The latest issue of Bitch Magazine contains a piece that has reignited my curiosity on the subject of menstrual pad donations. Specifically the western world sending maxi pads to developing nations as "humanitarian" aid.
In 2007, Proctor and Gamble began a program called Protecting Futures. The research used in advertisements stated that in Africa, 1/10 girls miss up to 4 days a month due to insufficient materials and facilities to hygienically and privately handle their menstrual flow. P and G donated pads as well as creating sanitary facilities so those 1/10 girls wouldn't miss school.
This program is coming to the end of its five year run and its total merits can be debated at a later time. What pleased me about the article in Bitch was that it pointed out alternatives that are more environmentally sustainable and are created much closer to home- and hopefully eventually eliminating the need to donate corporate pads at all.
From a Indian man inventing a stainless steel small motor pad-making machine (only sold to NGOs and womens collectives) to a group of women students in Malaysia who invented a biodegradable pad made from tapioca, banana fiber and vinegar to a Kenyan NGO started by 8 mothers (K-MET)that assemble reusable cloth napkins and then travel throughout the country teaching others how to- the developing world is finding it's own way to provide sanitary solutions for its women. Proctor and Gamble need not apply.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Sir Richards- Ethical Condoms
Sir Richard's Condom Company is the condom of equivalent to TOMS. You may have more fun using the condoms then you will wearing the shoes but that's beside the point.
For every condom you purchase from Sir Richards, one is donated to a developing nation. There is a huge condom shortage in the world leaving millions susceptible to preventable diseases. Enter Sir Richard's. In February of this year, working with Partners in Health-SR launched it's first project by donating 500,000 condoms to Haiti. Not just any condoms mind you, a brand manufactured in Haitian Creole called KORE.
Does having socially conscientious branding based on a buy 1 give 1 system to address a giant global health problem make Sir Richard's the best incentive to go out and buy condoms and have a lot of sex?
I certainly think so.
For every condom you purchase from Sir Richards, one is donated to a developing nation. There is a huge condom shortage in the world leaving millions susceptible to preventable diseases. Enter Sir Richard's. In February of this year, working with Partners in Health-SR launched it's first project by donating 500,000 condoms to Haiti. Not just any condoms mind you, a brand manufactured in Haitian Creole called KORE.
Does having socially conscientious branding based on a buy 1 give 1 system to address a giant global health problem make Sir Richard's the best incentive to go out and buy condoms and have a lot of sex?
I certainly think so.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Privacy
That's right, privacy. The constitution of the United States says absolutely nothing about abortion. This is of course, not surprising given that the founding fathers were all...well FATHERS. Seriously though, the constitution is without question a tricky document. There is the ninth amendment which talks about not denying rights simply because they are not specified in the constitution but that's ambiguous at best.
So on what bases did states laws banning abortion become moot? Enter the fourteenth amendment. This includes a "due process clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness".
Using the right to privacy, drawn from the 14th amendments right to due process became linked to the abolition of anti-abortion laws through the land mark case Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Once a precedent was set in this ruling, the possibility of using these grounds to declare states abortion bans unconstitutional became more realistic.
It took several cases, but the one that finally reached the Supreme Court came out of Texas. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Jane Roe (Norma L McCorvey) claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment.
It was found that the ban on abortion in the State of Texas was unconstitutional in that it violated a pregnant women's right to privacy, at least within the first trimester of pregnancy.
The Court argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision looked at the physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Roe v. Wade remains extremely controversial to this day and while it did legalize first trimester abortions it let states decide other factors that very much affect the ease in which women may obtain an abortion. Spousal notifications, parental notifications, waiting periods, mandatory literature, mandatory ultrasounds and banning abortions outside of hospitals are a few examples of the requirements passed by state legislatures.
It remains difficult to categorize Roe v. Wade as a complete victory for women and the right to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term. I think that in some ways Roe got the decision right but went about it in the wrong way. Setting the court’s decision on the trimester formula is far from ideal and doesn't decide what the court says about abortion only the relationship between the right to privacy and the states interests in a women's pregnancy. No set definition of when "life" begins exists and the court’s decision says that. Thus, on the one side you have the Right to Life groups holding that the Supreme Court legalized murder. On the other, the courts poorly reasoned justification for legalizing abortion didn't go far enough and furthermore caused a backlash against abortion that has yet to be repaired.
