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.

Why The World Might Actually End

End of the world prophesies and predictions are everywhere these days and each one passes as if nothing changed. And that's because nothing has changed. But I'm beginning to think it's not really that far off.

Our ethics and morals the world over are fucked. This might not come as news for a lot of people, but the part that scares me the most is that we know our ethics and morals are fucked, but we're doing absolutely nothing about it.

We think saving the planet is weak.

Possibly the most important thing for us as a species to be concerned about is the planet we live on because, despite what movies predict, we won't be inhabiting the moon or mars or the space station or anything other than this one planet we have. I mean, maybe in a few thousand years. But not before then, if ever. So it would make sense to recognize that we don't really have a choice but to be good stewards of the planet. It would also be awesome to not be so goddamn self centered and think about what those future generations are going to deal with, but I do realize that's asking a lot. For whatever reason.

Thing is, though, we're not just protecting the planet for our great grandchildren, or our grandchildren, or even our children. We're not getting out of our very own lives without some serious consequences. Not just if we don't start protecting it now. It's already too late. It's very, very likely I'll never see a wild elephant. In a few years they'll be extinct in the wild, and while elephants can be reintroduced into the wild eventually, too much has to change for that to be a viable option. War has ravaged their habitat for decades - that's not just going to stop because elephants need to be reintroduced. The demand for ivory has only been growing (which infuriates me to no end - there truly are no words to describe my anger at a whole generation of people whose frivolous purchases fuel murders and extinctions), and as soon as elephants are back on the market they'll be poached before they can reproduce. We'll also lose the Arctic circle, which means bye-bye polar bears. Because the planet is warming every year the ice will never return, which means reintroduction of anything in that area is impossible.

We blame unpopular victims.

It seems like the whole world has adopted a boys will be boys attitude about how we treat our fellow people. I don't know if I've just been paying more attention the last couple years, but it seems like more and more high profile people are raping and getting away with it. Raping students, raping children, raping and taking pictures. And it's ok, cause no one calls them out. No one punishes them. It's no big deal. 

And you know what we do then? We blame the victim. Woman out at a bar gets raped? Shouldn't have worn whatever it was that she wore. Woman walking home alone gets raped? Shouldn't have been out alone. Woman with her friend on a bus? Shouldn't have had a vagina. Seriously, that's all it is. It should not matter how much the girl was "asking for it" with her clothes or actions or existence. When did simply having a vagina come to mean you are a receptacle for everyone else's whims? Why on earth does it matter what a woman wore to a club on the night she was raped? Why does it matter that she had sex with someone else the night before? Why does it matter that she consented before that one time? Why do we argue whether or not it was rape if she was passed out? Or too drunk to stand? Or she agreed at the bar but changed her mind at home? How desperate do boys have to be to think that all of those situations equal legitimate sex? Are they afraid of rejection? Do they feel entitled because they got her a cab? Do they really believe we ask for it? I used to love wearing overalls when I was a kid (and in high school... shut up, it was cool). But I was told to be careful when wearing them because the back strap was easy to cut with scissors and all a rapist would have to do is yank them down, and it'd be just like I was wearing a skirt. I was literally told I could be raped for wearing overalls.

We tax the poor.

At least in America we argue over who should be taxed and how much everyone should pay. I'm not willing (or able) to get into the details of the tax exemptions that expired at the beginning of the year or how that will affect me and the rest of the country (partially because I haven't seen an effect yet), but I do know that the vast majority of Americans will take home less money right when many of us were thinking we were home free. It's been a true struggle for years for all of us and most people are starting to climb out of the hole we found ourselves in a few years ago. But to now see less of our paychecks? I do know that our economy is not all better just yet - taking more money out of the hands of people who do the buying can't be the best idea. Then again I'm not a politician, so I don't know the nuances of why that's an arguing point. 

