Plan B (Or, Better Safe Than Sorry)

What an awesome name. Plan B. So succinct, so simple.

And what a great invention. Seriously. Forget a pill? Plan B. Condom broke? Plan B. Something awful happens to you? At least you won't get pregnant. Just plain wanted to have sex and didn't use any protection? At least you don't have to spend the rest of your life regretting those 15 minutes.

I've always been slightly paranoid about having one of those accidents. I've also always been, like, really in tune with my body so there never was a real worry. The closest I ever got to a pregnancy scare was when The Ex and I spent the weekend volunteering at a family fair for my internship and then went to see Knocked Up, which sparked a conversation about what would happen if I got pregnant... we discovered we had very different plans. I freaked out the next morning thinking my period was late and, despite having used birth control religiously, went to the health center at school to talk to someone. The pharmacist looked at me from above his glasses through the window and asked how late I was. I said I was supposed to have gotten it that morning. He asked if I felt like I was going to get it. I said yes. He told me to wait it out and come back in a day or so if I was still worried. I got my period hours later. I think part of the reason I was so worried even though I had absolutely no reason to be was because I don't fully understand how the little sugar pills in each packet work.

Anyway, back in January I decided to take a little hiatus from hormonal birth control. Turns out, the pill I was on was just not jiving with my body and I've felt way better off it. On the other hand, all that left the boyfriend and I with was condoms. 

And seeing how this post is titled Plan B, you can assume how that worked out.

Back to my not so scary scare story: even though I had no real reason to worry, I still did because the consequences of not taking action were pretty severe. Back then I wouldn't have had an abortion, which would have left me knocked up in college. Awful. Now the first thing I'd do is make that appointment, brave the picket lines, and get that abortion. Slightly less awful, but still not something I'm eager to do. So if there is any real chance I could become pregnant I need to do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen. This is just one of those things I would worry incessantly about. I even had a backup stash of Plan B from a visit to Planned Parenthood a couple years back, but that had expired close to a year ago. So last week I went to Planned Parenthood and bought the Peace of Mind pill. 

And it was OK. I was expecting a lot more to happen... nausea, cramps, pain... nothing. The nurse told me to take it with food, and I could kind of feel something weird going on, but it's been a while now and it was not the experience I was afraid of.

So... good.

Although, I was also warned some changes to my period might be expected. It could come early. Or late. Or be heavier than normal. Or lighter. Or not come at all. Or be exactly the same. So there's that to worry about.

In the meantime, I had to cancel an appointment with a male gynecologist  (thanks UCSD for totally ignoring my request for the female doctor I had spent an hour selecting) because I'm not going to form this doctor-patient relationship with someone who does not even have the same parts, and now wait even longer to get back on reliable birth control. The only thing now is I wish Obamacare had kicked in already so it would be free. I'll have to pay for it for about a year until my insurance "requirement" starts, but at least after that it'll be free.

The Truth Behind Choice: Part 2

In my last post I wrote about two interviews on the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision; one with a woman who had an abortion and one with a woman who ran an anti-abortion pregnancy center

I admit that the interviewer, despite being on NPR Fresh Air, was asking very pointed questions at both women and she clearly had a bias. However, I will also say that it would be like interviewing an evolution-denier and trying to find legitimate questions... So I get it.

I remember hearing about the woman in the first interview, a journalist named Carolyn, when she had her abortion in 2011. She and her husband had wanted a second child, but got an abortion halfway through the pregnancy when it was discovered the fetus was severely deformed and would likely die. And while it's commendable that she's so open about her horrible experiences and willing to talk about them in order to change things, her situation is not the typical situation for women seeking an abortion. Medically necessary abortions are (almost) always given exceptions during debates about abortion, just like rape and incest: it's not the woman's fault that she needs one, so she should be allowed. But a woman who simply had sex and became pregnant, which I'd be willing to wager is the large majority of abortions, is something we're eager to debate for decades.

So few women who have gone through the abortion process are willing (or able) to be so vocal. Carolyn is able because she wanted her pregnancy, was hoping and trying for a baby and was crushed when she learned she would have to abort or condemn her child to a short life of suffering. Obviously hers was the logical, loving decision. But a woman who simply cannot afford to care for her baby, or who never wanted children and wouldn't make a good mother, or who isn't ready yet, or who just doesn't want the enormous responsibility of raising a human being is looked down upon as scum. We don't ask why women choose to have children, we just assume they should and that it's natural when they do. But it's the only thing a person will ever do that will forever alter their lives, and when half of all pregnancies are unplanned it seems it should be discussed a little bit more. I'd love for a woman to come forward in such a public manner and talk about her elective abortion. But I doubt that will ever happen.

There were a bunch of issues I had with the second interview, mostly because the interviewer was trying to get a straight answer on a few things and the woman, another Carolyn, was doing her best to paint her practice in the happiest of lights. Her pregnancy center, which counsels young girls and women on everything but abortion, advocates abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancies. They will discuss other methods of birth control, even after a woman has given birth to her unplanned pregnancy, but tell her that they're not that good or don't do enough to prevent pregnancy. (As a woman who has relied exclusively on one method of birth control at a time for years and has had zero pregnancies I can tell you they work real well.) 

But to tell women they should only be having sex if they want to get pregnant is just ignoring reality, nature, and human habit. No one tells men that they shouldn't be having sex unless they want to get someone pregnant. Plus, these centers don't discriminate against married women, which means that even if you're married they'll tell you not to have sex with your husband unless you're trying to procreate. Which means sex once every few years until you want to stop having children, then no more sex until menopause. This is ridiculous. It stands to reason that if you're not planning on having children you should never have sex. And if you're never going to have sex or have children there's no point in getting married. Or dating. Or falling in love. 

