In a partial victory for Texas women, a federal Judge struck down parts of what will be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
Most of the restrictions were scheduled to begin Oct.29th. The part of the law that was struck down was the requirement that all clinic doctors obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. This is a problem as many Doctors who provide abortion services are from out of state and admit so few patients that they cannot meet the requirements necessary to obtain admitting privileges. If the judge had not ruled that the law was unconstitutional then clinics without these privileges would have had to shut down as of today.
Judge Lee Yeakel of United States District Court stated that "the act’s admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
The restrictions on Medical Abortions using the drugs mifeprex and misoprostol were upheld. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of these drugs in much higher doses than have been found to be necessary in practice. Medical Abortions were approved through the FDA up to 7 weeks in 2000 but the lower and more accepted doses are deemed safe by Doctors up through 9 weeks. Usually patients go to a clinic where they are administered the first pills and given instructions and then sent home to take the second pill the following day. Patients must then go back for a follow up visit within a two week period. The Judge ruled that the requirement of the the earlier regiment does not pose an unconstitutional burden but that the later regimen could be accepted if deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Additional, and largely unnecessary visits are required in Texas.
Lastly, the law passed in Texas included a requirement that all clinics meet the standards set for surgical ambulatory centers. That part of the law was not challenged in this particular case and is set to take effect in September 2014. Only six abortion providers in Texas currently operate as ambulatory surgical centers. Many clinics would be unable to afford the costly and unnecessary upgrades. These include things like widening the hallways and entrances and having temperature controls in every room.
While the ruling will most likely be appealed (in fact the attorney general has already called for an emergency appeal), the fact that one federal judge has declared the admitting privileges unconstitutional is a good sign. Federal judges have issued temporary injunctions against similar laws requiring admitting privileges in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama, the Texas law however,is the first case to get a final written decision from a district court. The appeal is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme court.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Why The Buffer Zone Works for Everyone
The buffer zone law in Massachusetts mandates that anti-choice protesters stay at least 35-feet away from the entrances to abortion clinics. In some cases the buffer zone starts at the parking lot entrance and extends 35 feet from there. Massachusetts clinics include Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts health centers in Springfield, Worcester, and Boston. As recently as January of this year, the supreme court upheld the law in court- however, it was announced in June that the supreme court would hear arguments that challenge the constitutionality of the buffer zone law.
The argument from the anti-choice side is largely based on their interpretation of the First Amendment- freedom of speech. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees "without offending the First Amendment rights of others." The court later announced plans to review the Massachusetts law which has already sustained a lengthy legal fight throughout its history. Enacted in 2007 the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone law changed the 2000 law, which provided for an 18 feet fixed buffer zone and six feet floating buffer zone. In 2000, the law was upheld based on the fact that while the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not compel that one has to be granted an audience. Thus, laws that allow people to have safe space to not be harassed are considered constitutional.
Anti-choice protesters argue that they are unfairly kept from speaking with or handing literature to individuals entering the clinics. They want to be able to approach the women entering these clinics and "counsel" them from making the wrong decisions. The assumption is that the people entering the clinic are doing so because they have been lied to or coerced in some way into thinking their only option is to terminate their pregnancy. The protesters in turn want to "save" these women.
So why is the buffer zone so important to uphold?
One obvious answer is that the buffer zone forces a physical separation between patients and protesters so that patients are not accosted while entering the clinics. Clinic employees can enter their workplace without being harassed. It allows women to exercise their legal right to obtain an abortion with some amount of dignity. Protesters can still be close to the clinics and carry out their sign holding, shouting, praying etc... It is a compromise that benefits both sides. The buffer zone doesn't go so far as to grant women their right to privacy but it does but a precedent into place that ensures (as much as possible) that they can safely enter the premises.
Anti-choice protesters are not all extremists; of course handing out rubber toy fetuses to anyone walking by is "extreme" to me but I wouldn't put it in the same category as anti-choice terrorists who are intent on bombing clinics and shooting clinic employees. Massachusetts knows anti-choice extremists very well. In 1994, 22 year-old John Silva entered the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline and opened fire. The receptionist on duty, 25 year-old Shannon Lowney, was killed. Salvi killed one other receptionist at a nearby clinic and in total wounded five others. He was convicted of the killings and later committed suicide in prison.
Anti-choice protesters are not all violent but the buffer zone provides some level of protection for the women legally entitled to their right to privacy when obtaining medical care. Which persons rights are being more violated? The individual with no business to conduct choosing to picket, protest and harass perfect strangers or the individual exercising their legal right to obtain a legal procedure? Not to mention that protestors are already violating the patients right to privacy by attempting to interfere in the first place.
In what other scenarios do individuals have to be subjected to harassment when receiving medical attention? Are there protestors outside of Hospitals? OBGYN's? Plastic Surgeons offices? No, the instance of abortion is one that is still so deeply stigmatized in our society that there MUST be laws such as the buffer zone in place to put at the VERY LEAST some physical distance between protestors and patients. Mind your own business anti-choice zealots- and if you really can't do that at least stay on the other side of the street.
The argument from the anti-choice side is largely based on their interpretation of the First Amendment- freedom of speech. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees "without offending the First Amendment rights of others." The court later announced plans to review the Massachusetts law which has already sustained a lengthy legal fight throughout its history. Enacted in 2007 the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone law changed the 2000 law, which provided for an 18 feet fixed buffer zone and six feet floating buffer zone. In 2000, the law was upheld based on the fact that while the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not compel that one has to be granted an audience. Thus, laws that allow people to have safe space to not be harassed are considered constitutional.
