a near-fatal seizure. High-pressure ventilation blew her up like a molten balloon until “she looked like she weighed 400 pounds,” her husband, Bryan, said, and she has stretch marks from her neck to her ankles. Her muscles and lungs are still so weak that she uses a walker.While hospitalized, she missed seeing her 4-year-old daughter, Hope, learn to swim and start pre-school.

And, most important, she lost her baby. Parker Christine Opdyke, almost 27 weeks in the womb, was delivered by emergency Caesarean section on July 18, when her fetal heart rate plummeted during Ms. Opdyke’s third lung collapse. Her airways were too blocked to let a breathing tube in, possibly a side effect of the drugs saving her mother. She lived seven minutes.

In McNeil’s profile of Opdyke, losing the baby was “most important”—more traumatic than even falling into the coma, suffering a seizure, temporarily losing the ability to walk, talk, and see her family, and facing death. The trauma of losing a child in the womb is clearly central to Opdyke’s experience. But it is still Opdyke’s experience—the ordeal is hers, not her baby’s. Compare that treatment to a previous profile of Opdyke, which ran in the Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. It’s worth it to examine the entire lede:

The baby was beautiful, with tufts of long eyelashes—just like her mother.

But she didn’t cry.

Her heart stopped minutes after doctors delivered her from the belly of Aubrey Opdyke, who had swine flu and lay in a medically induced coma.

Aubrey never had the chance to see her.

So the baby’s grandmother, Joanne Felker of Stuart, readied tiny Parker Christine for photographs and a video.

She bathed her and held her.

“She looks like she’s just peaceful,” Felker said of the images, shot by the volunteer group Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep.

One of these days, the family will show the images to Aubrey.

They’ll fill in the blanks about the time she has spent in a coma at Wellington Regional Medical Center, battling a case of H1N1 influenza that took Parker’s life on July 18 — more than two months before she was supposed to be born.

This is a story about a fetus. Opdyke, who endured months of comas, collapsed lungs, and seizure in a fight to stay alive, is introduced in a prepositional phrase: “from the belly of.” Joanne Felker is not Opdyke’s mother; she is “the baby’s grandmother.” The loss of Parker Christine is mourned at length, but the fact that Opdyke herself was on the verge of death is never mentioned in the story. Tellingly, Opdyke was not even able to speak at the time this profile was written about her. Given her condition, it’s doubtful she had a hand in authorizing the story at all:

Now that doctors have eased her off coma-inducing medication, Aubrey can blink in response to visitors.

She indicated that she recognized her husband, Bryan Opdyke, and can wiggle her toes.

The sources in the story are Opdyke’s mother, her former co-workers, and her former Girl Scout troop leader. Opdyke’s husband is not quoted in the story. That’s too bad, because he provided an extremely interesting insight to the New York Times:

Mr. Opdyke was warned he might have to choose—her life or that of the baby, who was just at the border of survivability outside the womb.

“I said, ‘Save Aubrey,’ ” he said of the woman he married last year. “I can make another baby, but I can’t replace her.”

Her third lung collapse forced the issue. Parker had to be delivered, but she did not survive.

The Times addresses the issue head-on: Losing Parker was a tragedy for the Opdykes, but it may very well have saved a woman’s life. Andrea Opdyke wasn’t given many choices throughout her horrific ideal. At least, in the New York Times, she’s afforded a voice in her own story.

Photo by flickr user Andres Rueda, Creative Commons 2.0

Depressing Feminist Graph #1:

According to the Economist, safe abortions worldwide decreased markedly between 1995 and 2003. Unsafe abortions, though—holding strong as ever! The good—and totally obvious—news is that banning and restricting abortion does not decrease abortions, so you might as well just make them legal and safe. In fact, in places where abortions are legal and safe, women have fewer safe abortions, too, probably because the contraception is flowin’ freely there as well. [Depressing Feminist Graph hat tip to Pukeimmediately].

Depressing Feminist Graph #2:

Unfortunately, when that contraception flows all the way into the strip club, it can have some negative economic effects for exotic dancers. The second depressing feminist graph comes courtesy of Julie Sunday, who notes a recent study which found that “women on the pill are attracted to more ‘boyish’ features in men.” The feminist blogs are all over the study’s more widely reported findings. But Sunday read, like, the whole fucking thing, and mined this interesting economic tidbit:

Strippers who are not taking the pill report an increase in lapdance revenue around ovulation whereas pill-taking strippers (who are thus not ovulating) do not see a spike in their revenue and earn less throughout the cycle. No, really.

Dotted line: strippers on the pill; solid line: strippers not on the pill.

Damn, girl. That’s a 50-dollar-per-shift difference during the menstrual cycle, and a full 200-dollar-per-shift-difference at the stripper’s most fertile. Somebody should do this study on women in other professions and see what they can shell up. Julie Sunday suggests that strippers looking for safety in the bedroom and success in the workplace ought to just go hormone-free, but not every type of contraception works for every woman. Would you change your method of contraception to get more tips?

“Reducing.” “Eliminating.” Saul doesn’t use the word “abortion” until page three, when she notes that “many opponents criticize selective reduction as a form of abortion.” It is abortion. So why don’t we call it that?

Saul’s story aims to accurately describe real pregnancy experiences, and the highly politicized debate surrounding abortion has a funny way of conveniently ignoring these stories. The hopeful parents Saul interviews largely fall outside the mainstream abortion debate: they are men and women who desperately desire children, and must decide whether to abort multiple fetuses or run the risk of losing their chance of ever having a healthy baby. The typical characterizations that pro-lifers associate with the word “abortion”— “baby killers,” “Godless whores,” “irresponsible sluts”—don’t exactly fit when they’re applied to people who go to great lengths to create life.

Saul’s heavy use of euphemism throughout the piece deliberately shields these women’s choices from the misplaced moral superiority of the abortion debate. Calling the procedure “reducing” or “eliminating” instead of “aborting” helps to respect the full experience of women who fight for one healthy child, but end up with seven fetuses that are unlikely to survive. The use of the “reduction” euphemism in the medical community may also help some women make informed medical decisions affecting their lives and the lives of their children. Some patients may be so opposed to abortion—or simply so put-off by the cultural perceptions of the word “abortion”—that they may endanger themselves or the lives of their potential children if they are forced to choose one.

But the medical community’s reluctance to discuss the possibility of “selective reduction” honestly and frankly with women can also harm those women who don’t realize that fertilization techniques may require abortion. One woman in the story, who chose to “reduce” her pregnancy from five fetuses to three, told the Times:

“I think there’s a huge problem in the reproductive technology industry . . . I was told the chances that I would have triplets were less than 1 percent. There was no talk of being faced with a decision like that until the day that we had the ultrasound. Then you have two weeks to decide. And you don’t get counseling from anybody.”

The euphemistic word choice can also hurt women who have abortions under other circumstances. The hesitancy to apply the term “abortion” to women who actually want babies does a disservice to all women who choose to end a pregnancy. Women choose abortion for a variety of reasons. Some women who are not carrying “multiples” choose abortion despite a desperate desire to have a child. Some women choose abortion in order to protect their children from lives that are sure to be short and painful. Some women choose abortion in order to save their own lives from dangerous pregnancies. Some women choose abortion because their bodies are unfit to carry a child. Some women choose abortion in order to protect the best interests of the children they already have. Some women choose abortion in order to protect the best interests of the children they want to have in the future. Some women choose abortion because they don’t want to have children. And some women choose abortion for reasons that are none of your business. When reporters choose to remove a select group of women from the discussion of “abortion,” they imply that all other decisions to abort are somehow less valid.

Saul’s story shows that the decision to abort is often complicated, difficult, and personal. It also shows that politicizing the decision to have an abortion can prove extremely dangerous to both women and children. In Saul’s story, women who choose to “reduce” their fetuses escape the “abortion” label because their choice to abort is explicitly aimed at encouraging life. Their choice completely upends the false dichotomy in the political debate between “abortion” and “life.” That’s all the more reason to call the procedure “abortion.”

What if Bill Clinton had openly announced, as he later did to his biographer, that Al Gore was “blowing” the 2000 election by refusing to allow Clinton to campaign for him? Maybe George W. Bush would never be president!

What if Bush had openly announced, as he did privately to his speech-writer, that his “heart was never into” banning gay marriage? Maybe gay people could be married!

And what if Richard Nixon had openly announced, as he did to his Oval Office tapes, that he thought abortion was okay “when you have a black and a white”? Maybe . . . Barack Obama’s mom would have aborted him, and “the world’s most famous mixed-race man” would never have even existed!

Wait, what?

It sure is fun to “wonder.” But pretending to pinpoint the precise political conditions that would have convinced a dead woman to have aborted her pregnancy 48 years ago instead of carry it to term is both dishonest and offensive.

Even if Nixon had announced that interracial couples would be free to abort their fetuses with impunity, why would that have convinced a white woman in a relationship with a black man to do such a thing? Why would anyone have cared what Richard Nixon thought, anyway? When Barack Obama was in the womb, Richard Nixon was already a lame-duck Vice President. And Nixon didn’t record his thoughts on interracial abortions until 1973, when Barack Obama was 12 years old. What is Egan even talking about?

The larger question is: why are commentators so quick to assume that Obama’s mother would have been interested in having an abortion at all, under any circumstances, ever?

Egan isn’t the first to jump down the rabbit-hole of Obama’s non-abortion history. In July, Republican Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt suggested that if Barack Obama’s mother had been offered “financial incentives” to have an abortion, then Obama may have been aborted and we would never have had a president who supported abortion. Wrap your mind around that one, liberals!

The speculation over Obama’s mother’s what-if-abortion is not a fun exercise in how even the smallest actions decisions can affect human history. It is, however, obviously racist (in his anti-abortion screed, Tiahrt also wondered aloud whether Clarence Thomas would have been aborted), and patently anti-choice.

