today is shaping up to be quite the supreme court day. in two hours, the california supreme court will read its decision regarding proposition 8. i hope hope hope it is overturned, but i don't have the greatest feeling. still, the california supreme court has known to surprise with many of its past rulings. there is hope. i'm just not feeling it. of course if this bullshit of a proposition is not overturned, the fight will continue on - this is not the end. put gay marriage back on the ballot in 2010. i bel;ieve that 2008 is the last election that the homophobes religious right will get their way on this.

in other supreme court news (this time national), i am pleased with president obama's nomination of sonia sotomayor to replace justice souter on the supreme court. at this point, the single most important issue (to me) is that the supreme court upholds roe v wade and that choice is protected on a national level. i have faith that sotomayor will deliver just rulings.

i'm off to the civic center area (san francisco) to hear the ruling live. this is history it's happening in my city. i want to be there. and i will.

follow up to this

Vatican backs abortion row bishop

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.

The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told Italian paper La Stampa that the twins "had the right to live" and attacks on Brazil's Catholic Church were unfair.

It comes a day after Brazil's president criticised the Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the people involved. ( more behind the cut )

talk about being out of touch....

Rape row sparks excommunications
By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo

A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins.

It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather.

The excommunication applies to the child's mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.( the rest... )

this is one of those cases when the health and the *LIFE* of the mother is at stake. many anti-choicers do in fact support abortion as an alternative if carrying to term would be unhealthy and potentially life threatening to the woman. there are also a few anti-choicers who support abortion as an alternative in the case of rape. this NINE YEAR OLD GIRL was raped and physically to small to safely carry twins. the catholic church took this one to a whole new level. "pro-life?" what about the life of the nine year old? does she no longer matter now that she is a baby-carrying fetus-carrying vessel? not to even mention the psychological effects. where is the sanctity of life here? more like anti-choice, insensitive, and misogynistic! uggh... cases like this infuriate me!

Abortion, not resume, could dominate Sebelius confirmation

(CNN) -- The congressional showdown over Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' nomination to President Obama's Cabinet may focus less on her qualifications than on the issue of abortion, analysts said.

Obama on Monday nominated Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Cabinet nominations require Senate confirmation, and anti-abortion groups already are making their views known.( the rest... )

Pastor sentenced for Oakland abortion protest

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2009
(02-19) 17:58 PST OAKLAND

A pastor at a Berkeley church was sentenced Thursday to three years' probation and fined $1,000 after becoming the first person convicted under an Oakland ordinance barring protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic.

Walter Hoye could have faced up to two years in jail after a jury convicted him last month of two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully approaching patients at the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group at Second and Webster streets.

The case was an emotional one, and pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates jammed the Oakland courtroom for the sentencing hearing. Dozens of people unable to find seats filled the hallway outside.

Hoye, 52, of Union City appeared ready to accept a jail sentence, telling Judge Stuart Hing of Alameda County Superior Court, "I believe that an unjust law is no law at all."

Hing said Hoye was by all accounts a "decent person." But illegal conduct is not justifiable when there are legal ways of protesting, the judge said.

Hing asked if Hoye would abide by an order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from the Oakland clinic, and the pastor said no.

The judge then imposed the stay-away order anyway, fined Hoye and sentenced him to three years of probation and 30 days in jail. Hoye can serve his time in a sheriff's work detail or by volunteering.

The "medical safety zone" around abortion clinics was set by the Oakland City Council in 2007. Abortion protesters must stay at least 8 feet from women, staff or escorts entering the buildings.

The council passed the law in response to complaints of harassment at three abortion clinics in the city. Anti-abortion activists called it an intrusion on their freedom of speech.

Hoye, executive elder of the Progressive Missionary Baptist Church in south Berkeley, hands out anti-abortion literature outside abortion clinics. He was arrested May 13 at the Oakland clinic, carrying a sign that read, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!"

As women approached the door, he asked them, "May I talk to you about alternatives to the clinic?"

"He never laid hands on anyone," Levon Yuille, a nondenominational minister from Michigan who flew in for the sentencing, told the judge. Yuille also heads the National Black Pro-Life Congress.

Prosecutor Robert Graff said the incident was not a standard free-speech case.

"It's not that benign. It's not that neutral," Graff said.

In a statement, Katrina Cantrell, associate executive director of Women's Health Specialists, said, "When anyone restricts access to reproductive health services, every woman affected is a living example of a colonized body."