Anti-choice protesters argue that they are unfairly kept from speaking with or handing literature to individuals entering the clinics. They want to be able to approach the women entering these clinics and "counsel" them from making the wrong decisions. The assumption is that the people entering the clinic are doing so because they have been lied to or coerced in some way into thinking their only option is to terminate their pregnancy. The protesters in turn want to "save" these women.
So why is the buffer zone so important to uphold?
One obvious answer is that the buffer zone forces a physical separation between patients and protesters so that patients are not accosted while entering the clinics. Clinic employees can enter their workplace without being harassed. It allows women to exercise their legal right to obtain an abortion with some amount of dignity. Protesters can still be close to the clinics and carry out their sign holding, shouting, praying etc... It is a compromise that benefits both sides. The buffer zone doesn't go so far as to grant women their right to privacy but it does but a precedent into place that ensures (as much as possible) that they can safely enter the premises.
Anti-choice protesters are not all extremists; of course handing out rubber toy fetuses to anyone walking by is "extreme" to me but I wouldn't put it in the same category as anti-choice terrorists who are intent on bombing clinics and shooting clinic employees. Massachusetts knows anti-choice extremists very well. In 1994, 22 year-old John Silva entered the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline and opened fire. The receptionist on duty, 25 year-old Shannon Lowney, was killed. Salvi killed one other receptionist at a nearby clinic and in total wounded five others. He was convicted of the killings and later committed suicide in prison.
Anti-choice protesters are not all violent but the buffer zone provides some level of protection for the women legally entitled to their right to privacy when obtaining medical care. Which persons rights are being more violated? The individual with no business to conduct choosing to picket, protest and harass perfect strangers or the individual exercising their legal right to obtain a legal procedure? Not to mention that protestors are already violating the patients right to privacy by attempting to interfere in the first place.
In what other scenarios do individuals have to be subjected to harassment when receiving medical attention? Are there protestors outside of Hospitals? OBGYN's? Plastic Surgeons offices? No, the instance of abortion is one that is still so deeply stigmatized in our society that there MUST be laws such as the buffer zone in place to put at the VERY LEAST some physical distance between protestors and patients. Mind your own business anti-choice zealots- and if you really can't do that at least stay on the other side of the street.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
#Menforchoice (or Male Birth Control III)
Recently Naral Pro-Choice America deemed a day for Pro-Choice Men. #Menforchoice
The idea was to bring attention to Pro-Choice men and recognize the fact that in order to safeguard reproductive rights for women we must include everyone willing to stand up and declare themselves Pro-Choice. In Washington, D.C. a fundraiser was held for men benefiting Naral Pro-Choice America. Vice President Joe Biden's son was one of the progressive men in attendance. Buzzfeed featured a list of 11 male celebrities who they recognize as #MenForChoice
The reactions were mixed. My first thought was positive and I stand by that- any recognition given to the cause of women determining their own reproductive fate is something I support.
However, I understand that this campaign may have rubbed some people the wrong way. On the Pro-Choice side I feel like the negative reactions were based on the idea that since men aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the unintended pregnancies their opinions aren't important enough to warrant giving them their own "day." Also, given that the some statements made by these men for choice, such as: "Use today to thank a Pro-Choice man in your life," are giving props to a sect that shouldn't have a say in the situation at all let alone be thanked for it. Women already knew that they were people.
Then there are the Anti-Choice responders; yup, obviously men who support choice just want to be able to engage in casual unprotected sex without fearing any consequences. The rhetoric turned quickly from supporting choice to condemning men who recognized themselves as Pro-choice. On Twitter the hastag "MenForLife" sprung up and the dialog produced plenty of despicable comments. Never have I seen such a blatant display of the negative effects of gender stereotyping. Some of my personal faves include:
"#MenForChoice it's not too late 4 U. There are #Menforlife who can help you be the man and father you were created to be."
"#MenForChoice subject women to trauma and kill their babies. #MenforLife protect and love women and their babies. Girl's which do you prefer?"
"#MenForChoice makes you a tool for death, not a strong ally. Strong men lift up and protect life, Not TAKE it.
"MenForChoice because suctioning a human through a tube is the kind of healthcare cowards approve of."
Don't get me wrong, the tweets from the Pro-Choice side were awesome and it was great to hear from so many men who respect women enough to allow them to control their own bodies. The middle two tweets were from men and the first and last were from women; males and females populate both sides of the argument. What I find particularly telling is that the term "real men" was probably one of the most popular terms for the #MenForLife tweeters.
This leads me back to a subject I've written a few entries on before; Male Birth Control. You can find Part I here. and Part II here.
There are a lot of reason why men should be able to take additional steps to prevent pregnancy. I remember when I first read The Pill by Elaine Tyler May, I didn't expect to become so interested in the section about birth control for men, but I did. If one advocates reproductive autonomy as I do, nothing makes more sense to me than to provide males a birth control method. Besides the fact that I think everyone should be allowed to choose when they reproduce, male birth control could improve communication and respect between sexual partners.
There are men who feel that women will take advantage of them by getting pregnant on purpose. It's a fact that intercourse between two people take often takes place without having the birth control talk in advance. Now, I'm not saying that I think women are trying to "trap" men into undesired fatherhood but if that is a legitimate fear than those men should be able to take additional steps to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent conception. Yes, I'm aware that the physical and emotional consequences of unintended pregnancies are felt nearly entirely by the women, but that does not mean that men do not have any consequences. As unsavory as it is there is the financial aspect as well as the emotional impact.