Obama’s mother isn’t around to say, “I never would have had an abortion,” or, “I would have had an abortion if I could have afforded it,” or, “I would have had an abortion if Richard Nixon had been president over a decade before he was actually president, and had broadcast his racist Oval Office tapes over the radio in my first trimester.” This doesn’t seem to matter to the “What if” abortion set. When these commentators claim to know whether a dead lady they’ve never met would have had an abortion half a century ago, and why, they are saying that the mother’s opinion is unimportant to the discussion of abortion. They are robbing her of her ability to choose. In this case, commentators are posthumously robbing Obama’s mother of her ability to choose an abortion she never had, which just goes to show how seriously they take the whole “choice” thing.

This Week In Sexist History:

So, this “McFarland” guy was kind of pissed that his wife up and left him to become an actress and hang out with some “Richardson” dude. So he did what any husband would do: He fucking shot Richardson! To death. Thankfully, McFarland has got fancy olde-tyme defense lawyer John Graham on his side, who is like Atticus Finch meets Jack McCoy, except for jealous 1870’s douchebags:

We laughed. We cried. We wanted to fuck him. In this four-hour grandstand, all Graham had to prove was that his client, McFarland, was insane when he shot his wife’s lover point-blank. Graham gets preeeeeetty creative, and then—get this—ends the oration with “tears running down his [own] cheeks”(!) Let’s see how Graham argues so hard for murdering adulterers that he makes himself cry:

—
McFarland Is Crazy Because His Wife Thinks She’s Too Good For Him:

—
He’s Crazy, But Even If He Wasn’t Crazy, Other Dudes Your Wife Had Sex With Deserve to Die Anyway:

—
He’s Crazy, But He’s Not A Fucking Coward!

—
He’s Crazy Because She Tried to Make A Life For Herself As An Actress, And She Sucked At It:

P.S.: She was an “abortion” on the stage? They had the sweetest insults in the 1870’s!

—
He’s Crazy Because Only A Crazy Man Would Stand Idly By While His Wife Cuckolds Him. Wait, Doesn’t That Mean That He’s Not Crazy? Whatever:

Police records obtained by the Courier-Journal show that, according to Pitino, the then Karen Cunagin approached him in a Louisville restaurant where he had been drinking on Aug. 1, 2003, and the two had sex later that night.

. . . Pitino told police that Cunagin Sypher called him about two weeks after the initial encounter and said that she was pregnant. They arranged to meet at the condominium of Louisville strength coach Tim Sypher, whom she did not know at that time but would later marry.

Cunagin and Sypher married six months after the meeting. Then, she demanded “cars, tuition for her children and finally $10 million” from Pitino. Then, she was indicted for extortion. Then, she reported that Pitino had raped her. Now, “Cunagin Sypher and Tim Sypher are now estranged and divorce proceedings have been initiated.” Which is a shame, because I know we were all really pulling for those kids.

In a private Papal conference today, Pope Benedict met with President Barack Obama for about 40 minutes, then gifted him “a booklet explaining Vatican opposition to practices such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research” and informed Obama he would pray for him:

The pope gave Obama, who last March lifted restrictions of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, a copy of a recent Vatican document on bio-ethics in which the Holy See explains it opposition to such practices.

. . . He also gave the president a copy of his latest encyclical, “Charity in Truth,” which called for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.

. . . Obama, who was going to the airport from the Vatican, joked to the pope when he gave him the two documents: “I’ll have something to read on the plane.”

In other news, my grandmother has recently been elected Pope. If my adolescence is any indication, Obama has plenty more goodies in store for him, including a half-dozen hand-copied Bible verses urging him to repent, a couple bookmarks depicting the heavens openeth-ing, and culminating in a four-part VHS miniseries on the life of Jesus Christ on his graduation from high school. I’m pretty sure she has that gold shawl, too.

Photo by Beyond Forgetting

I have a confession to make: I love Dude Comedies. Any film where Two to Five Douchey Guys Shirk Their Societal Obligations to Embark on a Night They’ll Never Forget can probably coax ten bucks out of me. I’ll even watch the Dude Comedies where all female characters are relegated to the Fun-Hating-Wife or Slutty-Sex-Object category, as long as it allows for maximum high jinks. Superbad: Loved it! Old School: Great! 40 Year Old Virgin: Totally convinced me to overlook the whole chastity message! Talladega Nights: Watched it!

I understand these movies are literred with sexism and homophobia and penises; I am simply immune to it. My condition has become so severe that this is looking pretty good to me, honestly.

But no Dude Comedy can draw me in as douchily as the Judd Apatow Dude Comedy. I am powerless to it. I have a theory: Paul Rudd is often one of the dudes. But even a Clueless pedigree can’t justify my apparent obsession with man-children, marijuana-fueled Lord of the Rings fantasies, and underlying date-rape themes.

Help me.

In this week’s Sexist Beatdown, Sady of Tiger Beatdown tries. We laughed, we cried, we had a shmashmortion.

SADY: hello there lady. are you prepared – prepared, that is, to debate the fine points of dude comedy?

AMANDA: i can’t say i’m as prepared as you are, sady. but i am willing to confess: i believe that i enjoyed nearly all the films you profiled in your apatow series. when i saw them. in the theater.

SADY: yes, it’s true: apatow has become my great white whale. he is basically all i think about these days. i dream in Apatowvision. well: i enjoyed some of them too! (shhhhhh.) I enjoyed “Knocked Up” immensely, for example.

AMANDA: i CRIED at the end of knocked up. i was on a really bad date, which may have had something to do with it.

SADY: OH GOD. YOU SHARE MY TERRIBLE SECRET. i cried too. also, broke up with the dude i saw it with?

AMANDA: same. well i’m glad we’ve cleared the air.

Judd Apatow craftily inserted this song into the film’s end credits in order to make me cry.

SADY: yeah. my reactions to “knocked up” kind of define my relationship to the Apatow canon. I was totally digging Leslie Mann’s character – oh, that poor lady! She is totally at the end of her rope! – and then left the theater, and discussed it with people, and realized that YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ROOTING FOR PAUL RUDD. In that particular sub-plot.

AMANDA: i think i had the same reaction as you did, honestly. i thought she was sympathetic, but totally pathetic. all of apatow’s male characters are pathetic, too, but they seem to ease out of that gracefully without having to think about it too much.

SADY: right – plus, they are pathetic in a totally fun way! they get to hang out and do bong hits and fart on each others’ pillows and such! so, by the end, where it’s like, “sadly, we realize that procreative monogamy with one of these strange ‘woman’ creatures is necessary to maturation” you kind of get their sadness at giving up the pillow farts and lightbub battles. whereas women are just grown-ass-adults by the time they hit puberty, apparently. or at least they’re scripted that way.

AMANDA: yeah, so the women are just haggard at the end. one thing your reviews always touch on are these coiteries of man-children that apatow scripts. and you mention the rejoinder from defenders of the movie that ‘you’re not supposed to LIKE or IDENTIFY with them.’ and i do think that you are supposed to like these characters, and even like them for (and not despite of) their date rape punch-lines. but they’re still in a context, i think, where they’re there to provide a contrast to the hero of the story. their douchiness must be overcome, basically.

SADY: yeah, exactly. they’re given such loving attention, and their little world of date-rape jokes and vague bromosocial lady-avoidance is presented as so much fun. so you forgive them for being immature in order to forgive your own immaturity, like, “well, my wife may be at home sobbing but i can’t help it! i’m a regular bro!” and then you get a Valuable Life Lesson that sticks for maybe ten to fifteen minutes.

AMANDA: … but they’re funny!

SADY: it’s true! sometimes they really really are! I subconsciously repeat Jonah Hill’s pronunciation of “abortion” as “shmushmortion” at least once a week! and then i realize it’s a joke about making a lady have an abortion because obviously her fetus is YOUR decision!

AMANDA: yeah. and apatow’s versions of women i cannot excuse. they are either bitches or whores. but caricatures of douchebags, even lovable ones, i cannot resist. see: paul rudd in wet hot american summer. i think it’s just possible to love the character and not the character if they were a real person / your boyfriend.

SADY: exactly. question: where the lady douchebags at? where are the stoned ladies that can’t get it together to have an actual apartment, and get jobs that require nothing of them because they’re afraid real jobs would be too much of a commitment, and pretend to be gandalf or some business when no-one’s looking? the ladies who would rather watch “the muppet show,” again, than do anything useful with their lives? WHERE ARE THOSE LADIES? Because I want movies about them! They exist! So I am told in a way that has nothing to do with my own personal life, at all.

AMANDA: i know, which is why I desperately want Apatow to write a movie for them. partly because i think his brain might explode, but also because i think it would be funny.

SADY: exactly. like, writing a movie about a lady that is not a sexy/stupid harlot or a knife-tongued scold would be fantastic. because the closest we’ve got to an Apatowomany character, right now, is Juno. I DON’T WANT JUNO.

AMANDA: sometimes i look at popular culture and i think of the female characters who have had abortions and i get really sad that like carrie bradshaw is the only one i can think of. but that’s a tangent.

SADY: yes, well, my forthcoming feature movie film, “50 First Abortions,” will be an exciting new direction for film, i think.

AMANDA: indeed. I think we should start a letter campaign that mirrors the request of Pixar to make a film with a heroine who is not a princess.

SADY: but, you know? i think that women have all the same maturity/commitment/not-being-an-idiot problems that these dudes have. PLUS, what with all the work we have to do to make our bodies presentable, there are many more occasions for gross jokes about our inherent schlubbiness. HUMOROUS BIKINI WAXING SCENE? I think so!

One woman recalls her post-20 week abortion:

The baby had contracted a virus and you could see on the MRI that its organs were all messed up. It looked like there were bubbles in them, instead of solid masses like they were supposed to be. Then they figured out that the baby had been exposed to Fifth disease. All sorts of researchers contacted us, because they wanted to study it.