Defense attorney Mike Millen said there had been a "conspicuous absence" of patients at the trial who said they felt threatened by Hoye.

source

as some of you are aware, my LJ became quite the shit storm over my open pleasure of the end of the global gag rule yesterday. while there was debate here in my comments (i was away from the computer for most of the day and only got alerts, but could not update my comments from afar) was pretty heated, it was NOTHING compared to what occurred on my facebook page! i wrote a response for my facebook and am cross posting it here. please note that talk about the specific comments are all related to facebook, not the comments here in my LJ. knowing that, this response will make more sense.

i want to thank everyone who participated in this debate (or shit storm, depending on how you look at it).

i am pleased with obama's reversal of the global gag rule and, yes, i did celebrate. for one, i am uncompromisingly pro-choice in my own beliefs. but for me, the global gag rule goes beyond that.

last year, while i was traveling in africa, i had the honor of visiting a volunteer clinic that works to combat south africa's AIDS/HIV infection rate (a problem that is prevalent in most of sub-saharan africa). this clinic does some amazing work, from much needed AIDS/HIV counseling, testing, awareness, treatment to family planning help, another area where much education is needed. the clinic provides birth control and education ("this is how you use a condom" which, believe it or not, is much needed education in this part of the world). this particular area of south africa is suffering from poverty and massive over population. as always, stopping conception before it starts is priority (hence the focus on birth control, especially condoms, which also help to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS infection). however, we all know that birth control can and sometimes will fail (even if used correctly). that is why, in the past, this clinic has muttered the "a word" (no, not abstinence). because in dire circumstances this clinic talked about abortion as an alternative (i'm not sure if they actually performed abortion on premise. my guess is no simply because they didn't have the staff or technology to deal with a more complicated medical procedure), a good part of their funding was stripped in 2000. under the global gag rule.

overpopulation, AIDS/HIV, and other STDs are a massive problem in sub-saharan africa. to me, and many others (including some who i spoke to who are on the pro-life side of the issue), taking away a funding for such an important service is unimaginable. how this clinic has continued to operate is beyond me (countless volunteers, some private funding, and i have to say, it's one of the saddest places i have ever seen). all around the world, there are countless other NGO/volunteer facilities that provide similar services, all in the same predicament. for this reason, and many others, i believe the global gag order is one of the republican party's (and i say republican party because it was signed under reagan, continued under hw bush, repealed by clinton, reinstated by w bush, and recently repealed under obama) most misdirected orders. the AIDS/HIV rates, poverty, and overpopulation continue to rise in parts of the world that are simply already in dire situations. anything to help remedy those factors is a step in the right direction.

in reality, i am very pro life. i care about people who live on this planet tremendously. poverty, environmental concerts, general human rights/comfort are all issues that are near and dear to me. and my belief where life begins differs from some, i know. does that make me an insensitive person who advocates "baby killing?" if that is what you believe, you are entitled to your beliefs. but anyone who knows me knows that i have devoted countless (and sometimes thankless) hours, weeks, years, of my life defending and protecting human rights, promoting equality for ALL humans, trying to gain understanding of how others, from different backgrounds/cultures/countries/etc live (this is why i travel), and doing whatever i can, from my small corner in the world, to help create positive change and (one person at a time) heal this world. it is sad that the abortion issue divides me from a segment of the population, but with such a hot button issue with such strong beliefs from both sides, i suppose that is natural.

when i woke up to the most welcome news of the end of the global gag order yesterday, i did celebrate. i celebrated for clinics, NGOs, volunteer organizations overseas who will hopefully start getting some funding back to get their mission back on track. i celebrated for the countless people in the most impoverished parts of this world who will get a better chance. and i am sorry if some find that offensive.

in the same vein, suggesting that women (here and abroad) who can't afford birth control should simply abstain brings up issues of class ism and cultural sensitivity. i do not think it is fair to suggest that only women with the funds/resources to do so should participate in something very natural (sexual activity). and, to draw that out further, many organizations (like the one i mentioned above) PROVIDE women (and men) in poverty stricken regions with birth control and contraceptive options. but without funding, that kind of work can't continue. also, that completely ignores, and almost blames, women who were victims of rape or other sexually violent crimes. what about them?

i am thrilled, ecstatic, etc etc etc! i am too excited to really type at the moment (it's 730am and i am dancing around my kitchen!). this is one of the things i hoped for most in obama's first week of president! FINALLY... a president who is pro-choice after eight long (and scary) years. now THIS is "change i can believe in!"

yay yay yay yay!

Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

By LIZ SIDOTI and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writers
Friday, January 23, 2009
(01-23) 07:22 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

The move, long expected in the Democratic president's first week in office, will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

Also known as the "Mexico City policy," it has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

The Democratic official and senior U.S. official who disclosed the plans did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt Obama's announcement.

Obama was expected to sign the executive order at a low-key event, one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

source.

happy 36th anniversary to roe v wade. the right to choose is one that i will never take for granted and never stop fighting to defend.

i spent most of the day phone banking for obama (i called voters in virginia, wisconsin, and pennsylvania) and against proposition 8.

now i am in the home stretch. i just got home, and i am calling voters to urge them to vote NO on proposition 4 from home (since i used to work at planned parenthood, they are allowing me to phone bank from home).

this is my script:

Hello, My name is Karen, and I'm a volunteer with No on Proposition 4. May I please speak with ___________?

Hello, my name is Karen, and I'm a volunteer with No on Proposition 4. I have an important message about teen safety to share with you.

Proposition 4 on November's ballot requires parental notification for an abortion. Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, but laws can't mandate family communication, and some teens live in dangerous homes where communication just isn't possible.

Scared, pregnant teens who can't go to their parents may take matters into their own hands, seek illegal back alley abortions, or even consider suicide.