My entire point is this, Both MEN and WOMEN need to be able to take active steps towards preventing conception if that's what they want to do. A male birth control product should be allowed on the market because reproductive autonomy should be a HUMAN right. As for Naral's #MenForChoice campaign I guess the jury's still out on that. I'd like to think that the need for such campaigns will some day be a thing of the past, but until then I do appreciate men standing up for choice but I'm not going to be handing out medals for it anytime soon.
The idea was to bring attention to Pro-Choice men and recognize the fact that in order to safeguard reproductive rights for women we must include everyone willing to stand up and declare themselves Pro-Choice. In Washington, D.C. a fundraiser was held for men benefiting Naral Pro-Choice America. Vice President Joe Biden's son was one of the progressive men in attendance. Buzzfeed featured a list of 11 male celebrities who they recognize as #MenForChoice
The reactions were mixed. My first thought was positive and I stand by that- any recognition given to the cause of women determining their own reproductive fate is something I support.
However, I understand that this campaign may have rubbed some people the wrong way. On the Pro-Choice side I feel like the negative reactions were based on the idea that since men aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the unintended pregnancies their opinions aren't important enough to warrant giving them their own "day." Also, given that the some statements made by these men for choice, such as: "Use today to thank a Pro-Choice man in your life," are giving props to a sect that shouldn't have a say in the situation at all let alone be thanked for it. Women already knew that they were people.
Then there are the Anti-Choice responders; yup, obviously men who support choice just want to be able to engage in casual unprotected sex without fearing any consequences. The rhetoric turned quickly from supporting choice to condemning men who recognized themselves as Pro-choice. On Twitter the hastag "MenForLife" sprung up and the dialog produced plenty of despicable comments. Never have I seen such a blatant display of the negative effects of gender stereotyping. Some of my personal faves include:
"#MenForChoice it's not too late 4 U. There are #Menforlife who can help you be the man and father you were created to be."
"#MenForChoice subject women to trauma and kill their babies. #MenforLife protect and love women and their babies. Girl's which do you prefer?"
"#MenForChoice makes you a tool for death, not a strong ally. Strong men lift up and protect life, Not TAKE it.
"MenForChoice because suctioning a human through a tube is the kind of healthcare cowards approve of."
Don't get me wrong, the tweets from the Pro-Choice side were awesome and it was great to hear from so many men who respect women enough to allow them to control their own bodies. The middle two tweets were from men and the first and last were from women; males and females populate both sides of the argument. What I find particularly telling is that the term "real men" was probably one of the most popular terms for the #MenForLife tweeters.
This leads me back to a subject I've written a few entries on before; Male Birth Control. You can find Part I here. and Part II here.
There are a lot of reason why men should be able to take additional steps to prevent pregnancy. I remember when I first read The Pill by Elaine Tyler May, I didn't expect to become so interested in the section about birth control for men, but I did. If one advocates reproductive autonomy as I do, nothing makes more sense to me than to provide males a birth control method. Besides the fact that I think everyone should be allowed to choose when they reproduce, male birth control could improve communication and respect between sexual partners.
There are men who feel that women will take advantage of them by getting pregnant on purpose. It's a fact that intercourse between two people take often takes place without having the birth control talk in advance. Now, I'm not saying that I think women are trying to "trap" men into undesired fatherhood but if that is a legitimate fear than those men should be able to take additional steps to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent conception. Yes, I'm aware that the physical and emotional consequences of unintended pregnancies are felt nearly entirely by the women, but that does not mean that men do not have any consequences. As unsavory as it is there is the financial aspect as well as the emotional impact.
My entire point is this, Both MEN and WOMEN need to be able to take active steps towards preventing conception if that's what they want to do. A male birth control product should be allowed on the market because reproductive autonomy should be a HUMAN right. As for Naral's #MenForChoice campaign I guess the jury's still out on that. I'd like to think that the need for such campaigns will some day be a thing of the past, but until then I do appreciate men standing up for choice but I'm not going to be handing out medals for it anytime soon.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
AFTER TILLER
AFTER TILLER is a new documentary coming out Sept. 20th which follows the few Doctors left in America that are able to perform late term abortions. George Tiller was shot to death in 2009 while serving as an usher in church. The documentary centers around the personal and professional struggles that face the only four remaining Doctors who are licensed to perform late term abortions.
The quote that struck me the most from the intense and emotional trailer is that of Dr. Shelley Sella: "Unless people understand what's going on with the women, it's impossible to support it." Secondly, is this snippet from Dr. Susan Robinson: "You have choices, they all suck."
A lot of women obtaining third trimester abortions do so upon finding out that the fetus has genetic and or chromosomal abnormalities. Amniocentesis can be performed at a minimal risk to the fetus after 15-20 weeks. Therefore, women are already well into their second trimester when the results of amniocentesis become available. The rhetoric from the anti-choice populace would have us believe that women undergoing late-term abortions are either heartless monsters who don't want their "imperfect" pregnancy or that these women have just been too lazy to obtain an abortion earlier. Neither is true and it is these dangerous assumptions that further stigmatizes and isolates women from maintaining and there own dignity as autonomous human beings whose lives should always come first.
If you live in New York or one of these other cities where AFTER TILLER is being SHOWN, I urge you to screen the film asap. If the showings are to be expanded to smaller cities nationwide (which is IMPERATIVE) then the early screenings need to be PACKED. I apologize for the excessive amount of all capitals, I'm just VERY EXCITED.
