A 72-Hour Wait for Santorum

This past weekend, a student sent me an email with a question about the "Born Alive Infant Bill" (the bill that Obama's opposition to when he was still a Senator had him slapped with accusations of supporting "infanticide") and I found myself writing back a 500+ word response about fetal pain laws, how gestational age affects legislation around abortion, and pro-life politics/policies while simultaneously trying to temper my response so that I wouldn't scare my student off.

(I don't think that politics of this type really have a place in the classroom; it's my job to make my students think and learn how to ask difficult questions, not to preach or "convert" them to my way of thinking--that never works, anyway.)

It turns out my student was appreciative of my, unnecessarily verbose, explanation and the whole back-and-forth got me thinking that I need/want to formulate a more extensive response to the state of the reproductive rights debate in America these days. That said, consider this blog post a placeholder for that analysis, as I have something like 75 papers to grade in the next week and should be focusing my efforts on that.

In the meantime, enjoy this related video made by Ashley Judd (my new hero) and a number of other recognizable faces. I'm not usually one to joke about reproductive rights, but in this case I'll make an exception because this video is amazing:

Rick Santorum Aborts Presidential Campaign from Ashley Judd

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I can't say I'm thrilled with the direction we're heading in as a country (understatement of the century), but I do find it heartening that, perhaps because of the absurd way women have and continue to be treated by the socio-political matrix and media institutions, more and more women and men are crying "foul."

The Good: Ashley Judd's incredible missive indicting gender inequality and unrealistic media scrutiny. It's amazing; you should go read it. Here's a quote to convince you:

Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

[On a side note, this article reminded me that I've been meaning to watch Judd's new show Missing, particularly because I'm very interested in (and working toward writing an article about) the framing of the mother as the ideal woman warrior in contemporary culture--i.e. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the Kill Bill films, etc.]

The Bad: It seems to be Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's deepest desire to see the status of women regress back to the 1950s, if his sneaky, Friday afternoon, pre-Easter passing of several anti-woman bills is anything to go by. From the Ms. blog:

For nearly a year, half of Wisconsin has been up in arms over Walker’s repeal of union rights, which the state Supreme Court upheld last June. Gov. Walker may have sealed his claim to infamy, however, when he sneakily passed 51 laws last Thursday, four of which target women. He waited until Friday, hours before the Easter weekend began, to make his public announcement—a way to sidestep the inevitable outcry.

Three of the bills curbed women’s reproductive rights: two heavy-handed abortion restrictions and a law mandating abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in lieu of comprehensive sex education.

The law causing the real uproar, however, might just be the most surprising blow to women dealt by any state government in 2012. Gov. Walker turned back the clock on gender equality in the workforce by repealing Wisconsin’s 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act (EPEA), which permitted victims of wage discrimination to take their cases to state circuit courts. The law not only protected women from pay discrimination, but also from sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Ugly: As if all that's not bad enough, both Arizona and Georgia recently passed 20-week abortion bans, the Georgia one specifically insisting abortions after 20 weeks be made illegal in all cases except "medically futile" pregnancies (where there is no chance that the fetus will survive the pregnancy or be able to live once born); no exceptions are to be made that relate to the mother's mental or emotional state and abortions performed because of medical futility must be performed in such a way as to avoid "fetal pain"--so the fetus is removed alive and dies "naturally." Yes, really. However, the real kicker is that in the original bill there was no such medical futility exemption; state representative Terry England went so far as to compare women to livestock, suggesting that mothers, like cows and pigs, should have to carry their offspring to term, dead or alive.

Yeah. I don't even know.

Let's focus on the good today, shall we?

PSA: Engendering Progress Event in NYC on Thursday, March 23rd

A representative from Manhattan Young Democrats asked that I pass along this event announcement to my readers and, since it's for a good cause, I agreed. Contents of the email follow:

A group that I volunteer for is having an event in NYC soon. It is called MYD's [Manhattan Young Democrats] Second Annual 'Engendering Progress' event honoring women thought-leaders, activists and trailblazers.

NARAL Pro-choice NYC will be speaking and passing around a petition for attendees to sign. They will deliver this petition to our Senators in Washington. I really want to get as many pro-choice women in the room as possible.

HERE is information on last year's honorees as well as some pictures of the event which attracted over 100 young people and brought together many women's groups that had not had the chance to meet previously.

Engendering Progress will be held on Thursday, March 24th from 7-11pm at popular establishment Marquee in Manhattan.

Honorees include: GEMS, Domestic Workers United, Women's Media Center, Krista Brenner (a pro-choice activist and one of the few women in New York State to hold the position of campaign manager in 2010) and Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show. We are expecting a strong showing of several hundred progressive young people.

The Facebook is HERE.

Co-sponsors include: Paradigm Shift (NYC's Feminist Community) and WomenElect and NARAL Pro-choice NYC.

It would be awesome if you could post this! You don't have to include all the details. I just want women to know that there is a war on women's health being waged and pro-choice people really need to sign this petition before it is too late.

So if you live in or near NYC, consider stopping by for a good cause. Tickets are $5 for MYD members, $15 for non-members or you can purchase a $20 MYD membership and get into the event for free.

The War on Women

An important op-ed in The New York Times from Friday (h/t Feminist Law Professors for the link):

The War on Women

Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning.

The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.

The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.

An amendment offered by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, would bar any financing of Planned Parenthood. A recent sting operation by an anti-abortion group uncovered an errant employee, who was promptly fired. That hardly warrants taking aim at an irreplaceable network of clinics, which uses no federal dollars in providing needed abortion care. It serves one in five American women at some point in her lifetime.

You can read the rest here.

It may be impossible not to love Ellen Page

I've loved Ellen Page since Juno (and, then, even more after Whip It), and she just keeps getting awesomer and awesomer. An excerpt from her recent interview in The Guardian:

How did you feel about the controversy aroused by your role in Juno?