I can't help but put myself in these situations in my mind and imagine being told these things. I don't want to have kids and I'm ill prepared to have one right now. Should I become pregnant now or in the next few years I would be unable to care for it financially, but also make too much money to qualify for assistance. Even if I were poor enough to qualify for government care, telling me I should have a baby because I'd get food stamps is ridiculously irresponsible. Plus, I do want to get married. Just because I don't plan to reproduce doesn't mean I don't deserve to spend my life with someone I love. I thought the point of marriage was to commit your life to another person that you're deeply in love with, not to lock someone else into parenthood.

So, it seems like we're still running in circles around somewhat ridiculous arguments around abortion. Until politicians and ideologists realize that everyone has sex, including the politicians and the ideologists, we can make better decisions about abortion, child care, and health care in general. But until then it looks like we're stuck telling women to stop being whores for sleeping with their husbands and boyfriends. Like normal goddamn people.

The Truth Behind Choice: Part 1

Today is the 40th anniversary of the groundbreaking Roe v Wade decision that allowed women in America to legally obtain an abortion. The decision no doubt saved lives (which is slightly ironic) and provided a way for women to move up in society, rather than begrudgingly be burdened with a child she does not want or cannot care for.

You wouldn't know it, however, if you looked at politics today. For whatever reason, 40 years later abortion is a huge issue. People who have not had abortions, especially people who physically cannot have abortions, are trying very hard to dictate what those who need and want them can or not do. The amount of outright lies, in addition to the extreme ignorance surrounding abortions is disgusting. Men (and the women who back them, for whatever reason) who advocate abstinence only and pro-life in every scenario are at the height of hypocrisy: if over 95% of American adults have had sex and 20% of women (just women, mind you) are choosing to remain childless, that points to a bit of an overlap. That means there are women out there who are having sex without the intention of becoming pregnant (gasp!). In this day and age, too. Women are educated just as much as men are (sometimes more), are earning almost as much as men are, and are found in every manly profession. We're getting married later, making more important decisions, and are pretty much real people now. And some of us are having abortions. And those abortions are helping us maintain our status in life, which often is being in a position to care for the children we already have.

Today on NPR's Fresh Air two very different women were interviewed. The first woman decided with her husband that it was time to have a second child and became pregnant, only to discover halfway into the pregnancy that the fetus had a severe developmental problem that would lead to certain suffering. The second woman runs a pregnancy center called Involved For Life, which counsels pregnant women on every option except for abortion. Both women live in Texas, a state that recently made it mandatory for women seeking abortion to undergo a sonogram (women in early pregnancy endure a transvaginal sonogram because it picks up a better picture), wait 24 hours, and listen to government propaganda.

Here's a (pretty comprehensive) summary of both of the interviews:

In America there were more abortion restrictions passed at the state level in 2011 than in any prior year, and 2012 had the second highest number of state level abortion restrictions. This is a country that made it legal in every state for any woman to receive an abortion for any reason 40 years ago, and is now back tracking, making it harder and harder for women to do so. The first woman, a journalist named Carolyn, wanted her pregnancy. Thanks to modern healthcare she was able to plan when she got pregnant and made a conscious decision with the help of her husband to have a second child when they were both ready. When they went in for the sonogram (the "jelly on the belly" kind) that was supposed to determine the sex of the baby, the doctor noticed an problem. The fetus had a major neurological flaw that caused his brain, spine and legs to not develop correctly. The doctor said he wasn't sure the baby would survive. If he did, he would live a life of crippling pain and be in and out of hospitals until he died. He would always suffer.

Carolyn says in the interview that any parent understands the innate impulse to protect your child from any pain. She and her husband realized that by bringing this child into the world they would be causing him a lifetime of pain and suffering. She says that the decision to have an abortion was "a terrible, a heart wrenching choice, but also a simple choice." She wanted to prevent him from knowing a life of pain, which made it a relatively quick decision, an "almost instinctive response." But it was heart breaking.

Two weeks earlier Texas passed a law that required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a sonogram first, and then wait 24 hours. It turns out that women seeking an abortion due to rape, incest, or medical necessity (as was Carolyn's case) do not have to endure a sonogram, though her doctor didn't know that at the time. But the rest of the state requirements still apply, no matter what reason a woman is seeking an abortion, and these include:

• a 24 hour waiting period
• requiring the same doctor to perform the sonogram and the abortion (which can create a scheduling nightmare, which can result in delayed abortions) 
• the doctor must describe the fetus' characteristics to the woman
• the doctor must play the heartbeat for the woman
• the doctor must read a state-written script about the risks of abortion (that includes two parts that have been discredited) 
• the doctor must read a script describing in graphic detail the abortion process
• the doctor must read a script that informs the woman that the father is required to pay child support even if he wants the abortion and that the state may pay for maternity care.

Quite a bit of effort, no? Could you imagine going through this if you'd been raped?

Carolyn said having to hear that her baby had 4 healthy heart chambers was traumatizing. It was the only part of him that was healthy and her doctor was required to describe it to her. She said nothing anyone said or could have said swayed her in the slightest - she was making the right decision by not bringing him into a world of nothing but pain and suffering. But she noted that politicians want women to have a sonogram so they can see the life they're about to end. It's completely ideological, has no medical purpose, and does not belong in the doctor's office. After a while she couldn't take it any more - she wanted her baby and was devastated to have to have the abortion, and these state laws were horrible. The nurse in the room noticed her distress and turned up the radio. The doctor apologized for having to follow these new orders - no one in the room wanted to do this. How could someone who has no say in her personal decisions invade her private life, reduce her dignity, and give her such injustice? It still makes her angry, and that's why she writes about it so openly.