If you don't believe me please head over to Reality Check and FIND OUT ALL THE OTHER REASONS why viewing this film is a MUST!
Friday, September 13, 2013
Sentence of Death in India Gang Rape
There are few things in life that you can have an absolute opinion on, things you consider strictly black or white. For me, I have always been Pro-Choice and I have always been against the Anti-Death Penalty. For the former I was first openly challenged at age 14 when the "abortion" video was to be presented to my Catechism class by a fervent women lawyer spouting few facts and plenty of hate...I got up and left- the rest of that story I will save for another time. As for the death penalty, I came to fully realize the extent of my feelings at the age of 12/13 in my eighth grade U.S. History class. My teacher was an interesting character. My Mother also had him for her eighth grade history class at the same middle some several decades before- she described him as a sort of lecherous man who was at times "too friendly" to his female students. Needless to say I was particularly weary of him from the start. While Mr. Barry's teaching methods were somewhat unorthodox (he once threw one of our text books out the window upon being dared to by my classmates), I learned a great deal from that class and the one thing that sticks with me to this day is how much I disapprove of State sponsored executions in any case. Once during a debate on the death penalty, at the very end I was pitted against the only other student in the class who was as advanced in debating as I was (at least at that time). I had him changing his mind by the end of class and won the debate for the anti-death penalty side.
Mr. Barry jumped on the boy for over turning his convictions so easily once the debate got heated. I used the most popular arguments for why I was anti-death penalty. Obviously, the inability to be 100% confident of a person’s guilt and therefore the inevitability of executing innocent people is the primary. In addition, the lack of certainty that the death penalty does anything to actually deter crime, the unjust way in which the death penalty is handed down to those who are the poorest members of society and the hypocrisy of murder being a crime when committed by an individual but a "sentence" when handed down by the state. Mr. Barry then turned to me and congratulated me on sticking to my guns so to speak- he then proceeded to offer me examples of situations where the death penalty could be considered by some to be a reasonable and just consequence for the perpetrator of such crimes. He asked about cold blooded murder, murder of a child, murder of multiple people, murder with torture, rape, dismemberment, murder of multiple people, families, women and he went on for some time- each time he paused and looked at me with eyebrows raised, waiting for me to respond that I still would not call for the death penalty as appropriate punishment. Each time he asked in a louder voice and at first I calmly replied "No" in every instance. As the instances became more and more severe he begun shouting and the student's in the class had their heads shifting rapidly back and forth between my 12 year-old self and this 50 plus man in the clear position of authority- you could sense the intensity rising in the classroom as the bell rang and other classes began pouring into the hallway. I don't remember the exact situation described which finally brought the exchange to a climax but I will never forget standing up with so much force that I knocked my desk over and screamed "NO!" so loudly that the students in the hallway fell dead silence. At this point tears are escaping my eyes and I'm psychically shaking with adrenaline- Mr. Barry calmly walked over to me and stuck his hand out to me to shake, "Good for you Ms. Callahan, good for you."
Earlier this year I wrote about the horrific instance of the fatal gang rape which took place on a bus in India. A woman was returning home with a male friend from viewing a movie in Delhi were lured onto a bus that contained six intoxicated men who attacked them. Please see A DANGEROUS PERSPECTIVE for my initial post and more information. This is how the suspects were found and tied to the incident, DELHI RAPE SUSPECTS. The driver of the bus* was found hung in his prison cell in March of an apparent suicide. The youngest (and by several accounts the most vicious) of the six perpetrators was several months shy of his 18th birthday when the rape occurred and therefore was sentenced to the maximum term allowed in the instance of a juvenile which is three years in a special correctional facility. According to a police spokesperson, the teenager was the most violent, and apparently “sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands (citation). The remaining four perpetrators were found guilty of murder and rape and while the sentence was supposed to be handed down on Wednesday, the judge waited until this morning to announce the fate of the guilty.
The four men were sentenced to death by hanging this morning. In India, death penalty sentences have been on the decline for the past decade. However, the last state sanctioned executions have occurred in late 2012: the hanging of Ajmal Kasab, convicted of terror charges in a 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed more than 160 people, and Afzal Guru, convicted of plotting a 2001 attack on Parliament. Looking at India's history of sentencing past Supreme Court rulings have said the death penalty is warranted for crimes committed in such "an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community."
The country responded with widespread outrage after details of the gruesome attack began becoming available to the public. As in most countries and the world, rape is a widespread occurrence. In India, statistic start at a rape occurring every 20 minutes or a total of 72 rapes every day (citation). Most rapes are unreported for fear of societal stigma and familial rejection, thus few perpetrators ever face consequences for the crime. Even in the instance of reported rape the conviction rate is startling low.
I've followed this case closely since January and especially so this week. It's something that I haven't been able to get out of my mind to be honest. When the guilty verdict was handed down on Wednesday I started pouring over the all the articles again and any new information on the case that I could find. I first heard about the sentence at about 6:30am this morning. I wasn't surprised, but I can't lie- I felt relieved. For the first time in my life I was a type of happy that a "State" was planning on ending the lives of the accused and tried of an unspeakably horrible crime.
