Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Update
This weekend I have decided to report on the most recent attacks on the the legality of abortion. Roe v. Wade happened 38 years ago and gave women the right to decide what happens to her body, yet that right seems to be in more peril than ever before. While there has always been anti-choice sentiments in this country and to varying degrees in each state, the furor has been intensified to overturn the law of the land. It seems that a total ban of abortion is way off but anti-choice groups will continue to struggle for passing legislation that severely impedes if not out right bans the procedure.
This week a petition initiative was filed in the Nevada courts that would prohibit "the intentional taking of a prenatal persons life."
As you'll see in the article from the Las Vegas Sun, the term prenatal person is defined as "every human being at all stages of biological development before birth."
The Nevada pro-life coalition is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to advocate for or against an initiative petition. They would need to file the paperwork and then collect over 70,000 valid signatures from the states three counties to have the initiative placed on a ballot.
The New York Times Sunday opinion article raises an alarm about the erosion of reproductive rights and issued a map displaying the number of harmful restrictions in each state. Also displayed is a graph showing the exponential rise in anti-choice legislation over the last several years.
To end on a more hopeful note, I will leave you with some updated information on the case of Jennie Linn McCormick. McCormick, won a temporary court order barring enforcement of the decades-old law under which she was charged for terminating for own pregnancy. McCormick, aided by her sister, obtained RU-486 from the internet and was charged under a law from 1972 making it a felony for women to end there own pregnancy.
This week a petition initiative was filed in the Nevada courts that would prohibit "the intentional taking of a prenatal persons life."
As you'll see in the article from the Las Vegas Sun, the term prenatal person is defined as "every human being at all stages of biological development before birth."
The Nevada pro-life coalition is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to advocate for or against an initiative petition. They would need to file the paperwork and then collect over 70,000 valid signatures from the states three counties to have the initiative placed on a ballot.
The New York Times Sunday opinion article raises an alarm about the erosion of reproductive rights and issued a map displaying the number of harmful restrictions in each state. Also displayed is a graph showing the exponential rise in anti-choice legislation over the last several years.
To end on a more hopeful note, I will leave you with some updated information on the case of Jennie Linn McCormick. McCormick, won a temporary court order barring enforcement of the decades-old law under which she was charged for terminating for own pregnancy. McCormick, aided by her sister, obtained RU-486 from the internet and was charged under a law from 1972 making it a felony for women to end there own pregnancy.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Porno For PETA
Peta is at again.
Some of you may remember the billboard ad featuring an obese women with the slogan "Save the Whales, Lose Blubber, Go Vegetarian."
I get it, I do. I'm not into torturing, testing, tormenting or any other harmful act towards animals. We are a meat eating culture probably to our determent and definitely to our chagrin of the vegans and veterinarians of the world.
In a somewhat strange turn of events PETA has announced their intentions to debut a pornographic website that they hope will promote veganism by mixing porno with images of animals suffering. Now, call me old fashion but I prefer the old nudity to protest wearing fur as opposed to the new tactic of treating women like the pieces of meat that they are trying to garner support for. Sure, cows don't get to choose to be displayed like this but I don't see why Pamela Anderson choosing to pose likethis has anything to say about why we shouldn't eat the cow. Obviously I understand the point is to remind carnivores that animals aren't entirely made of meat, but what about women being more than meat? PETA is putting animals and women next to each other and saying that animals are the ones that should be treated better.
Shock value may be a valuable selling point and it's true that nothing sells like sex. Given the fact that the internet is filled with every and any type of fetish pornography you can think of (and some you can't), what does PETA hope to accomplish with images that they themselves admit is more cuddly porn than anything already available on the internet. Let's hear from the associate director of campaigns for PETA- "The site, she said, will have nudity and "sexually suggestive content" but not hard-core porn: "A lot of people distinguish between erotica and pornography, and this will be erotica."
I'm not arguing against women having the right to use their bodies as a form of protest or to choose to participate in pornography. If and when women get to choose to engage in either activity more power to her. I am saying that PETA's campaign is dumb. It's dumb because it further marginalizes the group as a bunch of wing nuts who aren't all there. It further alienates supporters who otherwise agree with the cause but can't get on the porno for animal rights wagon.