Obviously the goal of all of these obstacles is to get women to reconsider abortion. Texas slashed the family planning budget to two thirds of what it used to be in order to try to starve out Planned Parenthood. Instead, 60 small town clinics that served the poorest Texans went out of business. These clinics didn't just offer abortion services or birth control, they provided women who had no other means of health care with breast cancer screening and well woman visits.  State legislators are budgeting for an extra 24,000 births for 2014 and 2015, and need hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in their budget. (That's saying nothing about the cancer cases that won't get caught in time...)

Instead, Texas is giving the funding it used to give to clinics that performed abortions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which are usually Christian run anti-abortion centers. These centers claim to provide women in need with alternative options. As if the first thing women think of when they find out they're pregnant is "must...get...abortion." The centers convince women (most of their clients are low income women 15-24 years old) to keep their unborn children rather than have an abortion, telling them that abortions aren't the right decision for them. Medical professionals criticize these centers for giving women incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information in order to get them to keep their pregnancies.

The state of Texas takes money away from family planning centers and gives that money to centers that encourage more births to women of all ages, abilities and incomes. Oh, and those centers are not required to discuss contraception with women seeking abortion (whether or not they go through with it), and the centers most often do not provide any detailed counseling on birth control options. Seems totally counterintuitive. Abstinence is 100% effective, so anyone not willing to immediately give birth to a child should not have sex at all. Even married women.

The centers, one of which is run by the second woman (also named Carolyn), offer alternatives to abortion, counseling, ultrasound, STD screening and treatment, and parenting classes. They also have mobile sonogram units, which they park in front of abortion clinics, and offer free sonograms to women. The second Carolyn says their goal is to provide nothing but education for women. She says that often women don't know their options (a claim I find impossible to believe), and the centers provide the support these women so desperately need. I agree that women who find themselves unexpectedly and unhappily pregnant do need loads of support... but the misleading half-truths these centers are known for telling are not the kind of support women can rely on once that baby comes. Carolyn says "we do not ever mislead;" they are up front about their unwillingness to perform abortions or even refer women seeking one to a qualified doctor. In fact, she tells stories of women who become successful even after "unplanned circumstances." But a pat on the back and go-getem-girl does not raise a child...

One of the most surprising parts of the second interview was when Carolyn (the second one) said that they have to point out on the sonogram what is a baby. They actually point to the image on the screen (which she says the women say is blurry and not clear in the abortion clinics and hospitals) and tell them that is a baby. And apparently the women are surprised that that's what's growing inside them. If that's the case we need to put a lot more money into Texas schools... Carolyn seems to have her heart in the right place, which is wanting to help women, but her ideals keep getting in the way. She says, "I don't think the Supreme Court had any idea that there would be thousands and thousands of women who regret that they ever had an abortion." Yes, women must regret their abortions. If I had one I know I would. But it would be far more regret that the abortion had to happen, not that I had one. If I were in these women's shoes I imagine I would know it was the right thing to do, not just for me but for the child I would unfairly be bringing into the world. Of course there would be regret... I imagine that's almost unavoidable. But regretting the situation and regretting my actions would probably be two different things.

Carolyn, the journalist, talked about a pamphlet that these centers give out to women called "A Woman's Right To Know" which describes the abortion process in unnecessary, graphic, upsetting detail. Women are told that now that they're pregnant they're already a mommy.

Women may have a legal right to have an abortion, but those rights are being chipped away by the states. Federal funding is not allowed to go towards abortions (family planning clinics that provide abortions are in a pickle), so any clinic or center that does want to provide safe abortions to women must charge for it. Which puts the poorest women at a significant disadvantage. Oh, and birth control funding is cut, too. Carolyn, who runs the Crisis Pregnancy Center, applauds the "progressive" nature of Texas schools that make it easier for young single mothers to stay in school by providing day care, but is this not something that could be prevented with education and access to birth control? Is that not the type of information these pregnancy centers mean when they talk about providing women with resources?

The moral of the story, here, is don't have sex unless you actively want a child; don't get raped; and no matter what don't have an abortion.

Here's Part 2.

One Is Not Like The Other: Part 3

Kids are not animals. Or property.

Doggies!

The boyfriend and I took the dog to the dog park in Balboa Park on the first day of the year (happy new year!) and boy was it packed. There were dozens of dogs of all sizes and even more people wandering around. There were balls being thrown and caught, games of chase being played, and everyone - dog and person - was in a good mood. 

The boyfriend and I couldn't help laughing at the dogs standing around us: a great dane puppy who took a liking to Argo, little fuzzy somethings running around and yapping, pretty collies pausing mid-air catching a ball. We talked about our weird relationship with these animals, and wondered to ourselves how anyone could not love a dog. Which is the same thing some people wonder when we say we don't want kids. 

But how could anyone not want kids? What will you do with your lives without kids? How will you spend your money and your time without kids? How will you spend your evenings at home without kids? 

But you could replace the word kids in each of those questions with the word dogs. And I'm positive I'll be a million times happier. 

Look how happy and excited they are for a tiny treat!

Here are some differences between kids an dogs:

• I can pick out my dog. I can't pick out my kid.
• I don't have to get pregnant and fat to get a dog and it will cost waaaaaaay less to adopt a dog than a kid.
• The baby stage for puppies is a lot shorter and I can get to the good stuff way quicker.
• Dogs can be trained much faster and more effectively than kids.
• Dogs don't go to college. Or ask for cars. But they do drive! 
• A dog will always be happy to see me. A kid will sometimes be happy to see me.
• I can leave my dog with a sitter and go on vacation without hearing "you never take me anywhere - I hate you!"
• A dog will go running with me, happily. I don't know that a kid will want to once it's old enough to keep up. And if it does it will likely outpace me.