I can't say that I think it's the "right" thing to do. I can't say that I "agree" with the sentence, but I don't feel the way I always have in the past. I've looked at cases of horrific, disgusting crimes- murder, child murder, murder with unspeakable torture involved-all by seemingly indecent and inhumane individuals and I've always come up with the same result in the end. The death penalty is always wrong- but at least for the moment in this case I cannot say that anymore. It isn't that I haven't thought that some people are not savable, unable to be reformed, a "waste of space" even...I have thought all those things and I have wondered why it is that I don't think executions are an acceptable form of punishment. I was raised Roman Catholic and I'm sure that may have something to do with my opinion but I look at it as more of a "gut check" so to speak. When you face yourself and reason with yourself and search within yourself you come up with a core feeling or belief. "This is wrong, this is right" or even "I don't know." In this case my gut tells me that I don’t think I have any problem with these men being killed.
I will continue to ask myself these questions…will the death of these four men prevent any rapes from occurring? Will the precedent make would be rapist reconsider their actions? Will their murders at all change the way that women are perceived in Indian culture? What if perpetrators turn from rapists into murderers to further prevent women from reporting their rapes if the instances of reporting begins to rise? Is this a ploy to save face by the Indian government and does it even mean anything if it is? What about what the victim wanted? On her deathbed she is said to have requested that her attackers and killers be “burned alive.”
So no, I don't think I'm alone in these sentiments. My personal struggle with right and wrong will continue on as it does with everyone. I don't have a monopoly on personal struggles. Neither death nor jail for life will bring back the victim of such a miserable fate. Maybe I feel this way because because I'm getting older and more jaded. Maybe as a women/human my own personal aversion to rapists has allowed me to finally cross over to the side that says some individuals commit acts which forfeit their right to continue living. I don't think changing ones mind is not allowed. I don't think having an evolving opinion means that you have weak convictions and I don't think that calling out a gray area means that you have failed to choose a side. My 12 year old self wants to stand up and state with utter certainty that no one should ever be executed by a government...and not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things but my 28 year-old self does wonder what the late Mr. Barry would have to say to me now.
*Most of the articles I have read call Ram Singh (the accused who was found hung in March) as the driver.
Mr. Barry jumped on the boy for over turning his convictions so easily once the debate got heated. I used the most popular arguments for why I was anti-death penalty. Obviously, the inability to be 100% confident of a person’s guilt and therefore the inevitability of executing innocent people is the primary. In addition, the lack of certainty that the death penalty does anything to actually deter crime, the unjust way in which the death penalty is handed down to those who are the poorest members of society and the hypocrisy of murder being a crime when committed by an individual but a "sentence" when handed down by the state. Mr. Barry then turned to me and congratulated me on sticking to my guns so to speak- he then proceeded to offer me examples of situations where the death penalty could be considered by some to be a reasonable and just consequence for the perpetrator of such crimes. He asked about cold blooded murder, murder of a child, murder of multiple people, murder with torture, rape, dismemberment, murder of multiple people, families, women and he went on for some time- each time he paused and looked at me with eyebrows raised, waiting for me to respond that I still would not call for the death penalty as appropriate punishment. Each time he asked in a louder voice and at first I calmly replied "No" in every instance. As the instances became more and more severe he begun shouting and the student's in the class had their heads shifting rapidly back and forth between my 12 year-old self and this 50 plus man in the clear position of authority- you could sense the intensity rising in the classroom as the bell rang and other classes began pouring into the hallway. I don't remember the exact situation described which finally brought the exchange to a climax but I will never forget standing up with so much force that I knocked my desk over and screamed "NO!" so loudly that the students in the hallway fell dead silence. At this point tears are escaping my eyes and I'm psychically shaking with adrenaline- Mr. Barry calmly walked over to me and stuck his hand out to me to shake, "Good for you Ms. Callahan, good for you."
Earlier this year I wrote about the horrific instance of the fatal gang rape which took place on a bus in India. A woman was returning home with a male friend from viewing a movie in Delhi were lured onto a bus that contained six intoxicated men who attacked them. Please see A DANGEROUS PERSPECTIVE for my initial post and more information. This is how the suspects were found and tied to the incident, DELHI RAPE SUSPECTS. The driver of the bus* was found hung in his prison cell in March of an apparent suicide. The youngest (and by several accounts the most vicious) of the six perpetrators was several months shy of his 18th birthday when the rape occurred and therefore was sentenced to the maximum term allowed in the instance of a juvenile which is three years in a special correctional facility. According to a police spokesperson, the teenager was the most violent, and apparently “sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands (citation). The remaining four perpetrators were found guilty of murder and rape and while the sentence was supposed to be handed down on Wednesday, the judge waited until this morning to announce the fate of the guilty.
The four men were sentenced to death by hanging this morning. In India, death penalty sentences have been on the decline for the past decade. However, the last state sanctioned executions have occurred in late 2012: the hanging of Ajmal Kasab, convicted of terror charges in a 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed more than 160 people, and Afzal Guru, convicted of plotting a 2001 attack on Parliament. Looking at India's history of sentencing past Supreme Court rulings have said the death penalty is warranted for crimes committed in such "an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community."
The country responded with widespread outrage after details of the gruesome attack began becoming available to the public. As in most countries and the world, rape is a widespread occurrence. In India, statistic start at a rape occurring every 20 minutes or a total of 72 rapes every day (citation). Most rapes are unreported for fear of societal stigma and familial rejection, thus few perpetrators ever face consequences for the crime. Even in the instance of reported rape the conviction rate is startling low.
I've followed this case closely since January and especially so this week. It's something that I haven't been able to get out of my mind to be honest. When the guilty verdict was handed down on Wednesday I started pouring over the all the articles again and any new information on the case that I could find. I first heard about the sentence at about 6:30am this morning. I wasn't surprised, but I can't lie- I felt relieved. For the first time in my life I was a type of happy that a "State" was planning on ending the lives of the accused and tried of an unspeakably horrible crime.