That was at about 20 weeks. I got a blood transfusion and I thought everything was cool. We went on vacation. But then we came back, and the doctor realized everything wasn’t cool. His brain had a hemorrhage. The MRI reminded me of my other son’s. He’s autistic, and when he was three he’d had an MRI that also showed abnormalities. At a minimum, they said the baby would have developmental delays. But the doctor also used the words: “This child could not make it into childhood.” I was six months along then, and I was already showing. But we couldn’t handle having another special needs kid. Psychically, we just couldn’t handle it.

. . . I cry all the time, and that will be for the rest of my life. Because I really, really wanted that baby.

And from another patient of Dr. Tiller’s

In July 1993, my husband and I received the worst news about our son’s impending birth: He suffered from multiple, severe fetal anomalies, both internal and external, thought to be the result of a rare blood disorder. If he could survive his early birth at 24 weeks he most likely would not survive his blood cancer beyond the age of 9.

. . . While still reeling from the shock, we were told we could take our chances and let the baby be born, but that the state would be forced to intervene if we did not then take every measure to keep our son alive. Or, we could consider two late-term abortion clinics—one in Wichita, Kan., the other in Holland! Our initial thoughts were “how could we be in a major NYC hospital in the United States and be told these are our only choices?” To say it was surreal is an understatement.

The product of sex educator Karen Rayne and midwife Christy Tashjian, the blog records user-submitted photos of women’s disembodied bellies, accompanied by the belly’s age and reproductive history. The point of the blog, the creators write, is to “put our bellies in perspective,” as bellies are “intimately related our sexuality and to our reproductive lives. It’s a complicated interaction, that confluence of sex and babies.”

A typical submission looks something like this:

It is complicated, that “confluence of sex and babies.” My midsection’s ability to create proto-humans is something I have to fight against every fucking day. Getting a birth control prescription. Paying for it. Taking it every day. Wondering if I’m pregnant. Buying pregnancy tests. Defending why I don’t want children. Swallowing painkillers for my ovaries. Bleeding out of my vagina. Dealing with CVS while bleeding out of my vagina.

Being able to make babies sucks. But I do a lot of other things with my belly, too. I fill it with tacos. I lay on it. I put beer in it. I do the odd sit-up. I bend it over when I bike to work. Most of the time, though, it just sits above my legs and under my boobs as I type on the computer all day, and I never think about the thing.

This is not a perspective on the belly supported by the Belly Project:

I understand the point here: Women’s bellies are expected to be both sexual objects and reproductive agents, it’s a huge bitch to strattle that fence. I don’t want to deal with satisfying either of those unattainables. I’m about as interested in defining my body by abortion, c-section, and “horrible vaginal birth” as I am by a hotness rating. At some point, belly after belly after belly, the blog becomes—excuse the pun—unstomachable.

Many Belly Project submissions are detailed to the point of absurdity. One belly includes this identifying information: “32 years old, 1 pregnancy (0 babies, 1 abortion), currently ovulating when this picture was taken.” Why not also say, “32 years old, 1 pregnancy, just ate a sandwich”? Most problematic to me, though, is how all the belly submissions define their abortions as “pregnancies.” In the Belly Project world, a tiny uninvited fetus that you choose to flush out six weeks in is defined in the same way as those nine months a woman spent growing and birthing desired offspring. I understand that some women consider their abortions this way. I would not.

That’s what unsettles me about the Belly Project: It defines the female body by the very things I have to struggle every day to not let define me. Age, pregnancy, abortion, and ovulation are important to the Belly Project. Tacos and  biking and careers are not. Maybe, as the project develops, the submissions will diversify. We’re not there yet: today, I searched the Belly Project Web site, and couldn’t find “None of Your Goddamned Business” anywhere.

Meanwhile, the “Man Belly Project” has begun posting photos of male bellies accompanied by the belly’s age, alcohol consumption, and exercise regimen. Honestly, this guy speaks to me more than a reproductive history ever could:

In preparation for President Obama’s controversial commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, where he will no doubt speak at length about the virtues of killing newborns, anti-abortion protesters have converged on the University of Notre Dame campus. Some of them are simply rolling around vacant strollers (representing the never-born) or crafting signs reading “I Regret My Abortion”—bush league.

Only one dude is shaming our abortionist president the right way: with a small plane that tows “a banner depicting the remains of an aborted fetus and the words ‘10 Week Abortion.’”

Pwned.

Catholic Universities: respecting the lives of women since probably never.

Photo by Fated to Pretend

For this edition of “Sexist Beatdown,” Sady (of Tiger Beatdown) and myself (of the Sexist) would like to extend a warm invitation to all men, children, good mothers, and bad mothers (abortionists will be tolerated, but the childless will be ignored).

This week, up for discussion is Ayelet Waldman: wife to Michael Chabon, mother to four, author of “Bad Mother,” in that order! Waldman made women hate her in 2005 after announcing, in the New York Times, that she values her husband over her children. We don’t really give a shit about that. What we want to know is: Does Waldman value husbands over children over good mothers over bad mothers over abortionists over the childless?

Let’s sort of find out!

SADY: hello! are you ready to talk about how some lady HATES and/or does not maniacally worship her children?

AMANDA: I can barely begin to think about it because i HATE this woman so much!

SADY: i, too, am driven to the verge of madness by her statements! actually, this is technically somewhat true. i mean. i read the “modern love” column that “bad mother” was based on, and: all i could think of was, seriously, you’re opposing the fetishization of motherhood by talking about how much you WORSHIP YOUR HUSBAND?

AMANDA: i know, right? where is the response Modern Love column that says, “i probably don’t love either of them.”

SADY: hahaha. i mean. if the whole weird mother/wife axis is about (1) being an untiring source of boundless Virgin Mary love and devotion for your children, and (2) keeping your man sat-is-fied, writing the article that’s like, “i can’t be all boundless or whatever with my kids because i’m too busy DOING IT with my hot husband, who I LOVE, and have i mentioned WE DO IT” is kind of… not necessarily a step FORWARD, you know?

AMANDA: yeah. i think she’s a controversial figure for another reason, too. she wrote this essay, right, and it’s basically a slap in the face to the whole love-transfer idea that’s expected of a mother, and she even goes far enough to say she’d basically save her husband’s life over her child’s if they were like being held hostage by Two-Face or whatever and she had to choose. but then, she’s spent about 4 years having to explain herself for that, and EVERYTHING SHE WRITES—her fiction, her nonfiction—is about being a mom! and obviously it’s something that she appears to struggle with, but it has consumed her.

SADY: right? like, for someone who doesn’t want to be defined by having babies, she sure does write a lot about having babies. and the “bad mother” label – the thing she seems to castigate herself for most fiercely is having an abortion when she knew the fetus wasn’t totally healthy.

AMANDA: i know, that part made me so sad, that she has these own expectations for herself, and that even though she freely choses not to meet those expectations, she feels like a bad person for doing so

SADY: right? i mean, i can understand that being a difficult, emotional decision, but it really seems like that would only make you a “bad” mother if you had a really over-demanding list of requirements for being a “good” mother.

AMANDA: yeah. there is another really interesting unspoken element here. she met chabon 12 years ago and has had four of his children since then. she indicates that he was very early on — the day they met, i think! — clear that he wanted children. but that was never a priority for her. when she quits her job, it’s not because she wants to spend time with her kid. she makes it clear she finds that boring. it’s because she’s jealous of him wanting that. you have to state the obvious here — the man that you love so much is the reason you have been burdened with motherhood.

SADY: yeah, exactly. and, i mean, she mentions that they got engaged three weeks after they met! which is clearly indicative of the fact that the whole “let’s talk about kids and whether i want them on the first date” thing was not, ultimately, a dealbreaker.

AMANDA: yeah, and was her voice heard there? i mean she spent four of their 12 years just being pregnant with the kids. plus another pregnancy that was physically and emotionally straining. she sure had a lot of kids for not wanting them too much, right? what is the deal with that?

SADY: yeah, and then there’s this, from the “modern love” column: “Every so often we escape from the children for a few days. We talk about our love, about how much we love each other’s bodies and brains, about the things that make us happy in our marriage… And afterward my husband will say that we, he and I, are the core of what he cherishes, that the children are satellites, beloved but tangential.” this is really caitlin-flanagan-y. SOMETHING is going on here, with the husband who tells you he wants kids and then you have four kids and then he tells you that you’re the one that’s most important, not the kids. SOMEONE is understating how important the kids are here, you know?

AMANDA: add that to the “abortion makes you a bad mother” thing and it’s almost like, not making babies when you’re able to make babies makes you a bad mother. what else explains the apparent lack of contraception here?

SADY: i get the sense that, really, waldman’s either way more into having kids than she’s letting on, or she’s backed into this corner of defining herself as a mother while constantly talking about how she shouldn’t be defined that way.

AMANDA: yeah, and i wish the people interviewing her (ok—i will send her an interview request when we finish this) would ask her these things

SADY: like, the mommy-guilt thing is interesting – “of woman born,” by adrienne rich, is a good thing about mommy-guilt – because, yeah, women are constantly told HAVE BABIES HAVE BABIES HAVE BABIES and then they’re told YOU’RE NOT DOING WELL ENOUGH WITH THE BABIES, so, it’s like, childless or with tons of kids, you don’t get to measure up, EVER.

AMANDA: and i get that she feels there are all these expectations that she has to face and can’t live up to. but at the same time, there’s the expectation to HAVE the kids in the first place, and she didn’t have to do that—and then do it again and again and again. it would be interesting to know why, you know?