So on what bases did states laws banning abortion become moot? Enter the fourteenth amendment. This includes a "due process clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness".
Using the right to privacy, drawn from the 14th amendments right to due process became linked to the abolition of anti-abortion laws through the land mark case Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Once a precedent was set in this ruling, the possibility of using these grounds to declare states abortion bans unconstitutional became more realistic.
It took several cases, but the one that finally reached the Supreme Court came out of Texas. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Jane Roe (Norma L McCorvey) claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment.
It was found that the ban on abortion in the State of Texas was unconstitutional in that it violated a pregnant women's right to privacy, at least within the first trimester of pregnancy.
The Court argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision looked at the physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Roe v. Wade remains extremely controversial to this day and while it did legalize first trimester abortions it let states decide other factors that very much affect the ease in which women may obtain an abortion. Spousal notifications, parental notifications, waiting periods, mandatory literature, mandatory ultrasounds and banning abortions outside of hospitals are a few examples of the requirements passed by state legislatures.
It remains difficult to categorize Roe v. Wade as a complete victory for women and the right to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term. I think that in some ways Roe got the decision right but went about it in the wrong way. Setting the court’s decision on the trimester formula is far from ideal and doesn't decide what the court says about abortion only the relationship between the right to privacy and the states interests in a women's pregnancy. No set definition of when "life" begins exists and the court’s decision says that. Thus, on the one side you have the Right to Life groups holding that the Supreme Court legalized murder. On the other, the courts poorly reasoned justification for legalizing abortion didn't go far enough and furthermore caused a backlash against abortion that has yet to be repaired.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Articles of Faith II
So I've progressed a great deal with Articles of Faith, A Frontline History on the Abortion Wars. Author Cynthia Gorney has a journalism background and her reporting reads like a novel at times. The term fair and balanced has nothing on Gorney- I am continually amazed at her ability to present the information without tilting her hand in either direction. She allows you to get inside of the heads of people who have very valid, honest and genuine feelings about abortion without passing judgement or coming to any conclusions of what the reader should be feeling.
Women were putting themselves into horrific situations to terminate an unwanted pregnancies. While nothing about that fact was new it was becoming clearer and clearer in the mid 1960's, early 1970's that the archaic laws making abortion a felony needed to be changed. The exception was that an abortion could be performed on a women only if her life depended on it. There were those physicians and "others" who would perform an abortion in other circumstances and those illegal abortions were considered felonies. The law did not only apply to those who performed the actual procedure but also to anyone involved in referring a women to someone who could provide the service. Doctors were not allowed to perform an abortion or direct women to anyone who would perform one.
Women were left with no where safe to go and as a result the risks of infection, hysterectomies and even death could not stop them from aborting. Self administered methods or unqualified unhygienic procedures led women to end up in emergency rooms where physicians and nurses saw the botched abortions that came about as a result of criminalizing abortion. Networks did exist in some circumstances to shuttle women along through physicians, volunteers and ministers that took it upon themselves to provide women with the safest possible abortions. Often this consisted of individuals coming together over the devastating reality of women being maimed and killed because they wanted to end their pregnancies. It is these same individuals that lead the charge in the push to go through the state and eventually the National government to get the laws criminalizing abortion changed.
Women were putting themselves into horrific situations to terminate an unwanted pregnancies. While nothing about that fact was new it was becoming clearer and clearer in the mid 1960's, early 1970's that the archaic laws making abortion a felony needed to be changed. The exception was that an abortion could be performed on a women only if her life depended on it. There were those physicians and "others" who would perform an abortion in other circumstances and those illegal abortions were considered felonies. The law did not only apply to those who performed the actual procedure but also to anyone involved in referring a women to someone who could provide the service. Doctors were not allowed to perform an abortion or direct women to anyone who would perform one.
Women were left with no where safe to go and as a result the risks of infection, hysterectomies and even death could not stop them from aborting. Self administered methods or unqualified unhygienic procedures led women to end up in emergency rooms where physicians and nurses saw the botched abortions that came about as a result of criminalizing abortion. Networks did exist in some circumstances to shuttle women along through physicians, volunteers and ministers that took it upon themselves to provide women with the safest possible abortions. Often this consisted of individuals coming together over the devastating reality of women being maimed and killed because they wanted to end their pregnancies. It is these same individuals that lead the charge in the push to go through the state and eventually the National government to get the laws criminalizing abortion changed.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Articles of Faith
Last week I posted the audio reel featured on NPR's shades of gray. Originally released by PRI in 2003, Jonathan Mitchell produces a truly balanced portrayal of Abortion in America.