I can't say that I think it's the "right" thing to do. I can't say that I "agree" with the sentence, but I don't feel the way I always have in the past. I've looked at cases of horrific, disgusting crimes- murder, child murder, murder with unspeakable torture involved-all by seemingly indecent and inhumane individuals and I've always come up with the same result in the end. The death penalty is always wrong- but at least for the moment in this case I cannot say that anymore. It isn't that I haven't thought that some people are not savable, unable to be reformed, a "waste of space" even...I have thought all those things and I have wondered why it is that I don't think executions are an acceptable form of punishment. I was raised Roman Catholic and I'm sure that may have something to do with my opinion but I look at it as more of a "gut check" so to speak. When you face yourself and reason with yourself and search within yourself you come up with a core feeling or belief. "This is wrong, this is right" or even "I don't know." In this case my gut tells me that I don’t think I have any problem with these men being killed.
I will continue to ask myself these questions…will the death of these four men prevent any rapes from occurring? Will the precedent make would be rapist reconsider their actions? Will their murders at all change the way that women are perceived in Indian culture? What if perpetrators turn from rapists into murderers to further prevent women from reporting their rapes if the instances of reporting begins to rise? Is this a ploy to save face by the Indian government and does it even mean anything if it is? What about what the victim wanted? On her deathbed she is said to have requested that her attackers and killers be “burned alive.”
So no, I don't think I'm alone in these sentiments. My personal struggle with right and wrong will continue on as it does with everyone. I don't have a monopoly on personal struggles. Neither death nor jail for life will bring back the victim of such a miserable fate. Maybe I feel this way because because I'm getting older and more jaded. Maybe as a women/human my own personal aversion to rapists has allowed me to finally cross over to the side that says some individuals commit acts which forfeit their right to continue living. I don't think changing ones mind is not allowed. I don't think having an evolving opinion means that you have weak convictions and I don't think that calling out a gray area means that you have failed to choose a side. My 12 year old self wants to stand up and state with utter certainty that no one should ever be executed by a government...and not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things but my 28 year-old self does wonder what the late Mr. Barry would have to say to me now.
*Most of the articles I have read call Ram Singh (the accused who was found hung in March) as the driver.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Waiting for October
August is nearly over and I have only written a single entry this entire month. My blog is most certainly mirroring the identity crisis I am (hopefully) in the middle of having. I've been thinking of changing to a different site to host it and or MAYBE starting my own site. I've been worrying about copyright and legality issues (almost unreasonably so) and I am almost thinking that I may close the whole thing down and work solely on pieces geared towards being published online or in print. There are so many things that can be related to Feminism and Women's rights- A TON of things. My focus is mostly on Reproductive Rights and Abortion. Secondarily, I have written a lot outside of this blog about Pornography and the relationship it has to Feminism. As of right now, I am drawn to the exclusion of minority and African American women in mainstream Feminism and the disservice that results in allowing white women to speak for all women.
A lot of....THOUGHTS I guess. I will leave you with some items that have stuck out to me in recent weeks and then continue meandering through all my thoughts and my current crisis of self.
The President of the League of Women Voters in the US wrote this blog post for the HUFFINGTON POST on Women's Equality Day- the day commemorating the passage of the 19th Amendment. She also talks about the current status of voting rights in the United States.
The ONLY thing that I've shared or cared about regarding Miley Cyrus and her VMA performance SOLIDARITY FOR MILEY CYRUS
This blog post really struck me. It popped up on FB a couple weeks ago and whether you are in a relationship or not it's a must read TOXIC RELATIONSHIP HABITS
What difference does it make if you can't take a day off during the week to get an abortion? ALABAMAS SATURDAY WOMEN
Until next time...
A lot of....THOUGHTS I guess. I will leave you with some items that have stuck out to me in recent weeks and then continue meandering through all my thoughts and my current crisis of self.
The President of the League of Women Voters in the US wrote this blog post for the HUFFINGTON POST on Women's Equality Day- the day commemorating the passage of the 19th Amendment. She also talks about the current status of voting rights in the United States.
The ONLY thing that I've shared or cared about regarding Miley Cyrus and her VMA performance SOLIDARITY FOR MILEY CYRUS
This blog post really struck me. It popped up on FB a couple weeks ago and whether you are in a relationship or not it's a must read TOXIC RELATIONSHIP HABITS
What difference does it make if you can't take a day off during the week to get an abortion? ALABAMAS SATURDAY WOMEN
Until next time...
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Six Week Timer (or Would You Know You were Pregnant?)
North Dakota is trying to ban abortions after 6 weeks. North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed a bill into law in March and did so with the expectation that it would be ruled unconstitutional. Thankfully, it was. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the law, siding with reproductive health advocates and stating in no uncertain terms that the law is clearly unconstitutional.
Republicans in both Arizona and Arkansas passed 20 week and 12 week bans (respectively) within the past year. After the 20 week ban in Texas passed the Republican law makers drafted their own legislation to bring a proposed 6 week ban into effect. The bill would require women seeking abortion to first undergo an ultrasound, and if the fetal heartbeat can be detected she would be banned from having the procedure. The fetal heart beat is usually detected around the sixth week of pregnancy.
The tactics of Republicans and the Pro-life movement have long been rooted in creating obstacles for women to obtain a legal abortion. The 20 week abortion ban in Texas for instance, not only made it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks but simultaneously closed down most of the abortion clinics in the State who could not afford to make the unnecessary changes to be licensed as surgical ambulatory centers which was called for in the bill (i.e. wider hallways).