SADY: yeah, and we sentimentalize maternal instinct to the point that women who express ANYTHING deviating from the message of “i spend all day and all night thinking about my children and wanting more children and then knitting them booties and baby blankets and did i mention they are thirty-four and twenty-three” are demonized. but: there’s got to be a way to tell the story of, “ok, so i have kids, and i didn’t magically become a caring and perfect person who would allow her children to feast on her own flesh if necessary overnight” without slapping a title on it that’s like “BAD MOTHER” and having to state that it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if your kids were run over by a truck. i guess my thing is, there’s a good story in here, and i wish it weren’t so hyped and Mommy-Wars-ified.

AMANDA: yeah. i do appreciate that she’s coming from a place of sincerity (almost to a fault), but i wish other people were asking her the right questions (instead of just, ’star jones doesn’t like you what do you think of that’). or why don’t you like play doh. ok — i have to GO. have four babies. wait, i mean, do my job

SADY: oh, well, good luck with that. YOU BARREN MONSTER.

Photo by viZZZual.com

If only! Ann Coulter voices her support of an investigator’s right to choose to waterboard.

I think I’m arriving at some sort of unified theory of Coulterism:

abortion IS WORSE THAN terrorism IS WORSE THAN waterboarding

terrorists DESERVE TO BE waterboarded

abortionists DESERVE TO BE terrorized

Joy Behar DESERVES TO BE aborted

This one’s a two-fer, in response to my post on the omnipresent anti-abortion Metro ads, “Metro Swathed in Anti-Abortion Shame.”

Craig Howell writes:

Um, there’s a First Amendment issue here, folks. As a government agency, Metro cannot indulge in viewpoint discrimination. This matter was settled 30 years ago when the courts told Metro it could not refuse to run bus ads sponsored by the Gay Activists Alliance. I have been a member of what is now the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance since 1973, and this victory remains one of our signature achievements.

Lisa responds:

Amanda, you pointed out the legal problem with this ad campaign yourself. When you say, “but when ad bombardments are targeted specifically on a captive audience of economically vulnerable women, they can be outright threatening,” you hit the nail on the head.

In Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, Justice Douglas says in a concurring opinion, “the right of the commuters to be free from forced intrusions on their privacy precludes the city from transforming its vehicles of public transportation into forums for the dissemination of ideas upon this captive audience.”

I think this applies here, and the revenue from the Crisis Pregnancy Crap Houses should be turned down. I don’t want to be forced to ride a shame mobile.

Photo via This is Everything.

Abortion, after all, is settled law, and Obama is the duly elected president. Clearly, the American people have moved on.

Or have they? And should we? Is there really ever a time when we should be comfortable with the ratification of abortion? It has always seemed to me that the truest form of feminism, as in the earliest days of suffrage, would be to hold abhorrent the state-sanctioned destruction of women’s unique life-bearing gifts. Out of material expedience, we’ve somehow managed to convince ourselves that life is a mistake. [Emphasis all mine].

Oh yeah, the “truest form of feminism” must be wherever feminism was ONE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO. Now that women have the vote, what more do they want—the capacity to murder babies at will?

I, too, wish we could go back to the good ‘ol days of feminism, when women were forced to provide their “unique life-bearing gifts” on demand instead of, you know, if and when they chose to give the fucking gift. I WANT ALL GIFTS ALL THE TIME! MORE GIFTS! MORE MORE MORE!

[via Pukeimmediately].

Waldman cites a 2007 Third Way study which found that “69 percent of Americans believe abortion is the ‘taking of a human life,’ but 72 percent believe it should be legal.” Waldman attributes the statistic to the idea that most people believe that “some living things are more alive than others, and so the later in the pregnancy it gets, the more uncomfortable people become with the idea of ending it. . . . they believe both that a life stirs very early on and that a one-week-old embryo is more ‘killable’ than a nine-month-old fetus.”

The idea of “gradations of life” has not been particularly embraced by either side in the political turf war over abortion: Pro-lifers have focused on preventing all post-conception fetus elimination, while pro-choicers have underscored a woman’s right to choose at any time. But as Waldman points out, Roe v. Wade legislated specifically when women should have the right to choose, based on how baby-like her fetus has become: Roe “gave an inviolable legal right to abortion in the first trimester, allowed for certain restrictions in the second trimester, and actually allowed states to ban abortion in the third trimester.”

In Waldman’s “Fantasy of a Less Toxic Abortion Debate,” those on both side of the abortion debate would “embrace the safe-legal-early doctrine.” Here’s what Waldman’s fantasy would look like:

Pro-choicers who accepted this framework would be implicitly conceding that, for at least part of the pregnancy, there’s a “baby” in the womb—and the woman’s right to terminate that life is neither absolute nor nine months in duration. With early abortions not only legal but easier, pro-choice activists could then have the confidence to accept what many of them have publicly avoided but privately wanted: reasonable, tightly written prohibitions on third trimester abortions while genuinely protecting the life of the mother.

Open minded pro-lifers would take note of these concessions from their “enemies,” viewing them as a sign that these pro-choicers—far from being hideous baby killers—fully embrace a moral dimension to the abortion decision.

Meanwhile, any pro-lifers who accept this framework would be making a concession, too. They’d be saying, in effect, that if the other side can concede that something precious is alive—and becoming more alive with each day—then they could, in turn, acknowledge that reasonable people, of different faiths, can disagree about when exactly that baby becomes alive enough to have legal rights.

I understand that Waldman is trying to make nice. I, too, would like to see us all find common ground on abortion. But while Waldman thinks that will come with acknowledging that there are “gradations of life” in the womb. I think it starts with acknowledging the life of the woman.

Remember her? She’s the one who’s pregnant with the thing somewhere in between a “clump of undifferentiated cells” and a nine-month-old “baby” ready to pop out into a human. The fetus is in her womb—she knows what’s going on in there, and she takes that into consideration in deciding if and when to have an abortion. The moral question of determining the life of the fetus isn’t made in a vacuum—it’s made in the context of another life.

In order to find common ground, pro-choicers don’t need to acknowledge that fetuses are “babies,” and pro-lifers don’t need to deny that for them, life begins at conception. Both positions are valid. A pregnant woman should be free to choose between them.

[Via Slate's XX Factor]

That’s what Ruth Marcus claims in today’s Washington Post, quoting Sarah Palin’s remarks from a—what else—a pro-life fundraiser. At the dinner, Palin discussed her “choice” to have a child with Down syndrome  at the age of 44—a choice that, as Marcus points out, Palin wants to deny other women. Marcus is miffed that right-to-lifers like Palin routinely justify their anti-choice positions by describing their own “correct” “decisions” to have children. This isn’t the fist time Palin has used choice to explain why women shouldn’t chose—who could forget Palin’s election-season classic, “We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby”?

Palin’s pro-”choice” comments—where she describes twice considering abortion before deciding to carry her pregnancy to term—after the jump.

“I had found out that I was pregnant while out of state first, at an oil and gas conference. While out of state, there just for a fleeting moment, wow, I knew, nobody knows me here, nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy, could be easy to think, maybe, of trying to change the circumstances. No one would know. No one would ever know.

“Then when my amniocentesis results came back, showing what they called abnormalities. Oh, dear God, I knew, I had instantly an understanding for that fleeting moment why someone would believe it could seem possible to change those circumstances. Just make it all go away and get some normalcy back in life. Just take care of it. Because at the time only my doctor knew the results, Todd didn’t even know. No one would know. But I would know. First, I thought how in the world could we manage a change of this magnitude. I was a very busy governor with four busy kids and a husband with a job hundreds of miles away up on the North Slope oil fields. And, oh, the criticism that I knew was coming. Plus, I was old . . .

“So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman’s, a girl’s temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she’s not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process.”

Photo by √oхέƒx™

Holy shit, China. How did you manage to lose all these little girls?! Prepare to send out the biggest fucking Amber alert of all time!

Oh wait, this is Saletan we’re talking about—the reluctant pro-choice columnist of our time. That unbelievable lede that refers to real humans is actually about fetuses, right?

Yeah, yeah: We found ‘em. Those sixteen million “girls” were actually, Saletan figures, fetuses terminated by Chinese parents who are only allowed one kid, but can have as many sex-specific abortions as they want. Don’t get me wrong—I think it’s terrible that some parents, in all cultures, still value boys over girls. But the distinction between “girls” and “aborted fetuses” is an important one.

If Saletan wants to frame the question around live humans, he could just as easily have asserted that “there are too many actual human boys in China,” since it’s the sex disparity that’s ultimately causing the country problems. That’s a lot different than what he did say, which is, essentially: “There are too many female ghost fetuses in China.” The construction not only dips into far-right pro-life rhetoric—counting the number of “murdered” children that could be our friends and neighbors today—it isn’t totally accurate, either. After all, Chinese girls “disappear” through adoption, too. Boys go missing, too: Even without sex-selective abortion, the one-child-only rule will still necessitate the procedure.

Post-lede, Saletan’s piece actually handles the intricacies of China’s one-child policy, sex-selective abortion, and the boy surplus admirably. Saletan even rejoices in the fact that China has recognized that it is in the country’s own self-interest to limit sexist abortion—though Saletan still “wishes this turnaround were being driven by a better motive.”

As I argued in last month’s Saletan-flavored Sexist Beatdown, I find Saletan’s forays into the fringes of the abortion debate interesting—I just wish we didn’t always have to endure the dreaded “Saletan Curveball” in order to get to the good stuff.

Go to the ACLU Action Center here, or visit Planned Parenthood’s action page here, or Compassion & Choices’ action page here, all of whom have made it incredibly easy to make your voice heard by the Obama administration.

If all goes according to plan, the conscience rule will have accomplished nothing at all. Mwa ha ha.

Franks previously introduced a different version of the bill, known as the “Susan B. Anthony Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,” in the last session of Congress, but the session ended before action was taken.

The Intellectual Conservative Arizona blog notes that 87 percent of Americans support a law to “ban sex selection abortion.” The race thing is a little trickier. Barring some sort of hidden interracial extramarital affair—an unlikely scenario—why would any woman abort a baby based on its race? Isn’t the fetus’ race known before the baby is even conceived?