While laws like this may sound good, in the real world they put thousands of teens in real danger.

That's why the California Teachers Association and the California Nurses Association join Planned Parenthood in urging you to VOTE NO on Prop 4. The most important thing is keeping our teens safe.

no on 4, y'all! for all of the reasons stated above!

i spent the bulk of my day phonebanking. i called:

undecided voters in ohio and pennsylvania encouraging them to vote for obama.

student voters in indiana and pennsylvania encouraging them to a) vote and b) vote for obama (young people historically do not vote).

voters in california urging them to vote NO ON 4.

on wednesday i am phonebanking for the no on 8 campaign. i am also going to continue working on the no on 4 issue since it's being overshadowed by 8, and many people are unaware of its existence.

the polls are tightening up again. with 15 days until the election, it's critical to get the word out.

( roe vs. wade is hanging by a very thin thread... )

this is critical. i know that planned parenthood, NOW, and the national abortion federation constantly send out scare tactic emails, but people, this one is for real. if mccain has to replace justice stevens (because let's face it, will an 88 year old last four more years?), he will most likely go with an anti-choicer. so goodbye to the majority for choice. and goodbye roe v. wade. i refuse to live in a country where abortion is not legal. women's lives are seriously at stake here. this is beyond "kind of a big deal."

please, for the love of everything that is still good, obama needs to win this election.

and for those of you who are registered to vote in california, please remember to vote "NO" on proposition 4. proposition 4 is not getting as much press due to being overshadowed by proposition 8 (which of course y'all should also vote no on). but proposition 4 is one of those propositions that strips away at roe v. wade. not only does it make parental consent mandatory (which i am very opposed to since not every teenage girl has a safe environment with her family), but it also makes a waiting period on all abortions mandatory. waiting periods are ridiculous in that they require multiple visits to the clinic. not every woman lives within an easy drive to an abortion clinic. it adds yet another hurdle for many women to have a medical procedure. no on 4.

this is awesome. i am not putting it behind a cut (sorry) because it is so well written, eloquent, and does not deserve to be behind a dreaded LJ cut.

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem

September 4, 2008

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

source

i personally have so much to say after her speech last night. game on! she attacked obama/biden and they can tactfully attack her back at this point. and i still pose this question: is someone who only got her passport in 2007 qualified to be vice president? yikes.

i never do these writer's block questions on live journal. when i have something to say, i say it, and don't need to be given a topic.

however, i have plenty to say on this topic (and have already said plenty in past entries).

as a woman, i am insulted. what, does the mccain camp think women are going to vote for mccain now that he has a woman on the ticket? i didn't vote for hillary in the primary, so it is obvious that i don't vote along those lines. and really, how "pro-woman" is palin? she is adamantly anti-choice, even in cases of rape. how "pro-woman" is that? and what has she done for equal rights? not a whole lot. a conservative woman is the same as a conservative man when it comes to getting my vote in the polling place. i will never vote for a candidate who is anti-choice. never.

sarah palin is also inexperienced. last time i checked, i have more foreign policy experience than she does. ;) how is she going to hold her own on the international issues? i somehow don't think that she is qualified to hold talks with the likes of putin, sarkozy, brown, and other world leaders. i've said it before and i am saying it again - i never want to hear mccain speak of obama's lack of experience again. at 72, mccain is placing someone who ran a town of 7,000 second in command. that is frightening.

this is going to backfire (and of course i am pleased about that). the mccain/palin ticket is not going to get any votes from disgruntled clinton supporters, undecided moderates, and independents. yes, mccain now has the vote of the religious right, but those people were never going to vote for obama in the first place.

i think mccain's decision just cost him the election. and for that alone, i am elated (though i will not get too comfortable. i will still get out there and rock the vote for obama!).

today is national blog for choice day. i usually don't partake in national blog days, but this one's different.

i am extremely passionate about choice. and with the election coming up, my main focus is getting someone who supports choice in the white house. that is always my bottom line, my "make it or break it issue." i absolutely refuse to vote for any candidate, on any level (local, state, or national), who doesn't support the right to chose. there is never a "perfect" candidate for me (dennis kucinich comes pretty damn close), but choice is the one issue that i refuse to waver on. i used to work, volunteer, and intern at planned parenthood, and i had direct involvement on the issue at every level (from escorting women in, to lobbying, to attending workshops). i have also attended several marches (both local and in washington) for choice, and had the honor of being selected to attend an intensive five day activist training on the issue in washington while i was in college. bottom line: every woman's body is her's and the government has no right to interfere with her health, welfare, and decision making concerning the most private of matters.

i encourage everyone who is passionate about this issue to take part in blog for choice day. and please please please remember to vote. this election is crucial. roe v. wade has never been so close to being overturned.

i'm feeling all political tonight. this reminds me of some of the same feelings i had when i got back from the march for women's lives in DC in 2004. i was reading an email that i sent my family and friends after that event. i'm going to post it here as well simply because it makes sense on a night like tonight.

( my firsthand report from the march for women's lives, washington, DC, april 2004 )

if only we had won that election in 2004... *SIGH*

i was so optimistic.