It was from this program that I heard about the book Articles of Faith A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney.
I started reading the book this weekend and am finding it hard to put down. Part of what drew me to it was the reviews which all indicated that this is the most balanced and unbiased look at the two sides of the abortion wars.
The first chapter is largely geared towards illegal or "back alley" abortions. The criminalization of abortion did little to deter women from seeking them. Women with resources could find safe abortions in some cases but women without money had no choice but to attempt their own or seek out dangerous alternatives. Many women paid for those decisions with their lives. Chapter one describes the network of doctors, ministers and other volunteers who took the risks involved in providing women with options for a safe abortion. These individuals operate outside the law with the sole intent of preventing women from subjecting themselves to unsafe abortions.
More on this book as I progress though it.
It was from this program that I heard about the book Articles of Faith A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney.
I started reading the book this weekend and am finding it hard to put down. Part of what drew me to it was the reviews which all indicated that this is the most balanced and unbiased look at the two sides of the abortion wars.
The first chapter is largely geared towards illegal or "back alley" abortions. The criminalization of abortion did little to deter women from seeking them. Women with resources could find safe abortions in some cases but women without money had no choice but to attempt their own or seek out dangerous alternatives. Many women paid for those decisions with their lives. Chapter one describes the network of doctors, ministers and other volunteers who took the risks involved in providing women with options for a safe abortion. These individuals operate outside the law with the sole intent of preventing women from subjecting themselves to unsafe abortions.
More on this book as I progress though it.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Equal Pay and More Outrage
Today is Equal Pay Day. Hooray! and Boo that we still have to talk about something like people getting paid equally for doing the same thing.
On the ongoing battle front I will share with you the following:
Naral Pro-Choice has a yearly report card grading each state on their reproductive rights and it's very interesting/frigthening. Mild surprises to me?
Massachusetts gets a B- (only a B-?), Idaho is the only state to lack a single Pro-Choice law (not even one?) and 20 states have unconstitutional and unenforceable bans that could outlaw abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy, with no exception to protect a woman’s health: AL, AK, FL,ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, MS, NE, NJ, ND, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, WV, WI.
The top 3 states? California, Washington and Connecticut.
The bottom 3? Louisiana, North Dakota and Mississippi.
The scariest part of the whole report is that our national grade is a inexcusable D. Overall, 21 states receive F's.
For the full report check this out.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Brilliant Audio Reel- Jonathan Mitchell
PRX Shades of Gray
Pro-choice. Pro-life. Most people have already chosen sides in the ongoing debate, so why revisit the issue? Shades of Gray shares a range of stories told by people young and old who have been directly affected by abortion, instead of the polemics of irreconcilable extremes. It's a carefully crafted audio mosaic and a stark portrayal of the intensely personal nature of our relationship with abortion. Originally distributed nationally by PRI in January, 2003 Winner of the 2004 Golden Reel for National Documentary
Thursday, April 12, 2012
A day in the life
It's been a little while since my last update. I was spending a lot of energy applying for a job that didn't pan out and my family was in town for the Easter holiday. Now I'm bed ridden with a frustrating cold/flu/sickness which is not so much getting better as getting different.
So while I have a few moments before playoff hockey officially begins, I thought I would note a few things going on in the life of a feminist.
I'm participating in a bowling fundraiser this Sunday for The Western Mass Abortion Fund.
Signed my name to a letter telling one women's heart breaking story about the negative effects of Nebraska's 20-week abortion ban, read and sign here.
Stumbled upon Anita Sarkeesian's fabulous website about feminism and pop culture Bookmark this site people.
That's all my feverish self has in me right now-
Monday, March 19, 2012
Doonesbury
The Republican newspaper published my LOE on Gary Trudeaus comic strip Doonesbury. Trudeau walked the reader through what a young women would go through to obtain an abortion under the Texas law requiring a trans vaginal ultrasound.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Doonesbury and Trudeau
The Texas sonogram law passed by Governor Rick Perry is one that does indeed "rape" women. Understand this, women who choose to terminate a pregnancy will undergo a trans vaginal ultrasound almost 100% of the time. The requirement in Texas stands that any woman who wants an abortion has to first undergo an ultrasound using a 10 inch sonogram wand to obtain fetal information. In this way the law is absolutley forcing itself upon women i.e. raping them.