That’s where eugenics arguments become confused with demographics. According to the ICA:

It is estimated that as many as 50 percent of African-American babies conceived in the U.S. each year are eliminated by government subsidized abortion providers. Following the unearthing of the nation-wide race-targeted abortion donations, civil rights activists and African-American pastors from across the country protested government acquiescence in race-targeted abortion and the government funding of clinics that they believe are purposefully placed in the inner city and targeted to minority women.

Ah, of course! This is not about preventing eugenics (itself a scare tactic used to rile up the anti-abortionists). Nope, this is about denying women the right to choose. Those government-funded clinics are not “purposefully placed in the inner city” to target black babies; they’re purposefully placed there to give poor women an affordable abortion option. The fact that many of those non-white fetuses are carried by poor women is a reality that Trent Franks, apparently, is not eager to address.

So, Franks would like to take away a black woman’s right to choose, lest she choose to abort her black fetus? Yep, there’s only one way to fight eugenics, people, and it’s with unapologetic racism.

Welcome back to “Sexist Beatdown,” the weekly event wherein Sady, of New York ladyblog “Tiger Beatdown,” and myself, of D.C. ladyblog “The Sexist” carry on evolved conversation on such topics as abnormal boners. This week, we discuss William Saletan, the Slate contributor obsessed with what Sady and I have, but what he does not: wombs (and the fetuses that sometimes develop in them).

Saletan is the king of the Ethical Ladypart Curveball, searching out freaky weird situations involving reproductive rights, in order to blow his fucking mind and encourage him to completely rethink the ethical rules involving abortion. Observe:

“If you stop paying a surrogate mother, what happens to the fetus?”

“Would you abort a fetus just because it wasn’t yours?”

Hey, we’re cool with “lady’s choice.” Not Saletan—it can never be that easy for Saletan. Is this awesome, or awesomely offensive? We decide, after the jump.

SADY: good morning! are you ready for SALETAN?

AMANDA: rarely am i afforded the pleasure of discussing a topic of such immediate ethical consequence!

SADY: indeed! i have now read the preface to SALETAN’s book! on! abortion! It is entitled “Bearing Right,” and it is about how conservatives have “won” the “abortion war” by changing the terms in which we talk about it, by, for example, not making it about a person’s right to choose what happens in her own body. i have also read several columns by saletan in which he refuses to frame abortion as a question of a person’s right to control what happens in her own body! so, he’s learned well, one supposes.

AMANDA: and this, i suppose, is why saletan continually frames the abortion debate around pregnancies that do not happen inside a woman’s body, but rather inside … another woman’s body.

SADY: exactly, or the IVF thing, which he hammers on constantly. he keeps talking about how, in the course of IVF, non-viable or extra embryos are produced and discarded. selecting embryos really pushes his buttons.

AMANDA: yes, i think it’s very problematic. he thinks that when a pre-baby is in a petrie dish, it is therefore out of the realm of concern for a woman’s body. but, look, it’s got to go in some woman’s body sometime. if saletan wants to implant all the frozen embryos in the world into his body to try to nurture them into little league, he’s free to do so. BUT i am here to defend saletan!

SADY: oh ho! an unexpected position! what, pray tell, is your defense? i am probably way too hard on him, i will tell you that much for free. i mean, a lot of his positions – contraception being the best way to avoid abortion, for example – are completely sensible. however, i feel he pushes for some weird policy of shaming people to make them better. even in a 100% perfect educated world, people will miss a pill or get drunk and forget their condoms. it’s not great, but it happens.

AMANDA: i think my only defense is a journalistic one. yeah. i dont think saletan and i agree on abortion, but i do share his interest in the fringe cases. the construction of his that you make fun of, an introduction, followed by a crazy ethical question like, “but, would you abort your medically unsafe pregnancy if there were a one percent chance your baby was the son of god?” i mean, i kind of LOVE those. i’m sure you take some sort of sick pleasure in them also

SADY: yes, it’s true, the Saletan Curveball is strong.

AMANDA: but the point i guess is that these very uncommon cases that may never actually happen are where all the interesting debate comes in. i do often disagree with the results he draws from them though. the one where the women aborted the fetus that was possibly not hers—saletan basically says she and the biological mom should talk it out. like he’s advising women who may go through this in the future—essentially, no one

SADY: exactly. i guess one of my main issues with the way he constructs these incredibly rare and weird scenarios is that i feel manipulated, as a reader. the second person that recurs – what if YOU, dear Reader, had YOUR fetus implanted in another lady’s uterus? what if YOU loved YOUR fetus? wouldn’t YOU be sad? – just sort of (a) runs right over these individual people and their individual perspectives, and (b) doesn’t seek to allow you any empathy or identification with anyone else in the story. i feel like he’s trying to back me into a corner, whereas, having a uterus, i could be either lady in some ridiculous implausible scenario. but i’m not either one! and i don’t know their positions in the matter, because saletan doesn’t tell me!

AMANDA: yeah. he essentially says that the person who cares more about fetuses should be able to make the decision

SADY: i say we do it biblically. cut that fetus in half! this is my King Solomon jurisprudence.

AMANDA: and in his mind, a woman who pays 100,000 for a surrogate womb cares about her fetus. the woman raking in the cash is just punching the clock. i looked at where the money goes, when you pay a company to find you a surrogate womb. one interesting tidbit: you have to pay the woman carrying the fetus $2,000 if you choose to abort it

SADY: oh, yowza.

AMANDA: so the assumption is that the bother or emotional stress of having to become pregnant and then abort it is worth 2,000 dollars. i say, if those women have to spend more than that on their pregnancies of these alien fetuses, that is when they are clear to abort without saletan’s concern. think about it—their abortion grief is established to be worth only 2,000 bucks to the people who donated the embryo. spending more than that on not aborting the baby is charity, in my opinion. i wish saletan would get even deeper into his arguments, is what i’m saying. the columns are just too short. i need more what ifs!!

SADY: exactly, yet when he raised the issue of surrogates terminating the pregnancies due to lack of funds, he POSTED A DUDE’S CONTACT INFORMATION so that people could contact him to stop it. without checking with the dude to see whether any surrogates actually sought to do so! and my understanding is, one did, then changed her mind, so there are Zero Aborting Broke Surrogates in the picture. yet that dude got a whole lot of e-mails, unexpectedly, probably some from 100% certified crazy-pantses. and saletan didn’t check on this? he has the dude’s contact information! yet did not use it!this is what i mean when i say that he has no concern for the people in the picture.

AMANDA: yeah, and he did then say—well, i mean, these women are working for free and they deserve the money anyway. but why is this different from any other sort of breach of contract? you get the money LATER, in court. not from saletan.

SADY: hah, yeah, maybe he should just set up a paypal link on the page!

AMANDA: i guess he feels like the “pregnancy” and the “women” are so delicate that they need the money now, or a terrible ethical situation will rise again. but i applaud saletan for bringing all this weird lady part shit to my attention, because i think it’s fascinating

SADY: oh, yeah, and i agree with you. more complexity = longer columns = better saletan. MORE SALETAN, is what we need! and, yes, i would never have learned as much as i have about weird pregnancy issues without him. so: thanks, guy.

AMANDA: i have a lot of unanswered questions. for example: if the woman implanted with the other lady’s embryo did not abort the fetus would saletan ask her to give the baby to the other woman? or does she get to keep it? this could possibly be MORE traumatic for the other woman.

SADY: well, considering that he referred to it as THAT LADY’s baby throughout, and talked about how she might never get another chance, i think he’s asking her to be a surrogate.

AMANDA: shit, i would keep it. the one thing that i have to ask, personally, about all this stuff is: why is this even happening? the lengths people will go. just buy one! i think it’s cheaper

SADY: exactly! i have an ethical question: is it wrong for me to sell my babies on the black market? what if they’re REALLY CUTE? but, yeah, for all the every-sperm-is-sacred thing we’re hearing, adoption never even enters the picture.

AMANDA: yeah. every sperm and egg are sacred, as long as they are mine. the other ones you have to birth, too, i just don’t have any insight into what the hell you do with them once they’re not fetuses anymore

SADY: well, you know. at that point the ETHICAL QUANDARIES become far less fascinating, i suppose.

AMANDA: yeah, then it’s just kind of a bummer

SADY: until the ex-fetus grows up, and becomes a lady, and somehow gets pregnant with a toaster! how did THAT get in there? what do we do with the embryonic toasters? don’t they deserve a chance to toast? i guess what i am saying is, there are many odd fringe cases left unexplored.

AMANDA: yeah, but the point is, we already have a mechanism by which to deal with those. the woman decides, the end. but saletan can certainly write an overture to her which she may or may not consider. what i want to know is—how do i get saletan to set up a paypal account for me? i’m currently not considering aborting anything

SADY: hah, yeah, we were all once fetuses. we deserve the right to live, and in my case, cable, which i can’t afford. how do i get saletan to extend his noble efforts to my cable bill?

AMANDA: what about the fetuses without cable?

SADY: um, can they download stuff from itunes, maybe?

AMANDA: kids, they can do anything

SADY: just don’t put an iphone in there, or your fetus will sext!

AMANDA: by william saletan

The District of Columbia isn’t the only locality sparing with lawmakers over political license plates. If Virginia state senator Ken Cuccinnelli gets his way, Virginia drivers will soon be able to wear their anti-abortion stances on their bumpers.

Last month, Cuccinnelli supported a bill that would allow Virginia residents to buy ‘Choose Life’ license plates from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Proceeds of the sales would go toward the state’s “crisis pregnancy centers,” outlets which provide freaked pregnant women with information about what to do next—and it’s certainly not abortion!

The novelty license plates, championed by Choose Life, Inc., are currently “on the road” in 13 states: Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, South Dakota, Montana, Ohio Kentucky, and—yes, it is too late for them—Maryland.