At least she can't verbalize her hatred for me.

Here are some reasons why I highly, highly doubt my thoughts on kids will change:

• When I see pictures of new babies, or see new babies in person, my thought is "oh, that's nice," or "that's a baby," or "I know I'm supposed to express happiness for you, but that's a weird looking kid." (I'm all ooohs and aahhs when it's baby animal pictures.)
• I know I'm going to be a big grumpy pants for 9 months if I get pregnant. And then again for the first several months to the first years of my baby's life.
• Babies smell. And not in a good way. And baby powder is gross.
• I've been around dogs and cats (and rats and rabbits and birds) long enough to know when something's wrong, and I know to trust the vet if it gets to that point. I wouldn't know why a baby just sits there and cries. All. God. Damn. Night. (I had colic... I can only imagine my mother's sanity.)
• I get cranky when I'm tired and hungry and parents are frequently tired and hungry.
• Having a house full of small dogs all trying their not-hardest to get along was not frustrating. Sleeping with the boyfriend and a dog and a cat in a small bed was a little frustrating. But if the house had been full of small children and we couldn't sleep because there was a crying baby I'd have had so much more alcohol.
• My wonderful boyfriend is on board with the dog train, but not on board with the baby train.

But what if I change my mind? Well, since the rest of the world is convinced that will happen within 3 years, I'll address that: 

1. If I do suddenly change my mind and decide I absolutely have to have children, I hope someone asks me if that's what I really, really want. Having gone so many years not wanting children, wouldn't it be a little weird to suddenly change my mind and want an entirely different lifestyle?  It would be like someone wanting their whole lives to go on missionary assignments around the world then suddenly changing their mind at 30 and taking a desk job in finance.
2. If I am to suddenly change my mind I hope that happens before I marry someone who doesn't want kids. Otherwise hello divorce. 
3. To address the scenario that I unintentionally become pregnant and can't bring myself to abort or give it up for adoption (because seriously... foster care?), that's my choice and one I would hope my partner would agree with. However, this doesn't change the fact that I will spend the rest of my childbearing years trying my damndest to not become pregnant in the first place.

For funzies, here is Part 1 and Part 2.

Why I Can Never Be Republican

I don't affiliate myself with any of the political parties and every time I've taken a political party test I've ended up very near the middle. I agree with some Democrat issues and some Republican issues (and green party and libertarian) and have never felt comfortable siding with one side or the other.

My leaning.

That being said, I can never call myself Republican.

There are too many causes I support that get no support from major Republicans. Women's issues, climate change, the environment, gay rights, and energy are all things that I feel very passionate about and major Republicans don't agree with, don't believe in, don't support and won't pursue. In fact, some of these causes are openly mocked, called wrong or called unimportant.

Republicans think women's issues are silly girl complaints. We already work, we already vote, we already drive, we already hold major positions at major companies... what more do we want? Wanting better access to birth control just makes us sluts and wanting to keep abortion legal makes us all future murderers. If we're raped it's because we dressed provocatively, had been drinking, had flirted, had been out late at night, had not fought off hard enough, had basically asked for it, and if it was traumatic enough we won't get pregnant (or, if we get pregnant it was because we secretly enjoyed it and wanted a baby). Even though 95% of Americans have sex before they're married (if they get married at all), half the country believes sex should only be for procreating in between married couples, which means almost half the country are hypocrites.

Republicans don't believe climate change is real. The ones that do admit the science and data behind climate change is legitimate deny that we have anything to do with it. All those coal plants in the 40s that we shut down and cleaned up? If that were to happen today Republicans would lament all those coal jobs and ignore the improvements to the environment and human health. In fact, it kind of is happening today: Republicans are working hard to save the coal industry, claiming those few thousand jobs are critical to the health of the economy, while completely ignoring that people who work with coal all end up very sick, often with cancer. But those jobs, man, those jobs are all they got. (Which is true... people in coal mines don't know how to do anything else...)

Republicans think the environment is something we should care about only when times are good and we have the time and resources to devise ways of living that do not involve destroying the only place we can live. Since the planet will live far longer than any generation conceivable now, they kind of have a point. We will all die long before the planet starts to really hurt. So it kind of doesn't matter to us as a species. But for some generations it will matter, for the other groups of people and species that share out planet it already matters, and the things we're doing now will play a major role in the destruction of the environment.

Republicans think that giving gays more rights, namely the right to marry, is an "assault on the foundations of our society." To Republicans, gays are all that is wrong with our great country. Since God says their actions are punishable by death Republicans can't fathom why we'd want to condone their behavior. They've said we should round them up and put them in cages until they die off (since they can't reproduce the gays will stop existing). One even said the government should kill them all, an idea certain idealists took to heart. So at the very least, Republicans are saying they should just be happy that we aren't doing that to them and accept the separate-but-equal "registered domestic partnership" status, where we more or less arbitrarily decide whether or not that means a gay person's partner gets to be included on end of life decisions, get to visit in the hospital, and gets custody of the children.

Republicans do believe that we should be energy independent (or they're at least publicly saying so), but all that means is more drilling on our lands. Wind energy and solar energy are scams that don't create jobs and don't create energy, and since the environment isn't something they're concerned with they see no downside to drilling in Alaska or the Gulf (even though the poor Gulf is just barely hanging on as it is). Fuck the polar bears, the tuna, the shrimp, the moose, the ground water. We don't need them anyway.*

I'm a big supporter of all those things and say so publicly any chance I get (still waiting for my Human Rights Campaign equality sticker to come...), so identifying with a party that is vehemently against all those things means I can never side with that party. I don't see myself identifying with any of the other parties, either, but hell would pretty much have to freeze over before I called myself Republican.