I was like, you know what? You all need to calm down. People are so black and white about this. Because she kept the baby everybody said the film was against abortion. But if she'd had an abortion everybody would have been like, "Oh my God". I am a feminist and I am totally pro-choice, but what's funny is when you say that people assume that you are pro-abortion. I don't love abortion but I want women to be able to choose and I don't want white dudes in an office being able to make laws on things like this. I mean what are we going to do – go back to clothes hangers?

What do you think of the way women are treated in the movie business?

I think it's a total drag. I've been lucky to get interesting parts but there are still not that many out there for women. And everybody is so critical of women. If there's a movie starring a man that tanks, then I don't see an article about the fact that the movie starred a man and that must be why it bombed. Then a film comes out where a woman is in the lead, or a movie comes out where a bunch of girls are roller derbying, and it doesn't make much money and you see articles about how women can't carry a film.

Love. Her.

H/T AfterEllen and Feministing

Illustrating the Hypocrisy

A great political cartoon by Steve Sack of Slate Magazine (where you can find more cartoons of a similar persuasion):



(H/T FMF's Choices Feminist Campus Blog.)

Pro-Life and Order

Friday night my partner was on the couch watching television and I was only half listening from my study when strains of virulent pro-life rhetoric reached my ears. Was she watching FOX news? No. She was, in fact, watching the most recent episode of Law and Order in which a late-term abortion doctor is murdered and almost the entire episode is spent trying to convince the viewer that the murder might have sort of maybe been justified except for that niggling little detail that murder is illegal. Sure, the doctor's murderer is found guilty in the end, but not before pro-choice ideologies have been (speciously) rendered flawed and amoral. Cops and lawyers alike engaging in debates about reproductive rights and the "right to life" is all fine and good, but graphic descriptions of the murdered doctor stabbing a newly-born infant in the back of the neck with scissors during a botched abortion, offered as evidence of abortion's immorality... Noooooo, not heavy-handed at all. Or are we to believe that all abortion doctors are perfectly willing and capable of stabbing living infants to death? Not to mention that the way evidence was presented (and misrepresented) in this episode didn't even make sense. It was the most preachy thing I've seen on television for a long time and clearly the writers/creators/producers were more concerned with making their points (still not entirely clear) than telling a good story. I was thoroughly disappointed. And aghast.

Kate Harding over at Salon does a great job of breaking down the episode point-for-point. And, since I only saw the latter half of the episode (its train wreck-like quality bringing me out from my study to sit stunned on the couch), I'll leave the rest of the critique to her:

On Friday night's "Law & Order," the abortion debate was represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: The anti-choicers, who believe fetuses' rights trump women's, and the pseudo-pro-choicers, who are conveniently persuaded to agree with them by the end of the episode.

That sound? It's my head exploding.

Despite the usual "This story is fiction, any resemblance, blah blah blah" disclaimer, the episode was blatantly "ripped from the headlines" about Dr. George Tiller's assassination by an anti-choice activist in May. Our fictional victim, Dr. Bening, is a late-term abortion provider who's already survived one attempt on his life and is shot to death at his church, just as Dr. Tiller was. But in an episode titled "Dignity," Tiller's memory, remaining late-term abortion providers, and women who choose to terminate pregnancies are afforded none. The writers made a weak pretense of "balance" by having two of the series regulars -- Detective Lupo and Assistant D.A. Rubirosa -- espouse pro-choice views, but both are ultimately shamed into thinking they just might be wrong. See how even-handed?

Click here to read the rest.

Please say it ain't so, Colorado

"Colorado "Personhood" proposal's 2010 ballot title approved"

Am I losing my mind? Am I experiencing deja vu? Did we or did we not just shoot down this amendment last year?

Abortion opponents are one step closer to putting a "personhood amendment" on the 2010 ballot after the title of their proposal was approved Wednesday.

The next step is getting approval for the language on petition forms, and then gathering 76,047 valid voter signatures over the next six months.

The proposal differs from the failed 2008 "personhood amendment," said Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life.

That proposal defined a fertilized human egg as a person, which proponents conceded confused the public. The new one refers to "the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

Sigh. At least this past year's amendment was defeated 73% to 27%, so I don't have to start glaring at all of my neighbors. Although I was stuck in traffic behind a car yesterday with the following lovely decorations: 1) a "right-to-life" pro-"personhood" bumper sticker, 2) an "America is number one" type sticker, 3) two American flags, one fluttering from each front window and, 4) the kicker, a bumper sticker which read "One Nation, One LANGUAGE, One God." Did I mention that there are a lot of Mexican immigrants in Colorado? Yeah.

Why I Love Hillary, Reason #347

Rock on Obama with your bad self!

From The Washington Post (and many, many other sources), Obama Administration to Reverse Bush Rule on 'Conscience' Regulation:

The Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health-care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The Office of Management and Budget announced this morning that it was reviewing a proposal to lift the controversial "conscience" regulation, the first step toward reversing the policy. Once the OMB has reviewed the proposal it will be published in Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period.

[...]

The new rule empowers the federal government to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable. The Bush administration adopted the rule at the urging of conservative groups, abortion opponents and others in order to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

Women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it would create a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning, infertility treatment and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of scientific research.

The move marks the latest challenge to the Obama administration's attempt to find more of middle ground on issues related to abortion. President Obama has said repeatedly he hopes those on both sides of the issue can work to reduce the number of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies and by offering support to women who do get pregnant and want to continue their pregnancies.

I know there's still a whole process to go through, the 30-day comment period, etc., but...Yay.