But it disturbs me to see our politicians arguing over how to spend the money we do have. Congress argued over relief money for Hurricane Sandy. Excuse me, super storm Sandy. It got downgraded from hurricane to super storm, depriving homeowners from their insurance money. Because they were only insured for hurricane damage, not super storm damage. So the insurance companies are bullshit, and Congress trying to decide whether or not to be good goddamn people and put aside a little extra for a natural disaster is extreme bullshit. I honestly do not understand why, whenever we're talking about the budget and where we're allowed to allocate money, why why why schools and Planned Parenthood and disaster relief and infrastructure are the first things on the chopping block when Congress makes fucking good money for the measly amount of work they do. While their constituents, who they talk about all the goddamn time, work 40 hours a week at at least one job (many work more than that at multiple jobs) to make rent and feed ourselves and our kids, congress members get whole months off and spend their work days bickering and arguing over which of the poor gets money, meanwhile enjoying perks like government cars and phones, and some have even better perks. I don't see why Congress deserves the pay they get. They should receive the same pay as cops and firefighters or at the absolute minimum have penalties that affect their pay whenever they put off doing their jobs.

We argue over the wrong things.

Gun laws have been talked about more than ever since 20 kids were murdered last month. Gun enthusiasts refuse to admit that guns kill people, despite studies and records every year that say otherwise. Guns are more likely to kill someone the owner had no intention of killing than they are of being used for their intended purpose, yet people still want to have them around. In their homes, with their children, cocked and loaded. In fact, politicians are making it easier for those with mental health issues to obtain guns legally and want to make it illegal for physicians and psychiatrists to caution against gun safety. 

And we're also still arguing whether gays should be allowed to marry. Whether two grown adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together be allowed to wed gets just as much debate as whether or not mentally unstable people should be allowed to have military style, automatic weapons that cause mass murder. This is utterly ridiculous and says more about our morals and ethics than anything else. 

The world has to be coming to an end. It's 2013 and it feels 200 years earlier.

Another Word On Gun Control

Since I am a writer and I have a blog, and since I am American and human and disgusted at the violence against children we value so highly, I'm going to weigh in on the gun control debate that is consuming our country. (Spoiler alert: gun nuts may want to stop reading right about now.)

The gun control debate is a distraction.

That we're even arguing about gun control and gun rights in the wake of 20 dead children and 8 dead adults is ridiculous. I've been reading about guns and gun rights and gun ownership and gun violence every day for a week and have heard the full range of opinion from all sides. In the end, I've decided "gun rights" is an oxymoron. Americans should not have the right to own a gun. No one should have the right to own something designed exclusively to kill.

But what about protection? While guns may be purchased under the assumption that they will only be used in cases of self defense (for example, in a home invasion or robbery), guns are not typically used for protection. Guns settle escalating arguments (hardly a noble motive), guns provide a means for letting out anger against another person, guns are used against friends and family members, and guns are fired accidentally during play or cleaning or "empty" threats. But guns are not used - widely, at least - to protect their owners. Sure, there are some people who are able to defend their lives and property against someone else with a gun because they have a gun, but those people are in the extreme minority.

But what about hunters? I don't know many hunters, but the ones I do know use more traditional weapons - single bullet rifles (or bird shot), knives, single line fishing rods, etc. I do not know of a hunter who uses or claims to need an automatic weapon for hunting. Nor have I ever heard of a hunter who claims to rely on an automatic weapon. In fact, hunters widely take pride in their skill at killing a fleeing animal with a single shot (or maybe two). Blindly shooting into a forest to kill a deer and anything else in your path is not a skill, and is not the point of hunting (any hunters out there are welcome to correct me). There are rules, regulations, and etiquette that hunters follow, and those who deviate are fined, banned and/or ridiculed by their fellow hunters. A "hunter" who shoots up a deer half a dozen times and uses absolutely no stealth, strength or aim to kill is not the same as a hunter who tracks and cleanly kills a deer causing almost no disruption to the rest of the forest. A hunting rifle will have 5 or 6 bullets in the magazine, while a military style automatic weapon (of similar structure) will have a magazine that can hold dozens, if not hundreds, of bullets.

But what about the second amendment? Bullshit. In all likeliness, the 2nd amendment was not created so that all citizens can freely carry automatic weapons, hidden in coats in public places armed with bullet proof vests and military armor, it was created to ensure a prepared military. Which we have. In fact, we have the most highly trained military in the world, full of fucking volunteers, who want to do nothing but be in the military. Our country spends more money arming and preparing the several branches of our military to respond to any situation imaginable. There's no chance that many millions of people, most of whom probably join the military to protect the American people, would go along with a government take-over that the seemingly paranoid NRA believes could happen.