PS- If I've made too many generalizations in this post and the links don't satisfy you, please leave a comment with some of your own links or other support for why I'm wrong. I'd really love to not believe that there are people in positions of such great power (one of whom is trying real hard to be the leader of the country), but I so far haven't heard anything to the contrary.

*Incidentally, during my research I clicked on a link that took me to the GOP.gov energy website and got a 404 error. Telling.

Arizona Women Lose Their Privacy

Sure seems that way, don't it?

In March I (and journalists and bloggers everywhere) wrote about the proposed Arizona law that would make it possible for employers to require their female employees to provide proof of a medical condition that must be treated by birth control, and that women who don't provide this proof can be fired for using birth control for birth control purposes.

This same proposed bill was signed into law over the weekend, just in time for Arizona women to celebrate mother's day. I, naively for one, didn't think it would pass because of how ridiculous, not to mention unconstitutional, it is. If planning your family was something you wanted to do, your employer can now make that a lot more difficult. The supposed idea behind the law is to prevent employers from being forced to provide their employees with a service or product that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Supporters have said that it would be unconstitutional to force a church or religious hospital to pay for a medication that it believes is immoral, which most people might agree with at face value. But the law goes so much further than that. 

First, there's a loophole that allows any company to claim religious or moral exemption, allowing any employer to invade the privacy of any female employee or fire her for her personal life. Second, while the law does say that female employees do not have to disclose their medical records to their employer, but it's vague in how exactly these women are supposed to prove (because they do have to provide proof) they aren't taking the slut pills for their "slutty fuck-making*." Third, the bill actually removes parts of the law that this bill was designed after, namely that health insurance plans that cover other medications must also cover birth control. So now, not only do employer health insurance plans not have to cover birth control if they don't want to (Viagra is covered...), they can dictate what their female employees do with the birth control they're prescribed, over threat of losing their jobs. Oh, and anything that resembles or can be confused with abortion pills are excluded from health care plans, but that does kind of go without saying.

But hey, Arizona employers are free to practice their religion and enforce it upon their employees, so there's that. Yay America.

*Best phrase ever.

America Hates Women

Petertopia should never happen.

The United States of America, the greatest country on Earth, land of the free and home of the brave, has it out for women.

We've accepted that women are going to be in the workplace. They haven't shut up about working and voting and having a say in how business is run in this country for 70 years, and they're still having babies and taking care of the house, so we grant them this. And they might as well drive and go to college and own property, cause it just gets complicated when they get all mad that they aren't equal.

But this whole women being in charge of their sexual activity and reproductive rights? Or having either of those two things to begin with?

There are two laws proposed right now that will make it all sorts of fun to be a modern woman. The first is an Arizona law (surprise surprise) that will force women to provide proof to their employers that they are using the birth control their company insurance policies provide for medical purposes that are unrelated to preventing pregnancy. Medical issues such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome are treated with hormonal contraception, and Arizona law currently requires employers that provide medical benefits to their employees to include birth control. But not only is that being repealed (meaning health insurance no longer has to cover birth control at all), the new proposal will also make it possible for an employer to fire a woman for using birth control that a company chooses to provide for its intended purpose: preventing pregnancy.

So, religious Arizona employers who are kind enough now to include prescription birth control in their health insurance plans want to make sure that it's only a last resort type of medication, taking advantage of medical side effects. And if you can't or won't prove that you have a life threatening or debilitating medical condition and you're using company provided birth control? Fired.

Fired for not wanting to get pregnant. And being a whore.

If you'd rather keep your job and take the birth control that your company is so gracious to provide (no word on whether there's any sort of cost associated with these health plans, which means women could very well be fired for something they're paying for) all you have to do is provide your private medical records, with proof of your diagnosis and doctor-recommended treatment to your employer. Now your employer will know more about your body than most friends probably do.

No word on whether or not men will have to prove their erectile disfunction to their employers in order to get prescription Viagra.

The other proposed law is actively attacking women and accusing them of child abuse just for being unmarried. The bill proposes that a child being raised by a single mother (not father) is considered to have an abusive living situation. The sponsor of the bill, Donald Pridemore (a Republican, if you can believe that), says that women should not "jump into a divorce" and look at alternatives or try to remember why they got married in the first place. He's quoted as saying the traditional family is in crisis, and this is why what he's calling the child abuse law must exist. If you think about it, he does kind of have a point: we're letting gays marry, women have abortions, and the divorce rate is at an all time high. What is our country coming to?

He also said children living with single mothers are "20 times more likely to be sexually abused" but doesn't say where he found those statistics. I wonder how he believes the fathers of these "abused" children are free from blame: it takes two to get married and it takes two to get divorced, and if courts award sole custody to the mother, what does that tell you about the father? Seriously, this is one step away from making divorce illegal.

These bills come on the heels of two different measures that force women in two different states to have an ultrasound (not the regular kind you see in movies, the up the vagina kind) before going through with an abortion, groups everywhere denying women's right to not get pregnant, and making abortions illegal or incredibly difficult to get in other states. Pretty sure I'm moving to Canada.

The Abortion Debate

A panel of men discussing the type birth control that women are responsible for.

I inadvertently sparked an abortion debate on Facebook a couple of weeks ago when I posted a link to an article in which a Republican presidential hopeful said that not only would he work to make abortions illegal but that women should view pregnancies that are the result of a rape as a "gift from God." People have very, very opinionated views on this topic, as can be seen by the 69 very informed comments that post garnered on my wall.