So, holier than thou veganism, misogyny, mutilated animals and SOFT-CORE porn?
Great idea. Just super. I'm sure the next generation of young animal loving feminist vegans are going to be really inspired by this campaign.
I'm going to go get a cheeseburger, kick a puppy and watch some hard-core porn.
Some of you may remember the billboard ad featuring an obese women with the slogan "Save the Whales, Lose Blubber, Go Vegetarian."
I get it, I do. I'm not into torturing, testing, tormenting or any other harmful act towards animals. We are a meat eating culture probably to our determent and definitely to our chagrin of the vegans and veterinarians of the world.
In a somewhat strange turn of events PETA has announced their intentions to debut a pornographic website that they hope will promote veganism by mixing porno with images of animals suffering. Now, call me old fashion but I prefer the old nudity to protest wearing fur as opposed to the new tactic of treating women like the pieces of meat that they are trying to garner support for. Sure, cows don't get to choose to be displayed like this but I don't see why Pamela Anderson choosing to pose likethis has anything to say about why we shouldn't eat the cow. Obviously I understand the point is to remind carnivores that animals aren't entirely made of meat, but what about women being more than meat? PETA is putting animals and women next to each other and saying that animals are the ones that should be treated better.
Shock value may be a valuable selling point and it's true that nothing sells like sex. Given the fact that the internet is filled with every and any type of fetish pornography you can think of (and some you can't), what does PETA hope to accomplish with images that they themselves admit is more cuddly porn than anything already available on the internet. Let's hear from the associate director of campaigns for PETA- "The site, she said, will have nudity and "sexually suggestive content" but not hard-core porn: "A lot of people distinguish between erotica and pornography, and this will be erotica."
I'm not arguing against women having the right to use their bodies as a form of protest or to choose to participate in pornography. If and when women get to choose to engage in either activity more power to her. I am saying that PETA's campaign is dumb. It's dumb because it further marginalizes the group as a bunch of wing nuts who aren't all there. It further alienates supporters who otherwise agree with the cause but can't get on the porno for animal rights wagon.
So, holier than thou veganism, misogyny, mutilated animals and SOFT-CORE porn?
Great idea. Just super. I'm sure the next generation of young animal loving feminist vegans are going to be really inspired by this campaign.
I'm going to go get a cheeseburger, kick a puppy and watch some hard-core porn.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Fight for the Toughest Restrictions
A woman in Idaho has brought the first lawsuit directly challenging the constitutionality of the “fetal pain” abortion ban.
Jennie Linn McCormack, was briefly charged with having an illegal abortion in June, McCormack and her sister acquired RU-486 (the abortion pill) from the internet where she took said pills and aborted the fetus in her home.
Idaho is one of six states that have banned abortions after 20 weeks due to the belief that that is when the fetus begins to feel pain. In 2010, Nebraska legislation passed the nation’s first fetal pain law which paved the way for the ban. Idaho law bars women from getting abortions from anyone but licensed Idaho physicians. Furthermore, the state requires that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.
One should note that there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere. McCormack was unemployed and had a monthly income of just $200-$250. Given these circumstances, and the fact that McCormack already had 3 children, there was no way she would have been able to afford the time or money required to travel to Salt Lake City to obtain a “legal” abortion.
Opponents of the ban hold that the law violates the Constitution because it doesn't contain an exception allowing for abortions if necessary to preserve the mother's health or well being. The ban doesn’t take into consideration the unique circumstances of individual women.
McCormack is seeking class action status in her law suit against Mark Hiedeman, the state prosecutor. She is also challenging other aspects of the abortion ban holding that it violates the constitution.
What is so frustrating about these bans is that they are often based on so called scientific claims that are supposedly about protecting the fetus even if it means ignoring the wishes or best interest of the mother. In the case of Danielle Deaver (see link above), she was denied an abortion even after it was discovered that due to a lack of amniotic fluid her uterus was literally crushing the fetus. Deaver had gone through several other miscarriages where the Doctors had been able to induce labor once determining that the fetus had little to no chance of taking a first breath. In these instances the Deavers decided together to spare the pain of Danielle and the fetus by inducing labor.