Global Gag Rule Repealed

As of today, President Obama has repealed the "global gag rule", which, as we all know, was a "ban on U.S. funding for international health groups that perform abortions, promote legalizing the procedure or provide counseling about terminating pregnancies." Reagan instated the rule in 1984, Clinton repealed it in 1993 and then good ole Bush junior (good riddance!) reinstated it in 2001.

According to The Washington Post:

The memorandum revokes Bush's order, calling the limitations on funding "excessively broad" and adding that "they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family programs in foreign nations." In an accompanying statement, Obama said he would also work with Congress to restore U.S. funding support for the United Nations Population Fund "to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."

Obama's decision was praised by family planning groups, women's health advocates and others for allowing the U.S. Agency for International Development to once again provide millions of dollars to programs offering medical services, birth control, HIV prevention and other care.

"For eight long years, the global gag rule has been used by the Bush administration to play politics with the lives of poor women across the world," said Gill Greer of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London.

Dang, our new President is sure hitting the ground running. Go, Obama, go! Also, Planned Parenthood has a form you can fill out to thank President Obama...so go. Do it.

Kirsten Gillibrand

My father, Fred, who writes for Die Achse des Guten (a German news site/blog) wrote me an email today sharing some of his insight on U.S. Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, who New York governor David Paterson just named as Hillary Clinton's replacement in the U.S. Senate. I would have probably written about her myself, but I'm more than happy to let him do the work since I've been a bit swamped with my dissertation of late. The rest of this post is in his words:

Gillibrand, 42, represents a conservative and, until she won the seat in 2006, Republican district that meanders from the Hudson Valley to north of Albany. She has been labeled a "Blue Dog" Democrat, especially because of her 100% rating from the NRA. Although she has a passion for hunting in common with Sarah Palin, her candidacy was strongly supported by the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, an outspoken liberal and anti-gun advocate.

She is also quite liberal on women's and gay rights, consistently supporting a women's right to choose and advocating Federal recognition of civil unions on par with marriage rights as a precursor to full gay marriage recognition in the States.

In a recent interview with the Hudson Valley InsideOut magazine, she said:

What I’d like to do legislatively, on the federal level—and I think we’ll be able to do this with the new president—is actually make civil unions legal in all 50 states, make it the law of the land. Because what you want to fundamentally do is protect the rights and privileges of committed couples, so that they can have Medicare benefits, visit in the hospitals, have adoption rights. All [the] things that we give to married couples, committed gay couples should be eligible for. And then the question of whether you call it a marriage or not, what you label it, that can be left to the states to decide.

[It’s] so culturally oriented. My mom’s generation, they want their gay friends to have every right and privilege that they should be eligible for as a married couple, but they feel uncomfortable calling it marriage. To them, a marriage is a religious word that they learned from the Catholic Church: It’s a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. So they feel uncomfortable with the word. But they don’t feel uncomfortable with the rights and privileges. I think the way you win this issue is you focus on getting the rights and privileges protected throughout the entire country, and then you do the state-by-state advocacy for having the title.

(So, Gillibrand sounds pretty good--pro-choice and pro-gay--although I'm still wondering what happened with Carolyn Kennedy. And, hey, don't I have a great, liberal dad?)

The Obama Administration, Women's Issues and LGBTQ Rights

President (yay!) Obama has an entire page on the White House website devoted to women's issues, including agenda items about pay equity, health care, domestic violence, and education. Here's a small sampling:

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
[...]
Investing in Women-Owned Small Businesses: Women are majority owners of more than 28 percent of U.S. businesses, but head less than 4 percent of venture-capital-backed firms. Women business owners are more likely than white male business owners to have their loan applications denied. President Obama and Vice President Biden will encourage investing in women-owned businesses, providing more support to women business owners, and reducing discrimination in lending.
[...]
Strengthening Domestic Violence Laws: Approximately 1,400 women a year -- four every day -- die in the United States as a result of domestic violence. And 132,000 women report that they have been victims of a rape or attempted rape, and it is estimated that an even greater number have been raped but do not report it. In the Senate, President Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, legislation initially written and pushed through Congress by Vice President Biden. The law funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The reauthorized legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence.

Also, the Civil Rights page of the Obama Administration agenda includes these bullet-points, among others:

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
[...]
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
[...]
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
[...]
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

What do you all think? I think it's a pretty impressive list, but only time will tell how it's executed. So, let's hold him to it.

(H/T Feministing and RH Reality Check)

A personal abortion narrative

I received an email yesterday from a fellow blogger (I'm not sure if she wants to be named or not, so I'll just call her B. for now) with a disturbing story forwarded from a close friend who had a harrowing abortion experience. Everyone reading this should know that I'm pro-choice and that this is in no way an anti-abortion narrative. However, just like any other medical procedure, abortions need to be handled in a respectful and caring manner, and the below experience seems very far from appropriate, thoughtful or attentive. While I personally have always had good feelings when it comes to Planned Parenthood--and I certainly support and appreciate their mission and goals for women's health--I think it's exceptionally important to showcase problems with the system when they arise. Just because I respect an organization doesn't mean they do everything perfectly or that there isn't room for significant improvement.

As an introduction to her friend's account, B. writes:

I am forwarding this story on behalf of my friend. I am trying to get the word out to as many people as possible, and encourage women that have had similar experiences to share them. She recently had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic and the experience was so awful that she feels that it did more harm to her psyche than just the abortion itself would have. She said to me: "I'm seriously fucked up in the head now because of the experience. And I honestly believe it's not because I had an abortion but because I was apart of what went on that day. It was horrible. I was the ONLY woman there crying. There were women in the waiting room laughing, having a grand ol' time like it was nothing. I know people cope with situations differently, but this was crazy."

Here is the story she wrote. I don't know if you guys can post part or all of it, but I just want to share it, and she has given me permission to do so. I also want to encourage anyone that has had similar experiences to write to PP, to do anything they can to spread the word and hope to have this rectified. This is an organization that claims to care about woman, and no woman should have to experience what my friend went through.