One of the people commenting later posted an unrelated link to a collection of interviews from abortion providers, asking them about their most memorable patients. They talked about the very religious/anti-abortion patients who were getting, that's right, abortions. Women who ran anti-abortion groups with their schools, pro-life parents bringing their young daughters in for abortions, even one woman who brought her (black) maid in for an abortion and sat in the lobby passing out anti-abortion pamphlets to the rest of the waiting patients made the memorable lists. Incredible stories.

The people most opposed to abortion in these interviews, the ones getting abortions, were convinced that their abortions were necessary. They were convinced that the abortion providers and other patients could never understand their reason, and some even called the other patients terrible names even though they were getting the exact same procedure. They did not thank the doctor who performed the procedure and some got snotty, as if it was the doctor's fault the woman was getting an abortion. Some of these women getting procedures they did not "believe in" blamed the abortion providers to their faces and said hurtful things (some of these women were turned away). But it made me wonder why people who are vehemently anti-abortion get abortions. Could it possibly be because they find themselves in the same position many women find themselves? None of the women in these interviews said their pregnancies were the result of a rape (and certainly none of them were life-saving abortions because they occurred in clinics), which leads me to believe these same women are having the same kinds of sex that every other woman has, with the same types of partners, and the same types of accidents occur.

However, people who are anti-abortion are generally (not always, please don't harp on this word) religious, believing abortions should not be performed on moral grounds for any reason. But these same people also generally believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, and a good portion of them believe that using contraception of any kind (which absolutely baffles me) is also a sin. However, my experience has shown me that even religious women have pre-marital sex: the Catholic basketball star in my high school class got knocked up our junior year because she had unprotected pre-marital sex. The women and girls who do so are obeying a very basic, very common and very powerful urge, and possibly some are giving in to boyfriends they don't want to lose. Now, a pregnancy is really the only sure indication that a woman has had sex, so I wonder if some of these anti-abortion women get abortions to save face. They can't exactly preach abstinence if they're knocked up and unmarried, can they? So they get abortions so that no one has to  know there was ever a pregnancy or even ever pre-marital sex. Their purity remains, their future husbands will never have to know, and they won't have to give up any position they've made for themselves. The only other options are to carry on with the pregnancy and have a child out of wedlock or marry the child's father immediately. However, these women are often in the same social and financial situations as the majority of the women who get abortions. They are not in a position to get married, do not have enough money to support a pregnancy or child, and would be condemned by family members and close friends for their actions. An abortion is a great way to save face, protect their reputations and allow them to carry on with their way of life.

Maybe anti-abortion women are less likely to have a second abortion, or maybe they're more likely to acknowledge their actions and tlearn to ake precautions, like using birth control the next time they have sex. But I also wonder if they might be more likely to get a first abortion.

The good part about that collection of interviews was that one provider shared a story of a woman who changed her mind after her abortion, acknowledging that if she could get an abortion she could no longer condemn other women for making the same choice. Gives me hope that people will eventually realize that abortion is a choice that needs to be on the table, for whatever reason. Which is why access to and knowledge about birth control is very important for men and women.

Illegal Abortion

I get to use this image again!

For whatever reason, whether or not women should be allowed to get an abortion is a political issue, and some people believe there is absolutely no reason abortion should be legal, even in cases of rape (fortunately, even the craziest people think an abortion can sneak by when the pregnancy will kill the mother, but if not that would be condemning a woman to death).

But all this got me wondering: what would I do if I were raped tonight and forced by law to carry a resulting pregnancy to term? For the sake of depression, and because the thing that started this was a presidential hopeful suggesting women view babies conceived through a rape as a "gift from God," which you surely wouldn't return, I'll include raising a baby bestowed upon me by the gift of rape.

Emotions:

First, going through a rape (something I fortunately have never experienced and hopefully never will) is one of the most traumatizing things a person can experience. Some statistics say between 15-20% of the population have been raped, but I'd be willing to bet it's more than that because men who are raped almost never report it and women who are raped are often too afraid, too traumatized or don't believe it's rape because the criminal was someone they knew. Even still, at least 15% of the population has been traumatized by rape. First off, if this were to ever happen to me I'd be at the police station and hospital to report it and have any evidence collected to catch the son of a bitch. But I would be devastated. I would replay it in my mind again and again, trying to come up with something I did wrong, some way I could have prevented it or stopped him. It would depress me intensely, most likely affecting my sleep, my day to day activities, and most certainly my relationship. As much as I can say now I wish I were stronger than that, sex would be entirely different after a rape, and there's no way that wouldn't be an issue. And if the rape resulted in a pregnancy and I was forced to carry it?

Money:

I currently make about enough to pay rent, utilities, car payments, car insurance, cell phone, food and gas with just enough left over to put aside for taxes in April and car insurance in July. Other than what I'm currently saving, which is already ear marked, I have no savings. I would have to keep my current job, even though it does not provide any benefits whatsoever, because no company would hire a woman about to need medical leave in 9 months. This would mean that any time I needed to go to the doctor or felt too sick to work would be unpaid, and my eventual maternity leave would be 1-3 months of no income. Plus, I would likely lose my job during the leave (they would have to replace me) and finding a job that paid decently or maybe even one that provided benefits would be next to impossible as a brand new, single mother who will need flexibility to care for her baby.