Nebraska had enacted the nation's first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers were forced to wait over a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes. Even though the risk of infection for Danielle was high and the fetus was being crushed by the uterine walls it was impossible to induce legally because the fetus still had a heartbeat and the mother's life was in no immediate danger.
In this particular case one must wonder why such a private tragic situation turned into a very public news item. The Deavers wanted their child and wanted to prevent the pain and suffering of their family; why then, is it okay for the law to prevent them from doing so? Doesn’t the right to privacy equal, privacy? Who was really hurt because of this law?
All part of a disturbing trend, these restrictions do little else except hurt women. In the case of Jennie Linn McCormick, the fact that she lived in an area without an accessible or affordable abortion option led her to seek alternate means. In Idaho, women who cause their own abortions, or who get abortions from unlicensed physicians, face up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine.
In Oklahoma, a law requires women to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand. There is no exception for sexually assaulted women. Texas and Ohio took steps earlier in the year to enact a law that banned abortion as soon as a doctor could detect a heartbeat. It is generally agreed that a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks. Federally, it is legal to have an abortion up to 24 weeks and longer if the mothers health is in jeopardy.
Jennie Linn McCormack, was briefly charged with having an illegal abortion in June, McCormack and her sister acquired RU-486 (the abortion pill) from the internet where she took said pills and aborted the fetus in her home.
Idaho is one of six states that have banned abortions after 20 weeks due to the belief that that is when the fetus begins to feel pain. In 2010, Nebraska legislation passed the nation’s first fetal pain law which paved the way for the ban. Idaho law bars women from getting abortions from anyone but licensed Idaho physicians. Furthermore, the state requires that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.
One should note that there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere. McCormack was unemployed and had a monthly income of just $200-$250. Given these circumstances, and the fact that McCormack already had 3 children, there was no way she would have been able to afford the time or money required to travel to Salt Lake City to obtain a “legal” abortion.
Opponents of the ban hold that the law violates the Constitution because it doesn't contain an exception allowing for abortions if necessary to preserve the mother's health or well being. The ban doesn’t take into consideration the unique circumstances of individual women.
McCormack is seeking class action status in her law suit against Mark Hiedeman, the state prosecutor. She is also challenging other aspects of the abortion ban holding that it violates the constitution.
What is so frustrating about these bans is that they are often based on so called scientific claims that are supposedly about protecting the fetus even if it means ignoring the wishes or best interest of the mother. In the case of Danielle Deaver (see link above), she was denied an abortion even after it was discovered that due to a lack of amniotic fluid her uterus was literally crushing the fetus. Deaver had gone through several other miscarriages where the Doctors had been able to induce labor once determining that the fetus had little to no chance of taking a first breath. In these instances the Deavers decided together to spare the pain of Danielle and the fetus by inducing labor.
Nebraska had enacted the nation's first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers were forced to wait over a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes. Even though the risk of infection for Danielle was high and the fetus was being crushed by the uterine walls it was impossible to induce legally because the fetus still had a heartbeat and the mother's life was in no immediate danger.
In this particular case one must wonder why such a private tragic situation turned into a very public news item. The Deavers wanted their child and wanted to prevent the pain and suffering of their family; why then, is it okay for the law to prevent them from doing so? Doesn’t the right to privacy equal, privacy? Who was really hurt because of this law?
All part of a disturbing trend, these restrictions do little else except hurt women. In the case of Jennie Linn McCormick, the fact that she lived in an area without an accessible or affordable abortion option led her to seek alternate means. In Idaho, women who cause their own abortions, or who get abortions from unlicensed physicians, face up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine.
In Oklahoma, a law requires women to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand. There is no exception for sexually assaulted women. Texas and Ohio took steps earlier in the year to enact a law that banned abortion as soon as a doctor could detect a heartbeat. It is generally agreed that a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks. Federally, it is legal to have an abortion up to 24 weeks and longer if the mothers health is in jeopardy.
Monday, September 12, 2011
American Apparel; Soft Core Porn
Yup, for all the great things one can say about American Apparel, for me it always comes down to the creeptacular dude in charge and the soft core porn they call advertisements. I can't support AA nor give them my money regardless of the domestically friendly, sweat-shop free and Eco-friendly practices.