But what about my freedom and right to own a gun? If your freedom to own a gun - something that's sole purpose is to kill - means that my freedom and right to live is at risk, I'm going to argue that your freedom is less important than mine. Because by law it is. The NRA saying that we need more civilians to be armed with guns to prevent murders from happening means I need to rely on others to protect me. Since no one is saying every American should have and carry a gun those who are uncomfortable with that prospect don't have to carry one. But it also means that we can't stop certain people from having and carrying guns, if it's a right bestowed on all Americans, which means I'm at the mercy of all those potentially unstable gun toting citizens. But hey, that's their right, right?

So what if it's unlikely that I'll actually use the gun I bought for the reasons I said I bought it, I still have the right and still want the opportunity to use a gun for those reasons. Again, I have to call bullshit. If you know that a gun at home is far more likely to kill a family member (or yourself) than an intruder and you still want one, you're not thinking clearly. And anyone who is not thinking clearly should not have a gun. Let's, for argument's sake, say you buy a handgun for protection against home robbery. Let's say you wake up in the middle of the night because you  hear someone coming into your home (and let's assume it's not your kid coming back late, the dog making a racket, or someone you know doing something completely innocent) and you have your handgun at hand. Because you're worried about protecting yourself, you don't keep your gun in a safe, and it's always loaded. After arming yourself, you creep down the hall to where you hear the intruder. It's dark, but you obviously can't turn on any lights. You find the suspect in the living room, snooping around. Fortunately, he hasn't noticed you yet, so you have the advantage. You shoot. What are the odds you hit? Perhaps the gun had more of a kickback than you remembered the last time you used it. Perhaps it was darker than you thought and the suspect was the easy chair, which now has a nice hole in it. Perhaps your hand was shaking at the prospect of killing a person (even an intruder) and you missed entirely. Perhaps you hit the person but didn't kill him or her. What now? You're in your PJs, the intruder has every advantage now. Chances are the intruder will now fire at you, and because he or she is more accustomed to holding and firing a gun and because he or she has grown accustomed to the darkness, you're hit. You may not die, but now the intruder is gone and you need an ambulance. And that's the scenario if all goes well. If the "intruder" is your kid or your dog or someone you don't want to kill you're totally fucked if that bullet finds its target. If, because you want easy access to it in case of an intruder you don't keep your gun in a safe, someone else finds the gun and accidentally kills themselves or someone else, will you still advocate owning a gun for protection? No one can answer this until it happens. You absolutely cannot speculate how you would feel until your kid or your parent or your spouse, or even your dog, is dead because you had a gun.

Yes, people will still kill people even if no one has a gun. But it'll be a lot, lot harder. Kids won't accidentally die after finding a gun kept for protection, arguments won't escalate to the point that someone grabs his gun, 20 children won't die in 15 minutes because someone had a gun. Yes, we'll still have cars and knives and bombs and cross bows and even airplanes that will kill mass people. But not more than 8 thousand people in one year. And that's the point. No one is saying that we will eliminate murders or suicides if we eliminate guns.  But there will be far, far, far fewer.

Why Obama Will Be Reelected

If the Democrats like it we hate it!

Alright, hush. I'm not a politician or political analyst, but I am an American and I have an opinion and you're on my blog anyway.

No secret that I'm a fan of Obama and lean to the left on a lot of social issues. I voted for him and I think he's doing some pretty great things. At the very least, he killed Osama bin Laden, stood up for gay marriage and is trying to get Americans better access to healthcare, which is something I need to start researching. I get really frustrated with the Republicans in office who have all but come out and said that if the President supports it they will oppose it, regardless of how good of an idea it is. Case in point: Mitt Romney (the supposed Republican presidential candidate, but we'll get into that in a minute) enacted nearly the exact same health care plan for Massachusetts when he was governor and now has nothing good to say about it, even though if he were really all about the country he would openly agree the President has a good idea and that he supports it (to be fair, he did once do exactly that, but now that he's trying to get the president's job he's backtracking, saying the exact thing he did for his state, which was good then, would be bad for the country). But you can't do that in an election year, and I guess Republicans can't be caught agreeing with a Democrat or all the kids in school will pick on him.

I miss my old gynecologist.