Her friend's story, in full, is below the cut:

"I recently had an abortion at the Falls Church, VA Planned Parenthood. Having an abortion is delicate process, starting with the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Planned Parenthood has made that process the absolute WORST it could've been and I'd like to share my experience with you. Starting with the initial appointment I made at the D.C. Planned Parenthood for November 22nd. That appointment was scheduled for 11:30. When we showed up, there were a minimum of 20 protestors outside throwing rosary beads at me and trying to shove a bible in my face. After going through that, I was turned away (as was the couple in line before us) by the security guard behind the desk due to, "We ain't takin' no mo appointments today. You gotta reschedule." There was no apology offered and to be honest, she was very rude. When I called to reschedule the receptionist explained to me that they always over-book the appointments because a lot of people usually don't show up. Apparently that day everyone showed up and the building was at maximum capacity. No one called to inform me that I wouldn't be able to be seen. The time and gas money spent driving, the money spent on parking, and the harassment from protestors could've been avoided with a simple phone call.

"I decided that I'd rather have the procedure done at a different PP because I didn't want to have the same thing happen to me again. When I called the Falls Church, VA Planned Parenthood I explained to the receptionist what happened at the D.C. office and asked if that could happen there. She was appalled at what happened and asked if I would tell my story to one of the head people, to which I agreed. I went ahead and made the appointment at the Falls Church office. Later that day I received a phone call from a very nice lady who offered me a sincere apology and said that shouldn't have happened and she would get to the bottom of it.

"On Friday, December 5, 2008 my boyfriend and I arrived at the Falls Church office at approximately 8:30 a.m. I wasn't greeted with a smile, only a cold voice asking for my identification. I showed the receptionist my i.d. and she handed me paperwork. She then wrote a #4 next to my name on her list. After I filled out the papers, I was told to have a seat and I would be called back (for what, I didn't know) in a few minutes. A few minutes later the receptionist called my name and told me that it would be $425. We paid her then sat back down. After waiting just a little bit, I was called back and my boyfriend attempted to come back with me. The nurse quickly told him that he wasn't allowed back so he stayed in the waiting room. I was taken into a room and told to remove my clothes from the waist down, cover up with the provided paper blanket and have a seat on the table. I asked the lady what was going to happen and she informed me that I was going to have an ultrasound to see how far along I am. I'm not sure why my boyfriend wasn't able to be in the room for this because if I were keeping the baby, he would be able to be in the room for an ultrasound. The lady came back in the room, grabbed a long probe, covered it with lubricating gel, and said only, "Spread your legs." I was a little surprised because I was assuming that it was going to be an abdominal ultrasound, not a vaginal. Maybe I shouldn't have assumed, but it wasn't explained to me by any of the PP employees, so I didn't know. She then probed around and said, "Ten weeks and 2 days." That kind of surprised me because based on my calculations I wasn't that far along. I asked her to explain to me how she calculated that date. Her explanation was exactly how I calculated it, which didn't add up to 10 weeks. When I told her that, her only explanation was that "it's very confusing." She then told me to get dressed and go back in the waiting room, offering nothing to clean the gel from my vagina.

"Again I'm in the waiting room when I get called back again. This time my boyfriend was able to come back with me because it was for counseling. The counselor was very pleasant and informative and didn't mind answering any questions that either of us had. This part was the ONLY good experience I had at PP. After the session was over, she told us to go back into the waiting room.

"I was in the waiting room for less than a minute when I got called back again; this time to have my blood pressure taken and to have my blood drawn. Again, my boyfriend was not allowed to come back with me. The nurse asked me what my blood type was and I told her B positive. She said, "Well we still have to draw your blood to check if your Rh is negative." She did the bp check and drew my blood, never saying a word, then told me to go back into the waiting room.

"After waiting for a while again, a lady opened the door and called 4 names, including mine, to come back. It was now 10:00 a.m. and my boyfriend wasn't able to come back, again. She had us all sit in chairs while she called one of us at a time to talk about if we wanted Xanax, give us OTC pain meds, and ask us about our preference of birth control. I was able to hear the conversations she was having with the other 3 ladies (numbers 1-3), because as I said earlier, I was #4. One lady chose the nuva ring, one didn't want anything, and the other wanted pills. Is it a HIPAA violation that I know each of their names and what method of birth control they're on due to the fact that I could hear the conversations? The lady then informed me that the doctor doesn't arrive until noon so we could either wait on the 2nd floor or we could leave but we had to be back by 11:30 a.m. When I asked why I had to be there so early if the doctor didn't arrive until noon, she said, "Because we've got 35 women to process."

"After waiting for another two hours on the 2nd floor, the same 4 women were called to go upstairs. We all went upstairs, waited a few minutes, then we were all called to go back to finally have the procedure done. Again, my boyfriend was not able to come back with me. They put the first 2 women in exam rooms not far from where the other woman and I were sitting. The doctor walked into the first room, I could hear the woman yell in pain, and the faint sound of the machine. A few minutes later he walked out the first exam room, dropped the chart off with the nurse, and then walked into the second exam room. The first woman the doctor performed the procedure on came out of the room and sat down at one of the chairs that were lined up next to each other. They then called the woman who was waiting with me to go back. The doctor walked out of the second room, handed the chart to the nurse, and then went into the next room. The second woman came out after having her procedure and was sat next to the other woman in the row of chairs.

"The whole time this is happening, I am sitting there crying my eyes out. Of course there were many reasons for that. One being that it was a VERY difficult decision for me and my boyfriend and another being that I felt like this was a factory. The doctor was turnin' and burnin' 'em like we were products on an assembly line moving down a conveyor belt in batches of four. Several PP employees walked by me while I was crying and ignored me like I didn't even exist. Finally a nurse walked over with a box of tissues and told me that she's sorry I had to hear one of the women scream. She said that not everyone's experience is like that. Then it was my turn.