When the bill was defeated in Virginia’s Senate Transportation Committee, Cuccinnelli’s initiative was tacked on to another initiative, which was passed. Supporters can already download their “Choose Life” plate application here [PDF]. Just check “Special Interest,” write in “Choose Life,” and agree to fork over $25, and you’re on your way to driving away abortion!

Well, as long as Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signs the legislation into law. Now, Planned Parenthood is asking Virginians to call the Governor to ask him to veto the legislation. If form letters aren’t your thing, you can call Kaine up at (804) 786-2211.

Steele also told GQ, “I loved to party—still do—and have a good time.” So, you know, this guy will say anything to anybody.

The pertinent portion of the interview follows [via Wonkette].

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

For the next 30 days, the public is invited to comment on Obama’s proposed rescission of the rule. Love it? Hate it? Tell the Obama administration through one of four easy ways (no faxes, n00bs). Once Health and Human Services opens comments for review, I’ll post the highlights here on the blog. And stay tuned for this week’s City Paper, where I’ll have more on the short-lived regulation.

For now, get to commentin’! Instructions are after the jump:

DATES: Submit written or electronic comment on the regulatory changes
proposed by this document by April 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to “Rescission Proposal.” To
better manage the comment process, we will not accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.

You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):

1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.Regulations.gov or via e-mail to proposedrescission@hhs.gov. To submit electronic comments to http://www.Regulations.gov, go to the Web site and click on the link “Comment or Submission” and enter the keywords “Rescission Proposal.” [Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel;
however, we prefer Microsoft Word.]

2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only:

Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201

3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only:

Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW.
Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to the following address:

Room 716G
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20201

(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in
the mail drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the documents being filed.)

Yes, but how? Five ways to appreciate, after the jump:

5. Refrain from bombarding their homes and offices with death threats.

4. Revisit Patricia Meisol’s Washington Post Magazine piece on med student Lesley Wojick’s difficult choice: To be an abortion provider, or not to be an abortion provider. Spoiler alert: While I’m sure she’s a nice girl, nobody is explicitly requsting that you appreciate Lesley Wojick today.

3. Check out President Obama’s proposed rescission of President Bush’s “conscience rule,” and send Health and Human Services a comment in support. Or against, if you don’t appreciate the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.

2. Write to the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, co-sponsor of National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, and suggest they spring for a shorter name next year to aid in appreciation.

1. Get them something nice, mmkay?

Photo by NCinDC.

” . . . in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”

The full release is after the jump.

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research – from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit – and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome – that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them – actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

By doing this, we will ensure America’s continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause – people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

One of Christopher’s friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. It read: “For everyone who thought I couldn’t do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn’t do it. For everyone who said, ‘It’s impossible.’ See you at the finish line.”

Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: “If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I’d walk to the door to greet you.”

Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day – maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children’s lifetime – but maybe one day, others like him might.

There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us – the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like “terminal” and “incurable” are finally retired from our vocabulary.

Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

Finally, ladies! Our extracted fertilized embryos can go toward a good cause, instead of feeding widespread speculation as to our personal sanities. President Obama is to lift restrictions on stem cell research any minute now, the AP reports:

President Barack Obama is ending former President George W. Bush’s limits on using federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, with advisers calling the move a clear signal that science—not political ideology—will guide the administration.

Obama was to sign an executive order and memo Monday in an East Room ceremony, a long-promised move that would fill a campaign promise. Advisers said it was part of a broader declaration on science that would guide the administration’s policies on matters ranging from renewable energy to climate change.

According to the AP, the memorandum will not concern stem cells exclusively but also declare something about how “science” will trump “religious fable” in his “administration.” Which I think is liberal code for, “abortions could cure Alzheimer’s.” Stay tuned.

Photo by vivere libero

* OMFG. Some dude posits: “While the mainstream media continues to ridicule the Alaskan Governor I continue to insist she has a lock on the rank and file base and far-fetched as it seems, Rush Limbaugh on a Palin ticket would be a potent political marriage of populists.” He goes on to write: “I have never actually listened to his program.”

* SARAH PALIN IS CALLING YOUR MOM: Last week, the Governor “voiced support for legislation (H.B. 35, S.B. 6) that would require parental consent for a minor to receive an abortion in the state.” Alaska passed another parental consent act in 1997, which was subsequently overturned by the Alaska Supreme Court ten years later. In 2007, “The court said the parental consent requirement was unconstitutional because it infringed on pregnant teenagers’ right to reproductive freedom.” Since then, a Palin appointee has been ushered in who might tip the balance.

* AWWW. Palin used to be shy! (according to some dudes). “She wanted to be a good girl and play by the rules. She wasn’t someone who was trying to break new ground or argue about things or voice an opinion. In a way she was almost a wallflower type.” Even the lady who did Sarah’s hair for the Miss Alaska pageant in 1984 weighs in on this one. “I kind of worried about how she would do up there on stage. . . You have to have a certain go-get-’em to get up there and stand up for yourself, and she came across as such a shy, sweet girl.”

* FIRST DUDE WINTER SPORTS CORNER: Some lady is recording for posterity, through her “Blogger” account, “Why Mommy Is a Republican.” This edition shows of “Why Mommy Is a Republican” shows photos of Todd Palin on a snow machine and Sarah Palin speaking into a microphone, near snow machines. Hot people near cold machinery: This is why mommy is a Republican, today.

* DUH. Dude who wrote entire biography on Sarah Palin reportedly “impressed” with her. DOUBLE DUH: Lorenzo Benet “suggests” that “If the economy hadn’t tanked, this election probably would have been a bit closer.”

* HOT LEVI JOHNSTON SITE!!!1 I thought that this blog, titled “I’d Get With Levi Johnston,” would be a lighthearted chronicle of how Bristol Palin made a bad move with the right dude. Instead it’s just re-posts of that John McCain photo where his tongue is sticking out and he looks like he’s about to grab Obama’s ass, last updated in October. Bummer.

* PALIN SUPPORTERS PRE-SMEARING JINDAL? Dan Gilgoff on US News, says it’s so: Some pro-Palin commenters, who never ever come off as extremists, are already begining to run the old the-other-guy-is-Muslim play on Catholic volcano denier and possible 2012 rival Gov. Bobby Jindal:

I’m surprised that a few comments on my post about Bobby Jindal as the new face of Christian conservatism allege that he’s got ancestral Muslim roots, in addition to the acknowledged Hinduism of his Indian born parents. Remind you of any other recent rumor campaigns against promising young minority politicians?

What’s surprising is that some of the comments appear to be from pro-Sarah Palin conservatives. They’re a likely preview of what a Jindal primary faceoff with Palin or another Christian conservative might look like, with both vying for conservative Christian support.

Photo by Eddie~S

I’ve had a lot of conversations with a lot of pro-life activists about their feelings on abortion, contraception, and pregnancy. I feel like I’m fairly well-versed in the pro-life position at this point, but one belief has remained a mystery to me: Why are pro-lifers against In Vitro Fertalization?

Thankfully, octuplet mom Nadya Suleman has swooped onto the national scene to answer my call!

And I thought it was just a general distaste for science. Turns out, in IVF, it’s not uncommon for a larger number of eggs to be removed from the mother than are meant to be stuffed back in her. Some eggs don’t take to fertalization when put in the little swimmy dish with the sperm; those are discarded.

But six of Suleman’s eggs found some sperm they loved very much, and they all developed into embryos, and at that point—hey—wouldn’t it be almost kind of like an abortion to throw those good embryos away?

In a Dateline interview, Suleman said, “Those are my children and that’s what was available and I used them. So I took a risk. It’s a gamble. It always is.” But at least it’s not abortion.

And so, Suleman—against the advice of the medical community and everyone else in the entire world—had all six embryos implanted in her room, got two little extra surprises, and now has eight octuplets to add to her already ample brood. Like magic!

That’s pro-life In Vitro for you; I can see why most pro-lifers might just advocate for calling the whole thing off.

Photo by ScottD_Arch

I received a letter today, in an envelope with no return address. The note was written on a typewriter and signed in pen: “For life, a mom.” I met the note’s sender at last week’s March for Life, where she told me the sad story of an abortion she’s regretted for 35 years. She also informed me of an abortion industry I wasn’t yet privy to—the fetal accessories market. “They make fetus earrings, you know,” the woman told me, indicating the pro-choice establishment. I didn’t tell her I was pro-choice—I just told her I didn’t have my ears pierced. She promised to send me the literature anyway.

A few days later, there they were—nine pages that had seen so many trips through the copy machine that the photographs looked like dark-room negatives. “Please xerox and distribute enclosed and publicized it,” the note read. Most of the literature was fairly standard pro-life material. “WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?” read one page, comparing a photograph of a Holocaust concentration camp with a pile of aborted fetuses. “THE LINK BETWEEN ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER,” read another, before cobbled statistics claiming that women who have their first child before the age of 18 have a reduced risk of cancer.

The abortion accessories, though, were new to me. “FETUS EARRINGS,” read one report, sourced to the “Right to Life of Huntsville, Texas.” It detailed an apparent Australian fashion trend wherein earrings are fashioned from “ten to twelve week old aborted babies who are freeze dried, have an eye-hook put into their heads, and are then made to dangle from the ears.”

Another, “PAPERWEIGHTS: FETUS,” came courtesy of the Pro-Life News. That page reported on the use of unborn baby fat in “face cream, shampoo, and rouge,” as well as paperweights which ranged from $60 to $97.80, depending on the unborn body part suspended in the plastic desk accessory.

I won’t be sending these pages through the copier again; I won’t gather them up, stake out a street corner, and pass them out to anyone willing to open their hand, take a piece of paper, and scan its words in the steps from there to the trash can. The personal note, though—a testament to how much we all have invested in this issue—is worth remembering.