While Republicans spend an enormous amount of time, energy and resources on drafting these bills and attempting to push them through their respective state legislatures, the end goal is to overturn Roe v.Wade and in the meantime prevent as many women from obtaining legal abortions as possible. With bans in place women have a limited time in which they can find out they are pregnant, decide to terminate said pregnancy, gather funds in which to pay for the procedure, make an appointment, find a ride, take the day off from work and so on and so forth. Of course, the longer one has to wait to obtain an abortion the more expensive and more complicated the procedure will be.
This is why the ban on abortions starting as soon as a fetal heart rate is detected is absolutely ridiculous. Women often find out that they are pregnant at the 6 week mark or for some much later. For anyone who has the opinion that women have to know the second they are impregnated, you are wrong. Simple as that. If you don't have a female reproductive system your opinion on the matter is null and void, if you do have a female reproductive system and you still can't believe that women cannot know that they are pregnant then you are also wrong. It happens.
The exact statistics of these instances are hard to pin down. It seems that the most recent statistics claim it occurs between 1 in 475 women and 1 in 600 women (though European data seems much lower at 1 in 2500 women as of 2009). Upon further inspection the difference in statistics is that the 1 in 475/600 is in the case when a women discovers she is pregnant late into the actually pregnancy and the 1 in 2500 is for women who actually go into labor without knowing they were pregnant at all.
You may be asking yourself the question- "how is it possible to not know that you are pregnant?" Let's discuss how this is possible.
First and foremost you may take one or more pregnancy tests that come back negative. Okay, easy enough to understand right?
What about missing your period? Doesn't that make it obvious? Some women get their periods (menstrual cycle) every 21 days, menstruate for 4-7 days and then start all over again. A more average occurrence may be every a period every 24-35 days and actual menstruation of somewhere between 2-7 days. This is just an average and the point is that there are women who's cycles are completely irregular. Sometimes stress, weight loss or gain or environmental circumstances can cause missed periods or cycle changes. Some women may have very light periods that often include minimal spotting or barely any fluid at all. Everybody is different! There are women who spot throughout their pregnancies too. So saying that a woman would automatically know she was pregnant because she misses her period is not accurate.
What about getting pregnant when you're on birth control? There are a lot of methods of birth control out there; the pill, the patch, the implant, IUD's (Intrauterine devices implanted along the wall of the uterus), the shot, the ring and more still. Each method has a varying rate of failure. IUD's can be up to 99.9% effective, BUT the only way to absolutely avoid being impregnated is to not have sex. So in theory, no matter what birth control method you use there is a chance that you COULD become pregnant if you engage in intercourse. BUT the odds of becoming pregnant while on birth control are much lower than if you aren't and it isn't hard to imagine a women who may not have any symptoms of pregnancy and have an IUD in place think that she couldn't be pregnant- add in a false negative on a pregnancy test and it becomes even easier to see how this can happen.
There is also EC (emergency contraception). EC is a pill you can take up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to greatly reduce the risk of becoming pregnant. If you are already pregnant, EC won't work. However, if you take EC right after unprotected sex your odds of becoming pregnant goes down significantly. Without additional symptoms you may think that you couldn't be pregnant.
If you want to hear specific stories about women who didn't know they were pregnant then you can look up the TV reality show that aired on Discovery Health between 2008-2011, "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant." Yes, there are obvious over dramatizations and sensationalism on this and every other reality shows but it does provide some food for thought about the topic.
So, to tie all this back into abortion bans- when States make it extremely difficult to access first-term abortions by placing obstacles in front of women (waiting periods, mandatory counseling, little to no clinic availability) the result is that women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies much longer into term than desired which in turn hurts everyone.
Yes, it does get trickier to talk about abortion when you get to a certain gestational age. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking about it though. The obvious focus shouldn't be on banning late term abortions but about ensuring accessibility to all women seeking abortions earlier in the pregnancy. When abortion access is not readily available to certain women because of their income level or geographical location the time it can take for that woman to gain access can turn a first-term abortion in the second or even third trimester. Most states do not allow third-term an abortion, the limit in the United States is about 26 weeks and this is only allowed in the event of severe fetal abnormalities or if the health of the mother is in serious danger.
The goal of states like North Dakota, Arizona and Texas is to make abortion so inaccessible to women that they need to be either extremely wealthy or extremely fortunate in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Abortions will happen. They will occur no matter what. If women cannot access them early and safely than there will be women who will be so desperate that they will take matters into their own hands. Bans do nothing but further the disconnect between what Anti-choice individuals want and what all women in every state deserve; early, safe and affordable abortions.
Republicans in both Arizona and Arkansas passed 20 week and 12 week bans (respectively) within the past year. After the 20 week ban in Texas passed the Republican law makers drafted their own legislation to bring a proposed 6 week ban into effect. The bill would require women seeking abortion to first undergo an ultrasound, and if the fetal heartbeat can be detected she would be banned from having the procedure. The fetal heart beat is usually detected around the sixth week of pregnancy.
The tactics of Republicans and the Pro-life movement have long been rooted in creating obstacles for women to obtain a legal abortion. The 20 week abortion ban in Texas for instance, not only made it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks but simultaneously closed down most of the abortion clinics in the State who could not afford to make the unnecessary changes to be licensed as surgical ambulatory centers which was called for in the bill (i.e. wider hallways).