"I was called back into the room and told to remove my clothing from the waist down and cover up. Still crying, the nurse asked me if I wanted to change my mind, I told her no. She left the room and I removed my clothes. While I was sitting there waiting and crying profusely, I could hear people outside having a conversation and laughing. The doctor and nurse came in. The doctor saw me crying and said, "Oh ees Ok, ees OK." I asked them both why my boyfriend couldn't be in the room with me because he really wanted to be in the room and not let me go through it alone. I explained that if I were keeping the baby he could be in the room when I delivered it, and I didn't understand why he couldn't be there to support me. This was a decision that we BOTH made; yet I have to go through the procedure by myself. I wasn't given any explanation as to why he couldn't be there. The doctor did what he had to do and quickly left the room, as he did with all the other women. I was handed my clothes and told to go to the "recovery area".

"I felt so horrible, so insignificant that I didn't want to be there any longer. I refused to sit with the 3 other women who were sitting in the chairs because I didn't want to feel any more impersonal than I already had. The nurse tried to convince me to stay, but I declined. She made me sign a release form stating that I refused the medical advice to stay. I allowed her to take my blood pressure, she gave me my bag, and I left.

"The entire process took an unnecessary 5 hours, most of which was spent waiting. The people treat you like you're just another number on the list getting an abortion and not a PERSON with FEELINGS. I was not exaggerating when I said that it felt like an assembly line. Calling 4 women back in a row is completely inappropriate. That takes away from it being a PERSONAL decision and a PERSONAL experience. I should NEVER have been close enough to hear that woman yelling in pain during her procedure. Having the doctor arrive at noon to turn and burn 'em is the most unprofessional, impersonal experience I've EVER had in a doctor's office. And yes, any way you look at it, turn and burn is EXACTLY what he was doing. Had that doctor gotten there at 9:00 a.m. he could've spent the QUALITY time he should have with each woman, one at a time. Each woman should have her own recovery time, not in a room with a row of chairs, sitting next to another woman who has just gone through the same thing. And most importantly, if a woman is there with her significant other, mother, sister, best friend, or anyone who's there to support her, that person should most definitely be able to be in the room with her to support her every single step of the way. I understand that ultimately it's the woman's body and her choice, but a lot of times it's a joint decision made by both the man and woman in a loving relationship. As I mentioned before, if the couple chose to have the baby, the man could be there for every process. Yet to terminate the pregnancy, the only support he can offer is from the waiting room? Ridiculous. It's terrible that Planned Parenthood, being one of the biggest advocates for women, treat the men that love those women like they're insignificant in a situation like abortion.

"I have several friends who have had abortions at other independent clinics and their process was absolutely personal and professional. They paid the same, if not less than I did and their experience was much, much better than mine. They were treated like people with feelings, they had personal attention, and their doctor didn't just come in, do the job, then scurry out to go to the next room.

"Had I known that I was going to be treated the way I was at Planned Parenthood, I never would've gone. But the damage is done and I will forever have to remember the terribly devastating experience that I went through in addition to the natural feelings that women have after having an abortion. Hopefully whomever is reading this letter can see exactly how traumatic the process at Planned Parenthood is and will do something to change it so other women won't have to experience the same. If not, at least I've said my part and that's all that I can do."

H.R.C.

A Friday dosage of news about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Via Feminist Law Professors, a link to this NY Times magazine article, entitled "The 'Bitch' and the 'Ditz'." Interest isn't peaked enough? Then read this excerpt:

In the grand Passion play that was this election, both Clinton and Palin came to represent—and, at times, reinforce—two of the most pernicious stereotypes that are applied to women: the bitch and the ditz. Clinton took the first label, even though she tried valiantly, some would say misguidedly, to run a campaign that ignored gender until the very end. “Now, I’m not running because I’m a woman,” she would say. “I’m running because I think I’m the best-qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running.” She was highly competent, serious, diligent, prepared (sometimes overly so)—a woman who cloaked her femininity in hawkishness and pantsuits. But she had, to use an unfortunate term, likability issues, and she inspired in her detractors an upwelling of sexist animus: She was likened to Tracy Flick for her irritating entitlement, to Lady Macbeth for her boundless ambition. She was a grind, scold, harpy, shrew, priss, teacher’s pet, killjoy—you get the idea. She was repeatedly called a bitch (as in: “How do we beat the?…?”) and a buster of balls. Tucker Carlson deemed her “castrating, overbearing, and scary” and said, memorably, “Every time I hear Hillary Clinton speak, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

Career women, especially those of a certain age, recognized themselves in Clinton and the reactions she provoked. “Maybe what bothers me most is that people say Hillary is a bitch,” said Tina Fey in her now-famous “Bitch Is the New Black” skit. “Let me say something about that: Yeah, she is. So am I … You know what? Bitches get stuff done.” At least being called a bitch implies power. As bad as Clinton’s treatment was, the McCain campaign’s cynical decision to put a woman—any woman—on the ticket was worse for the havoc it would wreak on gender politics. It was far more destructive, we would learn, for a woman to be labeled a fool.

Via Feministing, some news about how Senator Clinton is fighting Bush's ludicrous HHS regulation, which could seriously impact women's access to reproductive health care.

And, finally, via Girl w/ Pen, my favorite Clinton is spoiled for choice: Should she take on the pretigious and powerful Secretary of State position in Obama's cabinet or stay close to home and head the Senate Heath Care Team?

Link round-up

While we're all gearing up for the Thursday debate (I will be live-blogging again, so stay-tuned) and we're distracted by our plummeting life savings, I thought I'd post a link round-up with a few recent stories of interest that you may or may not have come across yet.

Viva October!