Photographs by Amanda Hess

If Sarah Palin and Barack Obama teamed up to kill “feminist” this election cycle, Kathryn Jean Lopez will have it spinning in its grave. In a National Review piece detailing her experience at last week’s “March for Life,” Lopez calls Pope Benedict XVI the “real face of feminism.” She writes:

Ms. Magazine got some attention—and grief—recently for putting Barack Obama on its cover in a Superman pose and announcing “This Is What a Feminist Looks Like.” After these last few days in Washington—and knowing what I know about the beauty of the Catholic view of women—I’m tempted to do the same with, say, Pope Benedict.

Lopez goes on to write that “all you need to do to realize the harm abortion does to women is browse around the net.” Let’s do a little clickity clicking of our own, shall we? When you click on Lopez’ link on “the beauty of the Catholic view of women,” you find a piece she wrote in 2003 declaring Mel “Sugartits” Gibson a feminist, too! “Mel Gibson might be my favorite feminist,” she writes. “If he’s not number one on my list, he’s pretty close, in competition with Pope John Paul II.” Because “feminist” is now simply secret conservative code for “anti-feminist.”

George Bush instated the rule a little over eight years ago, on the 2001 anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Before him, Bill Clinton had reversed the rule that, before him, Ronald Reagan had thought up for the very first time. The Guardian calls it “the most contentious move of [Obama's] young administration,” which isn’t saying so much, and really, what could have been more predictable?

Even before the 2009 March for Life kicked off today on the National Mall, pro-lifers were complaining—to the Washington Times, no less—that the media was not giving them a fair shake. The complaints are pretty much garden variety press gripes: stories too limited in scope; participants not afforded the full, sympathetic profile treatment; items pushed to the back pages or not published at all. Here’s why pro-lifers will have even less clippings to scrapbook after this year’s coverage:

The inauguration. While the crowd may be large, it’s a footnote in comparison to the massive sea of humanity that flooded the mall on Tuesday. Plus, people are expecting pro-lifers to show up. They’re like the fat guy who scarfs down 28 wieners at Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest every year—sure it’s impressive, but look at that tiny lady who ate 59 in her first event!

It’s a thankless assignment. No matter what you write on a subject like abortion, not everybody it going to love you for it. You’re lucky if you get the framing right. Follow AP Style and go the “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion” route and you’ll be on the receiving end of a flood of e-mails from pro-lifers alleging they know where your sympathies lie. That the media is bias against their position is probably one of the only issues on which both sides agree.

“Once in a yeartime” just doesn’t have the same ring to it. Roe v. Wade will be still be around next January, and the marchers will too. While Obama may be for abortion rights, he’s not in favor of political suicide, and that ruling is not going anywhere anytime soon. Unless something completely unforseeable happens, we’ll be in the same situation next year.

Can’t quote a fetus. Journalists love the “voice to the voiceless” angle that pro-lifers advance, but they can’t speak to the unborn, even on deep background.

It’s an off year. Thirty-six doesn’t end with a five or a zero. Sorry, no reflective what does this mean for our country pieces.

Nothing newsworthy happens. Marches and protests, no matter what the cause, are pre-scheduled events intended to attract media attention, and journalists are mindful of that fact. These are pro-lifers, so don’t expect any violence to write home about.

Rick Washington, a 54-year-old Temple Hills resident, watched the March for Life pass him buy from a busy spot alongside the National Gallery of Art. Washington, a graphic designer, was there to hawk mementos more fitting Tuesday’s National Mall crowd—full-color 2009 calendars featuring photographs of the Obama family.

Washington insists his gear was still selling well. “As far as I can tell, he ain’t falling one way or another [on abortion],” Washington said of the newly minted president.

Washington himself was having trouble picking sides. When pressed, Washington identified as “anti-abortion,” then as “pro-choice,” then back-tracked to lay out his own abortion philosophy. “Nobody can tell you what to do. Only God can tell you what to do with your life,” he says. “Even Obama, he can’t tell you what to do about anything. He’s only a man, after all.”

This 67-year-old pro-life activist at today’s March for Life, who didn’t want her name published—”I’m very well known, and I don’t want people to know I’ve had an abortion,” she says—lists three things to like about our new President.

1. “He’s married, even though it’s to that angry, hateful Michelle, who last year delivered a pro-abortion speech, a pro-abortion speech at a Planned Parenthood abortuary.”

2. “He has two children, who will be shocked to learn later that he said he would be willing to kill their child.”

3. “He’s educated. But I have five degrees, and they mean nothing to me, just a bunch of dust piled upon nothing alongside the abortion I have to live with every day of my life.”

The activist wears a child’s lipstick toy around her neck, a sign of solidarity to another politician—Sarah Palin, who has stronger presidential credentials, she says: “She showed such bravery to carry a Downs Syndrome child to term at the age of 42.”

“It’s a Vietnam for women,” says the activist of the anti-abortion fight. She counts May 6, 1974, as the day she lost everything in the war. “I aborted—killed—dismembered—my own child,” she says. “I never would have done it if it were illegal. They made it seem so easy, cheap, legal, and moral. It’s not.”

The activist hasn’t recovered from the abortion she had 34 years ago. But she’s been healed by the grace of God. She was one of the lucky ones, she says: “Women who have abortions, they either kill themselves or become Christians.”

High school students Elizabeth Liang, 18, Morgan Seibert, 17, and Megan Gutting, 17, took a whirlwind trip to Washington, D.C. by bus last night to participate in the march for life. The three Grand Rapids, Mich. teens, who arrived at 7 this morning, missed the inaugural festivities by a couple days—they opted to attend the protest instead of the celebration—but still shared in the excitement of their new pro-choice President.

“I love Obama,” says Gutting, who carried a sign reading, “A Nation That Kills Its Own Children Is A Nation Without Hope.” “But for reasons other than abortion, obviously.”

“He’s very positive,” adds Liang, carting an “As A Former Fetus I Oppose Abortion” sign. “He’s about change, and unity.”

Seibert, who inscribed a Dr. Suess quote—”A Person Is A Person No Matter How Small”—on her sign, added to the Obama accolades. “I think he’s what we need right now,” she said.

Carolyn Zolbe, marcher in the March for Life and Arlington resident, thinks this about President Barack Obama: “I think he’s a child of God.”

Zolbe’s daughter, Grace Doherty, isn’t quite as neutral in her assessment:

“If you don’t view the value of life, how could your other views have any quality.” Zolbe, who wears a winning smile to accompany her mom-thanking sign, tells her daughter to pirouette for the camera: Doherty, for her part, wears a string of bloody baby heads dangling down her back, with a sign that says, “Some choice.”

Having noted that I am the daughter of someone, Zolbe asked for my mother’s name so that she could pray for my mother, “because she chose life.”

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. This was a great day for pro-choice women, but the pro-lifers have always celebrated it the hardest. Today, thousands of anti-abortion activists will descend on Washington, D.C. to protest the 36-year-old decision in front of the downtown Planned Parenthood clinic, the U.S. Capitol, and the U.S. Supreme Court in the March for Life 2009. Here’s a map of their protest plans.

I’ll be reporting from the march throughout the day.

Photo by PinkMoose

* Feministe reports on England’s nonprescription birth control pilot program, which would allow Londoners to obtain contraception without a doctor’s prescription. The program, however, would place more power over women’s health decisions in the hands of the pharmacist:

Under the program, women seeking nonprescription oral contraception will undergo an interview with a qualified pharmacist. Strategic health authorities—which manage local health services under NHS—will be required to provide pharmacists with sets of instructions known as patient group directions, including special directions for girls younger than age 16.

* Via Daily Intel—deb balls, Arianna Huffington’s daughter, thrive during a recession.

* Scarleteen will debate you against the “abortion debate.” “Abort​ion:​​ for or again​st it? Who came up with this question, Eagle Forum? Perhaps the Heritage Foundation? Sarah Palin? It’s a terrible way to frame the issue of abortion.”

* As Slate’s XX Factor debates the Herman Rosenblat manufactured Holocaust memoir flare-up, Noreen Malone asks, what about his wife’s role in the lie?

* Elsewhere in Slate, Abby Collard informs would-be politicos how to avoid future embarrassment on Facebook. “Clearly, the safest way to protect yourself is not to have a Facebook account in the first place—or, alternatively, not to do stupid things. But neither of these pieces of advice is very practical. The whole point of being young, after all, is to do stupid things, and the whole point of Facebook is to record these acts for posterity.”

Photo via trialsanderrors.

* Lately, at times, I’ve felt like Jezebel has dipped ever so slightly into safer ladyblog territory, the one largely claimed by magazines featuring Amanda Bynes on the cover. Then came Tracie Egan’s post on how to allay pregnancy symptoms when you’re just going to abort the thing anyway, so fuck-all to fetus-safe medical care (i.e., “Saltines”). And it was amazing and not previously published in Cosmopolitan!

* Hey, weird, someone has collected some of 2008’s top moments in feminism that are actually relevant to the women’s movement. Thanks, “The Frisky”!

* Gawker’s last lady standing signs off after one year of “Internet news-aggregating and the snark-blogging fishbowl,” i.e. the great “Dadaist experiment.”

* Wonkette has unearthed olde-tyme would-be “Junior” Senator from Illinois Roland Burris‘ GRAVE, which he has ALREADY CONSTRUCTED WITH A LIST OF HIS LIFE’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, plus some space at the end for “unbought Senate appointment” or whatever.

* Ladyblog’s Phoebe Maltz compares abstinence pledges to her own fifth grade school-sponsored anti-smoking pledge. Both are lame!

If we stayed true to our promise (an honor code our witness) we could attend an end-of-the-year school-sponsored pizza party in the spring. . . . The end of the year came, and, although I’d managed against all odds to make it all the way to June inhaling nothing more interesting than polluted NYC air, I refused to go to the pizza party. This was in part because what could be dorkier, and also in part due to an already-present libertarian impulse, albeit one in which the teachers were stand-ins for the State.