The biggest reason I think Obama has it in the bag is that Republicans so far don't even have a contender. FYI, guys, it's July. Pick someone already. Acknowledge that Romney is your guy or find your knight in shinning armor, like, now, cause it's getting down to it. Didn't McCain get the nomination in February or some other really early month? And now it's July and the GOP still can't admit they're going to back Romney? Even though every other candidate has bowed out of the race? If even the Republicans don't like him, what chance does the party have? There aren't enough I'll-vote-for-anyone-but-Obama-because-I-don't-want-to-wear-a-burka votes out there to make that matter.

The second biggest reason is that in the middle of an election year Obama is growing a pair and taking a stand on some super controversial subjects which has got to drum up favor among supporters and those who say he's been lax. First, he openly declared his support for gay marriage. While he can't just go make it law, much to the relief of our Christian overlords who feel the need to legislate our private lives, he says he believes this is the major civil rights issue of this time and that he will do what he can to give the same rights and privileges to gay Americans as the rest of the country receives. Applause, sir. Way to stand up and stick it to the fundies where it hurts. I still don't understand what's so horrible and awful about gays marrying the ones they love (please, someone, explain it to me in a rational manner that doesn't involve quoting the Bible), and I'm glad the President feels the same way. Which, to clarify, is that religious beliefs don't mean squat, and civil rights are civil rights.

Mr. Obama is also pushing for his Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, now that the Supreme Court says he can. Now, I don't know enough about the bill, and do not have the time/energy to research it right now, but I do know enough to say that I can't make a decision one way or the other about whether I support it. I know it will require every American to have health insurance and there will be a fine (or tax, if that's what you want to call it) for those who "opt out," which may be plenty cheaper than actually having insurance. I also know individuals and employers will still keep their plans if they want, that insurance companies can't deny a claim based on a pre-existing condition or drop people for no reason, and that Americans will have to choose between a private insurance company like we have right now or the to-be-created government option (unless that got cut... again, need to do my research). On the one hand, I would love to have health insurance. I'm clumsy as fuck and it's really only a matter of time before I need stitches or a cast, and it'd be nice to not be in debt up to my ears for something like that. And I really need to see a dentist. But on the other hand, I am a pretty healthy young person and have not been to the doctor (except for the gynecologist, but that's taken care of thanks to Planned Parenthood) in years. Years. Not since I was in college. Except for that one time I went to Urgent Care for eczema, and that was over 3 years ago. So, I dunno if that's something I really need to pay over $100 a month for, considering how often I'd use it.

Damn sluts trying to have sex and not get pregnant!

He's also trying to bring a human side to America's illegal immigration problem, which some believe is going to be the absolute death of our country. Illegal immigrants who came here with their parents before the age of 16, who either are successful students or served in the American military, who pose no criminal or security threat, will get a 2 year reprieve from being deported. I'd say that if an immigrant served in the military he or she should be granted citizenship, but for some reason that's not enough proof that they'd be good citizens. Plus, it's not even like he's giving them anything more than a chance to finish school, finish serving, or start the citizenship process.

I think Obama's actions during this election year are going to speak to pretty much everyone except the fundies: the young, the gay, the female, the foreign, the sick, the poor, the educated, and probably even a few of the religious, too. His actions seem rooted in what he believes is best for the country as a whole. While he may be singling out some religious groups with his support of gay marriage and his requirement that employers cover birth control (which they're exempt from anyway... another thing someone needs to explain to me), he's embracing the gay population and almost the entire female population. He's telling young immigrants that he won't punish them for the crimes of their parents. He's telling sick people they won't be turned away from affordable care just because they're sick. I can get behind that. 

But what do I know? I'm a young woman with gay and foreign friends, so I clearly don't know what's good for my country.

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.

Government Endorsed Crime

Can't touch this.

Not that it will pass but this New Hampshire bill makes me very excited. Lawmakers in that state want to make the TSA pat downs and x-ray scanners sexual assault. Yay!

The new law will read:

An act making the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person's breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault. This bill classifies persons convicted of the offense as tier III offenders under the criminal offenders registry.

Hells yes.

Again, not that it will pass. And here's why: the TSA is a federal authority, and federal regulations trump state regulations. So even if the bill does pass it would be taken down within months because it's unconstitutional to have a state law in conflict with a federal one. Also, if we're going to force TSA agents to rely on suspicious behavior then we open up the racial profiling can of worms. A simple way around this would be to train TSA agents on the psychology and body language of suspicious people, but noooooooo, that's not what TSA does.