In addition, I have no health insurance so all those required doctor's visits would be debt under my name. Of course, I would have to have health insurance for myself and my baby once it's born, but I couldn't exactly go get pre-natal insurance after I got pregnant, now could I? My credit limit is $5k, which isn't anywhere near enough to have a healthy baby in a hospital. Actually having the baby would cripple me, and if there were any complications whatsoever I would never recover from the debt. Diapers, a car seat, baby clothes, and whatever else you buy for a baby (even Target maternity clothes are expensive) would be beyond my current budget, which would change to zero once I became unemployed.

I could cash out my stock, but it would only be a temporary fix and only enough to cover basic doctors visits or maybe the time I would be unemployed, if I somehow found a job soon enough. Plus, cashing out would affect me at tax time, so the benefit would be further diminished.

(Should I decide to give the baby up for adoption and happen to actually find a couple willing to adopt my rape baby, they would most likely pay for my medical bills and giving birth. However, they would probably not pay for sick days when I was puking or at the doctor or for maternity clothes. And they definitely would not pay for a gym membership so I could work on getting my body back and try going back to my normal life.)

Life:

I would be forced to move out of my current apartment and find a studio or 1-bedroom apartment, which is already something I can't afford, much less after at least a month of unemployment and thousands in medical bills. I could probably move back to my hometown and rent out a room in my mom's house, but I would still need a job to pay for rent (which wouldn't be much cheaper than a place in San Diego) and baby stuff (and like I said, I have no savings). Plus, it would involve leaving my friends, my boyfriend and my life in San Diego.

Speaking of boyfriend, that would most likely end. I feel fortunate to be with someone who feels the same as I do about having kids, but unfortunately for this hypothetical situation that's that we don't want them. Even if my boyfriend wanted to be supportive and helpful, I could never ask him to stay when I have a baby that belongs to a rapist, not to him. Being pregnant is enough of a strain when the baby belongs to both people in the relationship, but a rape and a pregnancy together would be too much.

Things I Would Give Up:

All hope of getting my Master's degree (student debt on top of medical debt? Yeah right.), my dream job (taking any job without considering the flexibility, the benefits, the day care), possibly freelancing, traveling, having a horse, spending any time taking care of animals for a living, and having anything else that goes along with the somewhat exotic lifestyle I want.

My whole life would be living so that a baby I never wanted would have a chance at a decent life because, despite it just being the right thing to do if you bring a child into the world, it's against the law to neglect it. I suppose I could just go on welfare. Let all the other taxpayers pay for me and my baby, and just not work. God, this is depressing.

I might also have to let go of what I hope a marriage would be like. Dating wouldn't be for me anymore, it would be to find a husband who would be a good father for my rape baby, who would not have a father. Not to mention, between working and raising a baby I'd never have time to actually date. Meeting a man who already has a child (and probably an ex wife) would most likely be my only option, and then date nights could be movies at home with the kids. Lounging in bed for hours, making brunch and mimosas on Sunday at noon, hanging out writing this blog, spending time on Reddit, and  staying out late at a bar will be things of the past. And forget reading. Well, forget reading anything at my reading level. 

Additional Comments:

Should I ever be raped (which I'm just going to hope never happens... keep my wits about me, stay out of creepy dark alleys...) I really hope the criminal wears a condom. Fortunately as far as pregnancies go I'm already on birth control and have access to Plan B, so the chances of me becoming pregnant are pretty slim. But there's sexually transmitted disease and the trauma to worry about, one of which I will most assuredly have to deal with. The bottom line is rape is something so truly awful and should never happen to anyone, but that's unfortunately not the world we live in. I just hope I'm never forced to bear the consequences of someone else's criminal actions.

No Excuse for Abortion

A person.

A proposed law in Mississippi will make it illegal to have an abortion except to save the mother's life. The new law will define "personhood" as a fertilized egg. Not even a growing fetus- a fertilized egg, two cells that haven't even implanted yet, which haven't even grown and don't have any nourishment in order to have a life. A fertilized egg will have full legal protection according to the law, which means it has the same rights as you and I and a person can be prosecuted for harming a fertilized egg. Including the mother carrying the fertilized egg.

So what if she has a natural miscarriage? Will it seem suspicious if she's unmarried? Or what if she does harmful things (drinking, eating mercury-laden fish) because she doesn't realize an egg has been fertilized? Sometimes women go weeks or even months before realizing they're pregnant, and if a fertilized egg is a person then a woman could be jailed for unknowingly harming or killing a "person."

What about birth control methods that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting? Or medical treatments that are lifesaving for a person but damaging to a fertilized egg? Even IVF is going to be sketchy under this law (and IVF is for people who want to have babies): an egg is fertilized outside of the uterus and then inserted in the hopes of implantation. Several eggs are used at once to increase the odds that one will implant and turn into a fetus and then into a baby. But what happens to those extra eggs? This new law will make it illegal for them to be discarded, which could mean parents who really want one baby might be forced to have several at once.

What about rape or incest? This new law insists that a resulting pregnancy will be more blessing than reminder of the rape, that women who go through with the pregnancy are happy they did, women who choose abortion regret it, and hey, there's always adoption (because there are so many families just waiting for an unwanted rape baby). One woman is standing up in favor is this proposed law, saying she is a rape survivor and regrets the abortion she had 13 years ago. Her words? "Rape is no excuse for abortion." She believes that what she did to her baby (the two cells that found each other in her uterus much like a tumor) was far worse than what her rapist did to her. And maybe it was. Maybe her 31 year old self is now regretting the baby she could have had at 18. But at 18 years old could she really have been in a good position to raise a baby she was forced to have? Does he really believe forcing other 18 year old women to have their rapists babies is for the best?

My biggest gripe with people who are so anti-abortion/pro-life as to want to legislate it and make it a crime for others to choose a different outcome is that adoption is always used as a fall back. Just have the rape baby and give it up for adoption, as if a life in foster care is good enough.