While Republicans spend an enormous amount of time, energy and resources on drafting these bills and attempting to push them through their respective state legislatures, the end goal is to overturn Roe v.Wade and in the meantime prevent as many women from obtaining legal abortions as possible. With bans in place women have a limited time in which they can find out they are pregnant, decide to terminate said pregnancy, gather funds in which to pay for the procedure, make an appointment, find a ride, take the day off from work and so on and so forth. Of course, the longer one has to wait to obtain an abortion the more expensive and more complicated the procedure will be.
This is why the ban on abortions starting as soon as a fetal heart rate is detected is absolutely ridiculous. Women often find out that they are pregnant at the 6 week mark or for some much later. For anyone who has the opinion that women have to know the second they are impregnated, you are wrong. Simple as that. If you don't have a female reproductive system your opinion on the matter is null and void, if you do have a female reproductive system and you still can't believe that women cannot know that they are pregnant then you are also wrong. It happens.
The exact statistics of these instances are hard to pin down. It seems that the most recent statistics claim it occurs between 1 in 475 women and 1 in 600 women (though European data seems much lower at 1 in 2500 women as of 2009). Upon further inspection the difference in statistics is that the 1 in 475/600 is in the case when a women discovers she is pregnant late into the actually pregnancy and the 1 in 2500 is for women who actually go into labor without knowing they were pregnant at all.
You may be asking yourself the question- "how is it possible to not know that you are pregnant?" Let's discuss how this is possible.
First and foremost you may take one or more pregnancy tests that come back negative. Okay, easy enough to understand right?
What about missing your period? Doesn't that make it obvious? Some women get their periods (menstrual cycle) every 21 days, menstruate for 4-7 days and then start all over again. A more average occurrence may be every a period every 24-35 days and actual menstruation of somewhere between 2-7 days. This is just an average and the point is that there are women who's cycles are completely irregular. Sometimes stress, weight loss or gain or environmental circumstances can cause missed periods or cycle changes. Some women may have very light periods that often include minimal spotting or barely any fluid at all. Everybody is different! There are women who spot throughout their pregnancies too. So saying that a woman would automatically know she was pregnant because she misses her period is not accurate.
What about getting pregnant when you're on birth control? There are a lot of methods of birth control out there; the pill, the patch, the implant, IUD's (Intrauterine devices implanted along the wall of the uterus), the shot, the ring and more still. Each method has a varying rate of failure. IUD's can be up to 99.9% effective, BUT the only way to absolutely avoid being impregnated is to not have sex. So in theory, no matter what birth control method you use there is a chance that you COULD become pregnant if you engage in intercourse. BUT the odds of becoming pregnant while on birth control are much lower than if you aren't and it isn't hard to imagine a women who may not have any symptoms of pregnancy and have an IUD in place think that she couldn't be pregnant- add in a false negative on a pregnancy test and it becomes even easier to see how this can happen.
There is also EC (emergency contraception). EC is a pill you can take up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to greatly reduce the risk of becoming pregnant. If you are already pregnant, EC won't work. However, if you take EC right after unprotected sex your odds of becoming pregnant goes down significantly. Without additional symptoms you may think that you couldn't be pregnant.
If you want to hear specific stories about women who didn't know they were pregnant then you can look up the TV reality show that aired on Discovery Health between 2008-2011, "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant." Yes, there are obvious over dramatizations and sensationalism on this and every other reality shows but it does provide some food for thought about the topic.
So, to tie all this back into abortion bans- when States make it extremely difficult to access first-term abortions by placing obstacles in front of women (waiting periods, mandatory counseling, little to no clinic availability) the result is that women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies much longer into term than desired which in turn hurts everyone.
Yes, it does get trickier to talk about abortion when you get to a certain gestational age. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking about it though. The obvious focus shouldn't be on banning late term abortions but about ensuring accessibility to all women seeking abortions earlier in the pregnancy. When abortion access is not readily available to certain women because of their income level or geographical location the time it can take for that woman to gain access can turn a first-term abortion in the second or even third trimester. Most states do not allow third-term an abortion, the limit in the United States is about 26 weeks and this is only allowed in the event of severe fetal abnormalities or if the health of the mother is in serious danger.
The goal of states like North Dakota, Arizona and Texas is to make abortion so inaccessible to women that they need to be either extremely wealthy or extremely fortunate in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Abortions will happen. They will occur no matter what. If women cannot access them early and safely than there will be women who will be so desperate that they will take matters into their own hands. Bans do nothing but further the disconnect between what Anti-choice individuals want and what all women in every state deserve; early, safe and affordable abortions.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
"Gynoticians"
I know I'm on a link kick and haven't been doing much criticism/analysis of late- it's coming.
Hilarious Slam of Gynoticians: A little too close to home.
Enjoy Amber Tambyln and David Cross show what happens when Politicians play Doctors.
Hilarious Slam of Gynoticians: A little too close to home.
Enjoy Amber Tambyln and David Cross show what happens when Politicians play Doctors.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Progression of Opinions- A Pro-Lifer Loses Faith in the Movement
How I Lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement
A very well written and researched piece by a young women raised to believe that abortion is always murder. She begins to change her mind after doing her own research and reflecting on what the anti-choice movement is really trying to do. Not saving the "unborn" but regulating sex and denying women their own human rights.
A very well written and researched piece by a young women raised to believe that abortion is always murder. She begins to change her mind after doing her own research and reflecting on what the anti-choice movement is really trying to do. Not saving the "unborn" but regulating sex and denying women their own human rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)