I like some of the American Apparel clothing, I really do. Between picking up a few items at the Goodwill now and again and being given a t-shirt or two over the years, I have worn several items made by American Apparel. Some of there clothing looks really cool and comfortable and or other desirable attributes, but it's never enough to make me forget about where it's coming from.
Take this for instance, only one of MANY photos of models available on the AA web site. The photo archives section of the web site offers the tag line "Some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff." It's upsetting that the models are frequently very young looking, objectified and half naked. You can see the straining rib cages of the often topless models and in this ad for leggings the young women is completely naked from the waist up showing off her practically non-existent breasts.
Is this really the only way to show a model in a zip up bathing yellow bathing suit?
It's not evocative to me, in numerous photo's you have shots that don't even include the item of clothing being advertised, just the half open mouth of the model.
There are so many sets of photos that I couldn't even look at them all without spending most of the day viewing creepy voyeuristic images of young women.
The media and AA themselves has been pretty open about the peculiar behavior exhibited by AA founder Dov. Charney. This screwball Canadian is no stranger to sexual harassment law suits and has masturbated in front of a female reporter on at least one occasion. He flouts that he is an nontraditional employer and holds professional meetings in his bedroom. He admits that he has slept with a number of the employees, uses sexual charged lingo (Cunt, Slut) freely and walks around the factory in his underwear.
There are articles dating back to 2004 noting Charney's bizarre behavior and uncouth business practices. This article from 2006 is a great introduction (yes it is 6 pages) to the world that is Dov Charney's mind.
If you want to hear about Charney's take on domestic violence go here.
The sad, but bitingly believable satire from The Onion.
The list goes on and on. Anything good that has come out of American Apparel is tainted in my opinion because of Dov Charney and his pervy ways. I would like to think that given the amount of negative attention, (not to mention the companies money problems) people would either stop buying from American Apparel or insist that the practices be altered. It's all well and good to laud the company for the conditions and wage practices but by ignoring all of the questionable or sexists practices you are saying that it doesn't bother you.
Well, it bothers me.
I like some of the American Apparel clothing, I really do. Between picking up a few items at the Goodwill now and again and being given a t-shirt or two over the years, I have worn several items made by American Apparel. Some of there clothing looks really cool and comfortable and or other desirable attributes, but it's never enough to make me forget about where it's coming from.
Take this for instance, only one of MANY photos of models available on the AA web site. The photo archives section of the web site offers the tag line "Some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff." It's upsetting that the models are frequently very young looking, objectified and half naked. You can see the straining rib cages of the often topless models and in this ad for leggings the young women is completely naked from the waist up showing off her practically non-existent breasts.
Is this really the only way to show a model in a zip up bathing yellow bathing suit?
It's not evocative to me, in numerous photo's you have shots that don't even include the item of clothing being advertised, just the half open mouth of the model.
There are so many sets of photos that I couldn't even look at them all without spending most of the day viewing creepy voyeuristic images of young women.
The media and AA themselves has been pretty open about the peculiar behavior exhibited by AA founder Dov. Charney. This screwball Canadian is no stranger to sexual harassment law suits and has masturbated in front of a female reporter on at least one occasion. He flouts that he is an nontraditional employer and holds professional meetings in his bedroom. He admits that he has slept with a number of the employees, uses sexual charged lingo (Cunt, Slut) freely and walks around the factory in his underwear.
There are articles dating back to 2004 noting Charney's bizarre behavior and uncouth business practices. This article from 2006 is a great introduction (yes it is 6 pages) to the world that is Dov Charney's mind.
If you want to hear about Charney's take on domestic violence go here.
The sad, but bitingly believable satire from The Onion.
The list goes on and on. Anything good that has come out of American Apparel is tainted in my opinion because of Dov Charney and his pervy ways. I would like to think that given the amount of negative attention, (not to mention the companies money problems) people would either stop buying from American Apparel or insist that the practices be altered. It's all well and good to laud the company for the conditions and wage practices but by ignoring all of the questionable or sexists practices you are saying that it doesn't bother you.
Well, it bothers me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)