Maybe I'm just biased because I grew up knowing I was planned for, wanted (at least by one parent), provided for and taken care of, but I think all children deserve the same chance I got. Growing up in foster care, or in poverty because the mother had no choice but to give birth at a time she wasn't ready, or knowing you're unwanted and a burden, doesn't make for healthy productive adults. Sure there are those success stories of people who started out in shitty childhoods and became something great but they're not the majority. Shouldn't all kids be wanted? How would it feel to grow up in foster care because your mother couldn't bear looking at you because half your DNA and physical features belong to her rapist? How would you feel knowing our father was a rapist and probably has no idea you even exist? It doesn't seem reasonable to me. And that's why I believe the option to abort a fertilized egg or fetus should remain legal. It just means there's a choice, it doesn't mean that legal abortion becomes mandatory. If you want to have the baby you conceived after being raped you can, but if you decide that's an undue punishment you don't have to, and if you don't want an abortion but don't want a baby you can give it up for adoption. Three options to choose from, since no one chooses to be raped.

But that's just me. And if this thing passes Mississippi will be even more missable.

Who's Seen Jezebel?

Condom pics FTW!

I have a tendency to be attracted to websites that make my blood boil. Jezebel is the latest, and in one day had articles on sex ed, accidental pregnancy solutions, health insurance, and gender differences in infants. Oy vey!

Those second two articles were informational: a health care question and answer session with a representative from PolitiFact and how you're most likely influencing your baby's behavior without realizing it. The former was quite interesting, though many answers were "well, the bill isn't out yet, so I really can't say" and the latter was something I learned a lot about in my sociology of gender classes. I do believe parents have an influence in their kid's behaviors, even though I was tomboy and my sister was girly and we're 20 months apart...

Those first two articles were mostly about retarded people ruining good things. Conservatives don't want their kids knowing their genitals have a purpose and thus should not be touched ever under any circumstances until marriage, and conservative Christians want all babies conceived to be born, but if it's white and healthy the mother should not be allowed to raise it even if she wants to.

It amazes me that parents are so terrified of talking to their spawn about their body parts. At the Park guides aren't allowed to go into any real detail on reproduction if there's a kid on the tour, despite it being a breeding facility. Because "penis" and "vagina" and "sex" are bad words kids don't have any real concept of what reproduction is until their own hormones (and classmates) are telling them to just do this one thing and because they're teenagers they want to do it because it's "bad." I think learning about reproduction through animals would be a great way to segue into learning about human reproduction and maybe kids would not only better understand it, but better put it into perspective and make better decisions. A former boss told me her 4th grade daughter was taking a sex ed class and a male classmate opted out. She worried the boy would later seduce her daughter, and be ignorant about condoms (or worse, being scared of them) and her daughter might become pregnant in high school. If a kid ever asks me where babies come from the stork will not be part of my explanation. Neither will God, for that matter...

It also amazes me that people are so willing to take advantage of others in the name of God. I firmly believe women should be informed about every possible option to an unwanted pregnancy and should be allowed to make the choice they feel is best for themselves and the embryo/ fetus/baby/sea monkey. Abortion isn't the most glamorous option, but sometimes it's best. Planned Parenthood provides great information on adoption, parenting and abortion and even counsels you to steer clear of the crisis pregnancy centers!

Women who are considering these options probably don't have too many options themselves: as much as no baby deserves to be killed no baby deserves to be brought into an unloving world. (Not to mention some people just shouldn't be parents, and in those cases I say have that abortion and get your tubes tied!) Adoption could be a wonderful prospect for women who can't bring themselves to abort a fetus but also can't bring themselves to raise a baby; I respect and applaud everyone willing to adopt a baby who would otherwise be unwanted and unloved.

Bumper Stickers

Let it be known I hate bumper stickers. It's the most pretentious way to let me know what your opinions and beliefs are and try to convert me while I'm stuck behind your ass in traffic. Today I saw a car with 3 bumper stickers about abortion. The most annoying was the image above. Allow me to point out its flaws:

1. Mary was a virgin. Virgins don't generally get pregnant spontaneously.
2. Mary didn't even know she was pregnant until the angel came and told her. Remember, this was pre 95% accurate pregnancy tests.
3. The angel told Mary she was carrying God's child. If an angel told you, as a virgin, that you were carrying God-made-manifest wouldn't you listen?
4. The angel also visited her fiancee, Joseph, and told him to man up even though it wasn't his kid. Joseph was a good dude and listened to the angel and raised Jesus until he was at least 12 years old.
5. The bumper sticker implies that being pro choice means you automatically have abortions. Pro choice only means you are for the concept of women having the legal ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to term. I could never have an elective abortion, but I think all women should be able to make that decision for themselves. I'm also a stable person and not everyone is.
6. The bumper sticker also implies that the holiday of Christmas would be the only thing missing if Mary aborted Jesus. I assume the woman who drove the car believes that all children and embryos and sperm are gifts from God and should be cherished, but the bumper sticker she so proudly displays insinuates all she'd miss is a day off work.
7. Since Christmas is no longer the sacred remembrance of our Savior's birth, but more like a commercialized way to show how much others mean to you by placing a price tag on an annual gift, maybe it wouldn't be such a terrible thing to not have a Christmas. Mind you, I love the Christmas season where people are generally in a better mood (save for family squabbles), even if only because of anticipation of presents (I hope I get a pony!), but it's gotten so out of hand. 
8. Easter is supposed to be the more sacred and important Christian holiday because Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead is what Christianity is all about (correct me if I'm wrong). Christmas is like Hanukkah: just not as important as Passover. So whoopdeedoo.