I'm just glad there are some law makers who are as angry about this whole ordeal as I am. Thee body searches seem like the biggest invasion of privacy and the fact that they're government sanctioned makes me sick. Does Canada have body scanners and obnoxious (and invasive) pat downs?

EDIT: Texas introduced a similar bill! Except this article says airports are regulated by the state governments, not the Federal government. Maybe these laws have a chance after all!

Moving To Canada

If I ever become Canadian I'm getting this tattoo. I think I've said this before...

Canada is looking better and better the more I learn. Two news stories between yesterday and today made me absolutely disgusted with America.

The first was a story about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision to not alter wording in a regulation that prohibits the broadcast of false or misleading information. Canada actually has a rule that says you can't fucking lie on TV or radio. Apparently this whole thing is being called into question because back in 1992 (yeah, almost 20 years ago) some guy said the Holocaust never happened and argued that his right to freedom of expression meant he couldn't be charged for disseminating false information. Now they want to change the wording so it only applies to broadcasters who know the information is false or misleading and when "reporting it was likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public." But that's not journalism; anyone who uses his or her position in the broadcasting industry to deliberately report false or misleading information, especially when it could cause damage to lives or industry, should at the very least lose his or her job and possibly even be jailed, depending on how severe of a lie it is. It is the responsibility of journalists, in radio, print and TV, to double check the accuracy of the statements and stories they report and be confident enough to stand behind their research. This new wording would allow someone to report misleading or inaccurate information and hide behind the "I didn't know it wasn't true" loophole. If journalists aren't doing their jobs where does that leave us?

Enter Fox News.

Widely touted as the "only fair news source" by right-wing crazies who insist our president is an African-born Muslim (also the Antichrist... are they still on that?), Fox News has been caught red handed in a number of lies, the most recent one in which the president, Roger Ailes, convinced a number of employees to lie to Federal investigators about an affair that would have embarrassed Ailes buddy Rudy Giuliani in his presidential bid. Fair and balanced? Oops.

Canada calls Sun TV News "Fox News North" for it's "fair and balanced" agenda, and it's easy to see the connection with a tag line like "Hard news and straight talk." Sun TV has been trying to get into Canada, and this new rewording of the regulations would allow them to hide behind the law in their attempts at creating chaos. Here in America we have 2 parties who will do anything to embarrass the other, creating a near-impossible situation for genuinely fair reporting. Luckily, the people of Canada have spoken up against this rewording; they don't need or want lies over their airways.

The second story making me want to move to Canada is one from the good ol' US of A. Turns out 4 years ago House Democrats started a Green the Capitol movement to start environmentally friendly habits. According to their website they've saved nearly 1,500 trees in 2009 just by sending electronic faxes, 46 million gallons of water each year from using low-flow toilets, and 240,000 meals every month served with compostable utensils. Now that the Republicans are in control they're saying "the new majority, plastic ware is back." The good news is not all of the green measures are getting cut, but many are. Compostable utensils are out because they're not strong enough (which I don't get because I used compostable utensils all the time at the Park and they were great), but LED lights get to stay. The bottom line is many environmentally friendly habits end up saving money while also reducing our carbon footprint. Cutting them because they have an up-front cost and opting for initially cheaper (but with higher long-term costs) isn't saving anyone any money. I can't help but feel like taking away green initiatives are more about the Republicans asserting their authority and pissing off the Democrats simply because they can, neener neener neener.

It's so hard to read or hear any piece of news without being skeptical. I find myself asking who's behind the story, what angle are they working and who benefits from this information. It's not about informing the public, no matter which side is doing the talking. It's about being better than the other side. And it's getting embarrassing.

On the other hand, Canada does have one blemish I'm really disappointed about: metered Internet. WTF CANADA? Since when is this an option? We have unlimited calling and texting but now you're trying to take away unlimited Internet? This means people will not have access to basic websites if they can't afford the flash that website decides to put up. Of all the things there is now to fight for, if the US decides to follow in our northern neighbor's footsteps I will protest that to the end. I can't imagine our president, who uses fucking YouTube to broadcast his weekly address to the public, would support limiting who can visit certain websites, but I didn't even know this could ever be an issue. (Though to be fair, I also didn't know we had to have laws that say you can't broadcast a lie, so now I just don't know what to think.)