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. There's a great post about breast cancer awareness over at BlogHer.

October is also LGBTQ history month. Check out the Human Rights Campaign website and my favorite LGBT entertainment site After Ellen or its brother site After Elton. And, don't forget, National Coming Out Day is October 11.

Reproductive Rights

The second two links are courtesy of Feministing. One good...
Planned Parenthood came out with a recent ad about Governor Palin forcing women to pay for their own rape kits when she was major of Wasilla:



One scary...
Colorado amendment would value zygotes over women.
I just moved to Colorado, and now I'm sad that I decided to stay registered in Virginia instead of registering here (although there a number of reasons why that would have been really difficult). The few months I've lived here, I was actually surprised how liberal Colorado seemed to me, even though I live in a pretty small city. But maybe it's true what Jon Stewart said about Colorado during the DNC: "There is absolutely no middle ground in this state: You're either a rapture-awaiting Promise Keeper or you drive a car that runs on gorp." Nevertheless, this possible amendment totally freaks me out. And that's an understatement.

Politically speaking...

Bill O'Reilly (::coughcrazyscaryfuckingassholecough::) compares Nancy Pelosi to Hitler:



An interesting article from the New York Times about the new President, the Supreme Court and international relations: When Judges Make Foreign Policy.



On a lighter note...

From Womanist Musings, Renee has a short, compelling post up about her period, which I really appreciated since it bugs me to no end that menstruation is still something I don't quite feel I should be talking about--especially not in detail--to any but my closest friends.

From Racialicious: Entertainment Weekly claims that there are fewer successful female rappers because record labels don't want to pay for their ostensibly higher hair and make-up costs.

And sign the petition over at The Hathor Legacy to convince MGM executives to put more of the 1980s female cop drama Cagney and Lacey on DVD (so far only the first season is out).

The Not-So-Subtle Misogyny of the Cesarean Section

Until recently, I was absolutely stumped as to what I wanted to write about for my first post at Fourth Wave. Many topics (including and not including Sarah Palin) occurred to me but none seemed exactly right. Last week, sitting in my little office behind medical records in our Family Medicine Center, I finally realized exactly what I wanted to talk about: Cesarean sections as a form of oppression of women.

For those of you who don't know, I am a lesbian with no children and no plans to have children who works as a Medical Support Assistant for the Maternal and Child Health Program at a University clinic. I had no medical experience when I began work here and my experience with children was limited to babysitting, to time spent with numerous younger cousins, and to extended time with my niece and nephew, who live only ten miles from me. Over the last two years, I have absorbed a vast amount of knowledge on pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding and I'm now considering adding a lactation consultant specialty to my nursing degree when I finish.

One of the things our clinic is known for is our support of TOLAC/VBAC. For those of you not fluent in "medicalese", TOLAC is a Trial of Labor After Cesarean and a VBAC is a Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Women who have had one or more Cesarean sections are free to request a TOLAC as part of their childbirth process here and the goal is to have a successful VBAC. What is so unbelievable to me is that we are just one of a few clinics/medical centers/obstetrics providers in our state that supports this labor/birth option. Most other clinics/medical centers/obstetrics providers in our state tell women who have had previous c-sections that their ONLY labor/birth option is a repeat c-section. Ninety percent of women in the US who have had a previous c-section are having repeat c-sections with their successive pregnancies because of a lack of medical support for a completely natural birth option. Why the lack of support?

The reasons why medical providers are unwilling to support a natural birth option after a previous surgical intervention are woven inextricably with the reasons why the c-section rate in this country surpasses necessity and belief. Currently, approximately 1 in 3 US births end in Cesarean section while the World Health Organization maintains that only 10 - 15% of births should do so. We are subjecting twice the recommended number of women and children to surgical interventions during childbirth without good evidence for our actions. And by "we", I mean the health care industry. Contrary to popular belief (made popular by sensationalist media outlets), there are not droves of women ordering non-medically indicated Cesareans for cosmetic/personal/scheduling reasons.

So if there are no droves of women requesting Cesareans for Convenience and only 10 - 15% of births are statistically likely to require medically-indicated surgical intervention, where are all these other Cesareans coming from?

Natural Vaginal Birth Takes Too Long

First and foremost, the health care industry and insurance companies believe natural birth takes too long. Patients these days are being shuffled out of hospitals earlier and earlier after major illnesses/surgeries due to a combination of overcrowded conditions and insurance companies' resistance to compensating hospitals for longer stays. Therefore patients that have longer labors often receive medical intervention to "speed things up", including pharmacological inductions and AROM (Artificial Rupture of Membranes). The problem with these interventions is that many times a woman's body simply isn't ready to give birth yet, often leading to Cesarean sections due to fetal distress.

Also, many insurance companies offer a "global fee" for childbirth that does not take into account the length of the labor, so many providers are paid the same whether a woman's natural labor takes 30 minutes (precipitous) or 30 hours (prolonged). Some providers, therefore, are more likely to suggest induction or AROM for longer labor periods for simple financial reasons that only benefit themselves.

Pregnancy and Birth as a Medical Condition rather than a Natural Process

Added to this travesty is the disturbing trend of national medical associations, such as ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), toward the criminalization of non-hospital births. Birth Centers are closing all over the country due to a reluctance of major medical centers to support them and midwives and homebirths are being attacked on legal fronts, threatening the entire natural birth concept.

The truth of this matter is that 90% of the time, birth is a natural event that requires little medical intervention. It certainly does not require a hospital or else many of our grandparents and some of our parents would not have been born. The Western transition toward hospital births began in the 1920s in Germany and became very popular in the US during the 1950s (that decade is another entire study in anti-feminist behavior in and of itself). Since then, birth has been regarded by the US health care industry as an illness rather than as a natural function of a woman's body and they have devised numerous "interventions" that they claim are for the safety of the mother and the child. Some of these interventions are medically indicated but some have no evidence to support them. Some, like continuous fetal monitoring, have recently been linked to the increase in Cesarean sections.