Now during the procedure we know that the wand is inserted to visually display the fetus. What the horrible wretched law requires next is just disgusting- the pregnant women is then forced to look at the image of her fetus and listen to the heartbeat. Then the woman goes home to spend 24 hours considering her decision to abort.
IF and only IF you decide to have an abortion and willingly put yourself in the care of the doctors and nurses who perform these screenings can you refrain from calling the insertion portion of this procedure rape. The remainder of the procedure, in my opinion, is more damaging to women then the actual abortion surgery or process.
Imagine the scariest scenario you can think and put a person with their eyes pried open (science fiction-Orwellian, whatever) and then add the beating of Poe's Tell Tale Heart. Do I exaggerate? Only by making these comments especially visceral and slightly dramatic- but even then I'm holding back from saying what a cruel unnecessary mind fuck law this is.
This weeks Doonesbury comic by Gary Trudeau has been pulled from some newspapers who aren't kosher with his take on the Texas law. This is the second time in his career that Trudeau has been pulled from certain papers. The strip begins with a Texas woman going to a clinic seeking an abortion. The nurse tells her- “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand.”
There it is-
Another strip has a nurse ask the young lady if it is her first pregnancy termination and when the young women replies with yes she says "Then you'll need to fill out this form. Please take a seat in the shaming room."
Shame, shame, shame. If abortion is legal, which it is, the proverbial waging tsk tsk scolding finger is at least publicly removed. Before abortion was legalized you could literally be shamed to death for seeking one but now it's left up to the states and their governments to humiliate any women who allows herself (because there isn't anyone else involved of course) to get knocked up. Those who have the least invested in women's health spend time and resources on reversing the progress made in the field of reproductive rights.
Gary Trudeau has done something really important with Doonesbury this week. One, he has brilliantly captured the absurdities of the bill in Texas in a way that couldn't be easier to understand. Secondly, he has done so in a way that brings attention to the law regardless of an individuals stand point. Perhaps most importantly of all, Trudeau offers a rare (albeit satirical) view of the experience that so many feel they have the right to offer insight into- being a young women who seeks to hold herself first and exercise her legal rights to have an abortion.
Now during the procedure we know that the wand is inserted to visually display the fetus. What the horrible wretched law requires next is just disgusting- the pregnant women is then forced to look at the image of her fetus and listen to the heartbeat. Then the woman goes home to spend 24 hours considering her decision to abort.
IF and only IF you decide to have an abortion and willingly put yourself in the care of the doctors and nurses who perform these screenings can you refrain from calling the insertion portion of this procedure rape. The remainder of the procedure, in my opinion, is more damaging to women then the actual abortion surgery or process.
Imagine the scariest scenario you can think and put a person with their eyes pried open (science fiction-Orwellian, whatever) and then add the beating of Poe's Tell Tale Heart. Do I exaggerate? Only by making these comments especially visceral and slightly dramatic- but even then I'm holding back from saying what a cruel unnecessary mind fuck law this is.
This weeks Doonesbury comic by Gary Trudeau has been pulled from some newspapers who aren't kosher with his take on the Texas law. This is the second time in his career that Trudeau has been pulled from certain papers. The strip begins with a Texas woman going to a clinic seeking an abortion. The nurse tells her- “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand.”
There it is-
Another strip has a nurse ask the young lady if it is her first pregnancy termination and when the young women replies with yes she says "Then you'll need to fill out this form. Please take a seat in the shaming room."
Shame, shame, shame. If abortion is legal, which it is, the proverbial waging tsk tsk scolding finger is at least publicly removed. Before abortion was legalized you could literally be shamed to death for seeking one but now it's left up to the states and their governments to humiliate any women who allows herself (because there isn't anyone else involved of course) to get knocked up. Those who have the least invested in women's health spend time and resources on reversing the progress made in the field of reproductive rights.
Gary Trudeau has done something really important with Doonesbury this week. One, he has brilliantly captured the absurdities of the bill in Texas in a way that couldn't be easier to understand. Secondly, he has done so in a way that brings attention to the law regardless of an individuals stand point. Perhaps most importantly of all, Trudeau offers a rare (albeit satirical) view of the experience that so many feel they have the right to offer insight into- being a young women who seeks to hold herself first and exercise her legal rights to have an abortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)