I never thought, in this day and age, in this country, that we'd be dealing with some of the issues we're dealing with. They just seem so... duh.

Somehow This Is Legal

This is how I feel.

So there's this law firm that is reserving their special place in hell early. They're buying up images that have gone viral and then tracking down and suing not just those who use those images (in blogs or personal websites) without written permission but the people who are commenting on them.

Somehow this is legal.

My hope is that the Internet, now that it knows about this, will act as a super hero, will take these guys down, and make this very obvious trap illegal. But that might not happen, since there's this loop hole that financially benefits the government. This isn't what America is all about, guys. I could very, very easily get sued (and possibly settle) for thousands of dollars for posting a picture on this blog without written consent of the owner of that image (assuming the owner is Righthaven), even though I'm not gaining anything financially from the blog or the image. Blogger's refusal to "monetize" my site could give me a leg to stand on in court, but ultimately still isn't doing me much good. And they can apparently do this without first contacting the hoster, blogger, individual and asking them to remove the image. They can just serve you out of the blue. Fucking assholes.

I think this Farker summed it up pretty well:

Jesus, now I desperately want to find places that will let me post the goatse pic, and tubgirl and lemonparty, and all the rest of the rogue's gallery. Then when they sue me, I insist that it goes to court so that they can plead with the jury to give them royalties because they own those pictures and want to protect their interest in them. I wanna blow up the pic of goatse man to wall-sized and introduce it as an exhibit, then make their experts stand next to it while they testify that AssholeLawyers.com owns this fine image, and they deserve payment any time someone posts it. Then when I lose they can get in line behind about twenty credit card companies and Sallie Mae for their big fat wad of negative equity that is my current estate.

This, and I really want them to sue 4chan. Really really really want them to. The word "epic" would be dwarfed into invisibility by the epic nature of the attack that would follow. –dahmers love zombie

TOE HAIRS! God, I'm weird.

Just to be safe, I might just start posting pictures of my cat, even if the post has nothing to do with cats. *Sigh*

Airline Woes

This photo really doesn't make me feel sympathetic towards TSA agents.

The hot topic in the news now is how the TSA sucks at doing their job. An editorial in The Guardian described a few worst-case-scenarios in which passengers were moved to tears after being mistreated by TSA agents. Women have stories of TSA agents touching their labia, even their clitoris, while doing a standard pat down. Some were so horrified during the procedure that they broke down and cried, but the pat down must go on.

With all the negative press the TSA is getting, it's a little surprising (ok, maybe not all that surprising) that they're continuing on as if nothing is the matter. As if the TSA knows exactly what we're all saying about them and is pressing on even stronger just to spite us because they know we're powerless against them. That they'll grope and prod a little bit more because we whine and complain about it.

Which sucks.

However, a small ray of hopeful sunshine has graced the world of air travel. More airports are considering switching from TSA to private security. Executives are starting to realize that passengers are very stressed when moving through airports and that's bad for business. If passengers don't get that dreaded pit-in-the-stomach feeling going through security, aren't waiting in line for hours, and don't feel violated they might be a little less apprehensive and a little more willing to fly. Granted, for some people who fly very often there really isn't much choice, and granted there will still be the same security measures, like scanners and pat downs. But if employees can be fired on the spot for inappropriate behavior and if their profits depend on getting the job done right it shouldn't feel like a rape.

And speaking of rape, there are plenty of people who have had traumatic sexual experiences who couldn't handle being treated in such a way, in public. Is there job training for those situations? What does an agent do when a woman is shaking and in tears while spread eagle for a pat down? Letting her off the hook would pose a security threat, as any person could try faking terror, but continuing could send her to therapy or cause her to never fly again. And even people who have never had any sort of traumatic sexual experience feel highly uncomfortable with the intrusive searches. Whether or not airports move towards a private security company, there needs to be a method that will appease the TSAs security standards and make passengers feel comfortable. Unfortunately, because we're left with the choice of fly or don't go where we want to go, we feel helpless and are forced to put up with extreme violations.

Maybe the TSA and airlines can share a new year's resolution: make flying safer and more comfortable for passengers.