Only about 30% of the world's children are born in hospitals or health care centers and yet we are seeing a population boom in almost all regions of the world. Women have been giving birth to healthy, hearty children without the benefit of routine medical care for thousands of years.

Don't get me wrong; I am not advocating that birth should be without medical care or monitoring. Certainly maternal and fetal outcomes, especially in developing countries, can be improved drastically by medical presence. What I am advocating is a discontinuation of the (mostly Western medicine) mindset that pregnancy is something to be "fixed".

The Concept of "Routine" Surgery

As anyone who has ever had abdominal surgery will tell you, there is nothing "routine" about it. Depending on the complexity of the surgery and the location/size of the incision, it can take years to recuperate from abdominal surgery. The short-term complications are the same for any major surgery: increased risk of infection, of blood clots, of chronic pain, of being readmitted to the hospital for failure to thrive or other poor functioning. There is also an increased risk of hysterectomy and of surgical injury. The long-term is much more complicated. Chronic pain, inability to lift weights over 10lbs, lack of stamina, infertility, weight gain, long-term absences from work, adhesions, gastrointestinal difficulties including intestinal blockages, future ectopic pregnancies, complications with future pregnancies--all these are possible with Cesarean sections but are rarely discussed with the patient. And what about babies born by Cesarean? They are more prone to respiratory illnesses and asthma, they are susceptible to surgical injury themselves, they are more likely to experience difficulty breastfeeding, and they miss out on that first skin-to-skin contact with their mother in the first hour of life that is so necessary to the hormonal health of both mother and child. Cesarean sections are hardly "routine" surgeries but most hospitals, insurance companies, and even patients treat them as such.

Why do they do so? One of the reasons are the inordinate numbers of "reality" television shows on channels like the Discovery Channel that portray birth as something that a) always happens in a hospital and b) always requires significant medical intervention. We call it "birth as a rescue operation" around here and we are disgusted. The shows focus on the most at-risk patients with the most severe complications and present these births as the norm, scaring women into believing that their babies might die if their births aren't micromanaged by medical personnel. Another reason is our Western ability to accept non-medically-indicated surgery in general. Statistically speaking, how many people in, say, Laos get cosmetic surgery? Compare that with US figures and you'll see a part of the problem.

With these three factors (and I'm sure there are others), it is not hard to interpret the non-medically-indicated Cesarean section as a misogynistic dismissal of a woman's innate abilities. So what are the remedies? How can we lower our out-of-control Cesarean rates in this country?

Support Midwives, Birth Centers, and Homebirths

The birth center that is affiliated with our clinic is the last free-standing birth center in our state. They facilitate approximately 450 births a year and their Cesarean rate hovers at about 5%. Homebirths attended by qualified midwives also enjoy extremely low rates of Cesarean section, especially homebirths for low-risk women. There are no electronic fetal monitors at homebirths and midwives are more likely to allow the pregnant woman's body to direct the birth process, intervening only when medically crucial.

There is absolutely nothing behind the desire to criminalize homebirth other than greed, plain and simple. Hospital births cost money, Cesarean sections cost more. Doctors and insurance companies profit from expensive medical procedures and they do so at the expense of women and children. Period.

Study after study has proven that homebirths attended by qualified providers are safer and cheaper than hospital births and yet ACOG and the AMA push to criminalize the practice?

Even if you never plan to have a child, please support the right of women to choose midwives and homebirths for their deliveries.

Choose Family Medicine Providers

Statistically speaking, more women are choosing to specialize in Family Medicine and women providers are more likely to approach medicine in a collaborative give-and-take way. Family Medicine providers who also provide obstetric care are more likely to support alternative birth processes.

For example, at our Family Medicine Clinic we offer three types of prenatal care to our pregnant patients: traditional care, where the woman sees an individual provider for a 20 minute appointment at regular intervals; group prenatal care, where a group of 4 to 8 women at roughly the same gestational age see a provider and a group facilitator for 90 minutes of care at regular intervals, including group discussion and special talks; and focused prenatal care, where a woman who is low risk and/or who has had multiple low risk pregnancies/births with excellent outcomes can choose to see a provider fewer times over the course of her pregnancy.

What are the benefits, specifically in regards to the Cesarean section? Well, our hospital's overall rate of Cesarean births is approximately 30%, right with the national trend. Our Family Medicine Center's rate is currently 18% and we are actively trying to lower it. We are conscious of the WHO recommendations and are trying very hard to meet them through extensive training in labor support and other practical means of allowing a woman's body to direct the birthing process.

Trust Your Body

A woman's body has all the tools it needs to give birth. Period. Except for the statistically few women who require substantial medical intervention, the other people present during births are really only there to cheer a woman on, to occasionally "catch" a baby, and to clean up afterwards.

Do not buy into the crap that pregnancy and birth is "too hard" or "too scary." Do not watch those ridiculous medical shows on Discovery that present birth as a dangerous condition that requires medical intervention. Do not let any provider make decisions for your and your baby without your input.

Do educate yourself about the birth process. Do consider all your birth options keeping foremost in your mind what you hope for and want out of the experience. Do shop around for a provider that can give you the support you need to give birth in the way you have chosen.

Women are strong. Birth is natural. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Choice matters

(Update: Check out the op-ed piece about reproductive rights and Bush's new restrictive health care regulations in the New York Times by Senator Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood): Blocking Care for Women)

I grew up in a very liberal household and for that I am extremely grateful. I was also lucky to grow up in a fairly liberal city, where my parents’ interracial marriage and my biracialism were barely worth remarking upon, where my parents really did have gay friends who we regularly spent time with, where the biggest social divide in the public schools I attended seemed to be whether or not you liked sports or were in the honors classes. (This is, of course, not quite true, but I don’t want to go off on a long tangent about race and class in my school(s). Perhaps in another post. Suffice it to say that, in my personal experience at least, there was never any racially-motivated hostility between students, and I had both black and white friends. Things may have changed in high school, but I didn’t attend high school in my hometown, so I don’t know.)