Photo via trialsanderrors.

Well I’m a big girl now
Eyyyeeeauuughhhhh

Repeat.

In this video, shot in a Bloomington, Indiana Planned Parenthood, the clinic rep does some not-so-legal stuff to deal with this no-good very-bad situation: she doesn’t report the girl’s age to authorities, even as she acknowledges that it constitutes child abuse and rape; she conspiratorially puts on some after-the-fact earmuffs to pretend she didn’t hear the ages involved; then she directs Rose to go over state lines to Illinois where she can have a real secret abortion without parental consent. Ha, ha, oh, this is all terrible, good thing none of it’s real, right? Right? Watch it, after the jump:

Of course, though the 13-year-old here isn’t real, there are girls in her situation who get roped into relationships with older dudes, get pregnant, and are forced to consider abortion. That’s a sad, awful way for puberty to come a-knockin’. But as with the abortion question in general, the issue of reporting underage sex is, well, complicated. Megan at Jezebel nails it down:

It sounds good for a doctor to be forced to report abuse, but statutory rape isn’t the same as sexual assault or molestation—which is why there’s a whole different category for it. When young women who have chosen to be sexually active see and hear about this video, are they likely to stop having sex until they turn 14? No. They are, however, far less likely to turn to a medical provider for information about birth control, STI testing or abortion services if they know they provider is going to pick up the phone and call the cops. That’s the consequence of these forced-reporting laws when it comes to statutory rape (which is, by definition, consensual but for the age of the supposed victim).

The Bush administration today issued a sweeping new regulation that protects a broad range of health-care workers—from doctors to janitors—who refuse to participate in providing services that they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor’s office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their “right of conscience.”

Hey, I wonder who will make the most inane comment on this inane rule? Will it be President George W. Bush? Family Research Council President Tony Perkins? Does Sarah Palin have anything to say about this?

No, okay, let’s settle on Assistant Secretary of Health Joxel Garcia! “Many health-care providers routinely face pressure to change their medical practice—often in direct opposition to their personal convictions,” Garcia said.

Don’t you just hate it when the government comes a-knockin’ at your federally funded business which has been operating PERFECTLY WELL THANK YOU and says you change like EVERYTHING AROUND just to accommodate the constitutional rights of other people? Next they’ll be saying that bus drivers “have” to let black people ride in the front, or that poll workers “have” to let women vote. Thank you President Bush for protecting MY right to use American taxpayer’s money to deny those American taxpayers their own rights.

Wait a minute . . . based on this ruling, could a federal employee—say, I don’t know, Barack Obama—refuse to grant federal funding to one of these anti-contraception, anti-abortion medical providers based on his “right to conscience”? Something to look into!

[Also of interest: For this week's paper, I wrote a story about how pharmacists are denying birth control based on "conscience"---or, you know, whatever].

I guess the abortion industry thought they’d jump on the bailout wagon too. Why not? Come to think of it, I spent way too much when I went to Europe this year…what was I thinking? Can the government take pity on me and refund all those lost Euros?

Thinky parts of brain whirring and whirring, and still can’t come up with explanation for this analogy. Do women’s health centers now double as romantic, fiscally irresponsible luxury destinations? Or was one of the culturally rich activities on Anderson’s trip the extermination of millions of innocent unborns? Oooh, don’t make me choose!

For some, abortion activism begins at conception.

If you’re under 35 years old, you are a post-Roe baby. You were born onto an abortion battleground. Both pro-choice and pro-life advocates want to recruit you into the second generation of the movement. Each side holds tactical advantages in winning your support. To choicers, you’re a young person to whom legalized abortion has always been the norm. To lifers, you’re a “survivor”—you’ve lived though your aborted “peers” have not. Below, a primer on age-appropriate outreach efforts on both sides of the movement, from conception to college applications.

—
CONCEPTION.

Publicize your pregnancy—or your abortion. Pregnant pro-lifers can photograph their fetuses for use in sidewalk anti-abortion campaigns. Face the Truth, an anti-abortion initiative promoted by the Pro-Life Action League, enlarges graphic photographs of fetuses-healthy and aborted-for display on major thoroughfares across America. One common objection to the practice-that it is a “dishonor” to the unborn-is addressed in the league’s FAQ. “We honor these aborted babies’ memories by exposing the cruelties they suffered,” it reads. “What would truly dishonor these children would be to hide the evidence of what was done to them for fear of upsetting some people or looking ‘extreme.’”

As for pro-choicers, Kierra Johnson, executive director of Choice USA, says the pro-life movement doesn’t have sovereignty over the pregnant. “What makes it frustrating is that they have really simple illustrations of what being pro-life means,” says Johnson. “A pregnant anybody is their symbol. For us, it’s a little more complex. The picture runs the gamut for us, from young people who have decided to have children to those who decided not to carry a pregnancy to term.”

—
BIRTH.

Still close to the womb but not old enough to wish they had never been born, babies are natural recruits to the pro-life position. “It’s never too early to start talking about life,” says Pro-Life Action League founder Joe Scheidler, a 35-year veteran of the movement who has raised seven pro-life children and 19 pro-life grandkids.

Sarah Smith Bartel, a 31-year-old Hyattsville grad student, brought her 2-year-old and 5-year-old daughters along when she held vigil outside of D.C.’s Planned Parenthood this fall during the “40 Days for Life” campaign. “When I’ve got my daughters with me, they have a symbolic value,” says Smith Bartel, who first engaged her kids in the movement in D.C.’s annual Roe protest, the “March for Life,” when they were just 1 and 3 years old.

Pro-choice advocates, meanwhile, can earn instant cred by having a baby-and proving that choice doesn’t always lead to abortion. “You come across these young people who will say, ‘I feel like I was an activist from the time I was born,’” says Johnson. “They’ll say, ‘My mom took me to a pro-choice rally when I was 2, or when she was pregnant with me.’”

—
ELEMENTARY.

Once their children reach school, parents can begin their transition from accessory to activist. “We’re pretty successful with kids. They have an intrinsic knowledge that human life is valuable,” adds Scheidler, who tours Catholic elementary schools around the country educating youth about fetal development. By late elementary school, Scheidler’s pro-life content turns explicitly anti-abortion, with the permission of the teacher. “Having prepared them by seeing the child alive, I will show them the photos of what abortion does,” says Scheidler.

Smith Bartel says that her 5-year-old developed her own activist streak only in the past four to five months. “Now that [she's] older, she has a lot of questions about what we’re doing and what’s going on [at the clinic],” says Smith Bartel of her precocious pro-lifer. “My daughter doesn’t know what football is, but she knows what slavery is, and what racism is, and she knows what abortion is. She’ll stomp around the house, saying, ‘When will this stinking law end?’”

Seeds of reproductive rights awareness can also be sown “as early as first grade,” with the introduction of human sexuality classes in public schools. “A lot of the anti-choice rhetoric gets heard because [pro-lifers] have more access through churches, after-school programs, and even in public schools,” says Johnson, so groups like Choice USA and NARAL Pro-Choice America work legislatively to further comprehensive sex education in schools from elementary on. “I do think it starts with little kids, elementary school kids,” says Johnson. “I don’t mean we’re going to show the STD video to a 5-year-oldŠit’s not all about sex. It’s about communication, self-esteem, and self-empowerment.”
—
MIDDLE SCHOOL.

Hit them on their beepers. By the time kids start toting their own cell phones and opting into online social networks, pro-choice groups are ready to reach out with tech-savvy initiatives tailored by age. “The cell phone has become an important symbol of activism,” says Ted Miller, communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Last month, NARAL launched a new youth-oriented Web site, called Free.Will.Power, which Miller says is targeted at youths ages 16 to 24. Among its adolescent-friendly initiatives are automated text message services, YouTube videos, downloadable ringtones, a T-shirt contest, and an online quiz. “Do sexual assault survivors have access to emergency contraception, like the ‘morning-after’ pill in emergency rooms?” one question prompts, before answering, “I know, it’s soooo not okay.”

Those in the pro-life movement have also mobilized to put technology on their side. “Your generation is the first generation that can go to the bookshelf and pull off a VCR cassette, or go to a photo album and see pictures, of what you looked like before you were born,” says Troy Newman, president of pro-life initiative Operation Rescue, who says that the visuals are important evidence against abortion. This is also the age that children of pro-lifers may begin to experience abortion fatigue-and rebellious tweens may defect to the pro-choice movement. “You can turn people off. They get tired of it,” says Scheidler, who also says that it’s important for pro-life families to take an abortion vacation once in a while. “You have to do other things sometimes,” he says. “If we go on a family trip, I don’t talk about it too much.”

—
HIGH SCHOOL.

Adopt an activist. Most pro-choice efforts ramp up in high school, where most young adults become sexually active, making abortion a personal possibility as well as a political one. They also begin to develop an interest in social justice-and start looking to beef up their college applications. In addition to NARAL’s Web-based efforts, Choice USA offers sex-ed and community-organizing training to local charter schools, and many of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s college chapters adopt high school groups for reproductive rights mentoring.

Generations for Life, the youth wing of the Pro-Life Action League, encourages high school groups to raise money for pregnancy crisis centers and stage walks and hiking excursions for life. For pro-life high schoolers, the ultimate destination is Washington, D.C.—Missy Smith, a local activist who founded Wake Up (Women Against the Killing and Exploitation of Unprotected Persons) estimates that as many as 25,000 high school and college students attend a youth Mass at the Verizon Center each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

In high school, the pro-life set also focuses on abortion as a social issue-and begins folding in its anti-abortion message with such high school history class milestones as slavery and the Holocaust. “Your generation has been targeted for extinction,” says Newman of the post-Roes. “Many Jewish people feel that their aunts and uncles were targeted for extinction. Many African people feel that about slavery. My generation doesn’t understand that.”

Photo courtesy of the Pro-Life Action League.