We had comprehensive sex education in seventh grade—although it was called “health” class and quite dull—and, even in elementary school, my fourth grade teacher once responded to a complaint that my friends and I were reading a book with “naked pictures” (we were reading The What's Happening to My Body? Book for Girls) with the comment that “different people are mature enough to handle information about their bodies at different times” and that she wasn’t going to ask us to stop (although she may have asked us to be a bit more discreet). I had an openly lesbian pediatrician, for goodness sake—she later became my gynecologist and her partner, also a doctor, once treated me for a particular nasty throat ailment—and I distinctly remember attending a huge Planned Parenthood fundraiser with my parents when I was eleven or twelve.

So, given this charmed existence of liberalism—I realize I was quite privileged to grow up this way; it has inexorably shaped my worldview and I feel very lucky—you can imagine my shock and horror when I stumbled across the 1996 HBO movie If These Walls Could Talk.

I don’t remember how I came across the film. We didn’t have HBO when I was a kid, and my television viewing was pretty restricted (an irony now considering that I now adore TV and recently conducted an “experiment” wherein I watched television for twenty-four hours). Maybe it was rebroadcast on another channel. Maybe my parents had a tape of it a friend had given them. I don’t know. But it totally rocked my worldview.


I’m fairly certain anyone reading this has probably at least heard about the movie, if not seen it, but just in case…If These Walls Could Talk chronicles three women’s experiences with abortion in the 50s, 70s and 1990s (starring, among others, Demi Moore, Cher, and Sissy Spacek). It’s pretty harrowing, as you can imagine, and was nominated for a number of Emmys and Golden Globes. The 1990s segment ends in the insanely bloody bombing of an abortion clinic, which haunted me through much of my adolescence.

So, it’s no wonder that in 8th grade, when we were asked to write a short speech taking a stance on some controversial issue, I chose abortion. I recently came across my speech while cleaning out boxes (I just moved last month), and thought I’d quote a bit here. It’s not Shakespeare or anything—I mean, I was fourteen—but I was pretty proud of it at the time and so I haven’t edited it from the original:

Picture this: a young girl, maybe 14 or 15, sneaks down a dark alley to have a dangerous operation performed without correct supervision and under unsanitary conditions that may cause AIDS and many other disesases. This is what will happen if abortion is made illegal. Not only will women continue to have abortions, but it will be life-threatening to them. Abortion is one of the most controversial issues today in America. As in all controversies, there are at least two sides to the abortion issue basically under the headers, “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

I happen to be advocating the latter. Pro-choice doesn’t mean, as some people think, that abortion should be used as a method of birth control. It simply means that women should have the right to make a decision that concerns their body on their own. The first point I’d like to make is that aborition was illegal in most states between 1880 and 1973, and many women who had illegal abortions performed were put at serious risk or even died. In countries where aborition is illegal it is the leading cause of maternal death. […] The so-called “pro-life” advocacy is also ironic considering that there have been over 1000 reported acts of violence towards abortion clinics including bombings, death threats, kidnappings, and shootings since 1977. In fact, in 1984 a part-time abortion consultant came home to find her cat decapitated; in 1993, Dr. David Gunn who performed abortions in Florida was murdered after withstanding years of harassing letters and death threats, and there have been several more bombings, shootings, and even murders by anti-abortionists since. […]

It goes on, as I try to address as many issues as possible in two pages (religion, when life begins in the womb, etc.), and hence it ends up being pretty formulaic in terms of rhetoric, and not the impassioned narrative I remembered it to be. However, the research I did and the sentiment I was trying to express have stuck with me through the years. Granted, I now have a much more nuanced understanding of reproductive rights and abortion issues, not just information gleaned from an HBO film and a few newspaper articles and websites (I’m not even positive I had all my facts right). Still, I think my younger self would be as horrified as I am that there’s a serious risk these days that Roe v. Wade could be overturned. And, so, I wanted to dedicate this post to reproductive rights, and finish up by sharing a few links.

• America’s superiority complex frustrates me to no end--presuming that they know best what women should be allowed to do with their bodies. Check out this summary of abortion laws around the world. Some of the information might surprise you. Or not.
  
  
• Check out this post at Feministe about Google’s new policy re: searching for information about abortion on the internet
  
  
• Go over to Jump Off the Bridge immediately and read Sally’s post on President Bush’s new reproductive health regulation which, according to Planned Parenthood, “lets health care providers define abortion, which could threaten access to birth control and broader reproductive health care, and allow federal funding for so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that refuse to inform patients of or provide patients with a full range of reproductive health care options.” The deadline for comments on this newly-minted policy is September 25, so time is of the essence to speak up and not let the government define the terms of women’s right to proper health care or impinge on our reproductive freedom.
  
  
• Watch RH Reality Check: Does Personhood Start At Fertilization? (H/T Miriam at Feministing)

RH Reality Check: Does Personhood Start At Fertilization? from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.

• And last, but not least, check out the What to Expect When You’re Aborting blog. Some people might find the blogger—who’s been posting almost in real-time about her experiences with her own abortion—a bit…er…provocative (some might say offensive, but I wouldn’t), but I think her blog is incredibly fascinating, engaging, intimate and real. Very much worth a read.

What about you all? When do you first remember learning about Roe v. Wade and the pro-choice versus pro-life debate? Have your feelings about abortion changed over the years or stayed the same?

Also, please feel free to include more links to other useful/interesting articles in the comments.