According to Salon.com, ” the New York City subway system was hit with a series of ads from the organization Abortion Changes You. According to Metro International, they “depict either a woman saying,

‘I thought life would be the way it was before,’ or a man saying, ‘I often wonder if there was something I could have done to help her.’”

Presumably, the ads look a lot like the image above, which is featured on the group’s web site/memorial for terminated fetuses.

It is always irritating when ads mislead others when it comes to the after affects of abortion. Not every women is depressed and regrets her decisions. Not every boyfriend or husband wants to interfere with the woman’s decision. What if the women felt she made the right decision, and what if the partner supported the decision? Why do ads like these always depict the women sad and questioning their judgment? Do we change our minds? Do we regret the decisions that we make? Not often. Let’s be real here.

According to Tracy Clark- Flory, “None of this goes against the dominant pro-choice message, which is that women should be allowed to make their own reproductive choices based on what they feel is right for them. Women have different experiences of abortion and they should be allowed to make different decisions, too.”

Why can’t society as a whole understand that abortion is not something people do on the spur of the moment. A lot of thought and consideration goes into that decision, and the women that make it are brave and intelligent. I think there needs to be more ads and PSA’s that express women who are fine and happy with their decision to have an abortion.

What are your thoughts?

To read more, click here.

International Women’s Day was yesterday, but Courtney Martin over at The American Prospect wants to remind us remind us that women aren’t doing all that great domestically, either.

Martin believes that while International Women’s Day is valuable – since one would find it difficult to argue that women abroad couldn’t stand to benefit from some feminist successes – it also helps obscure the fact that women are not yet equal in our own country. She believes that it allows American feminists to take a relatively “guiltless” look at existing patriarchal structures, since we’re critiquing, say, maternal mortality in Sudan, or divorce laws in Egypt. We can argue for hours about whether women who choose to veil themselves are making an empowering choice, or whether they are, at best, simply victims of false consciousness, or worse, coerced. We are freed from having to look at our contributions to the kyriarchy.

Martin explains it better than I can:

Not only are we released from examining the ways in which sexism still affects us, we don’t have to get real about the ways in which our lifestyles, affluence, and networks keep inequality firmly in place for other American women.

Confronting privilege is a terribly difficult thing to do. I’ve gotten far better at it over the course of my feminist education/awareness, such that I am able to make an ignorant statement and correct myself immediately – I have called myself out on being sizeist and ablist more often than I can remember. Sometimes, I catch myself mid-phrase. Yet, I persist in making judgments and statements that are antithetical to my feminism. I refuse to feel guilty for these lapses; I know that being fully aware of one’s privileged attitudes is something that generally only occurs after a long learning process.

Reconciling the ways in which one colludes with the patriarchy with one’s feminism is also a learning process – there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance, stress, and anger. I’ve recently noticed how often I preface my statements with, “I think” or “Maybe”. I raise my voice at the end of statements to make them sound less authoritative. I’m trying to stop, but it’s hard to overcome such deeply ingrained behaviors. Martin says, and I fully agree, that “[i]t’s far more cut-and-dried to send a check to an entrepreneurial woman via Kiva.org than it is to examine your own daily practices and privilege.”

So I’d like to take a moment here to encourage readers to stop and examine the ways in which they are privileged and the ways in which they inadvertently oppress others. Being privileged in some ways doesn’t mean you aren’t in others, and admitting that you benefit from the privilege that cisgendered, able-bodied, thin, white-looking people get (I’m pointing a finger at myself here) doesn’t mean you aren’t every bit of the feminist you thought you were.

I want to also piggyback on Martin’s article and add that, in my opinion, another reason why days like today tend to obscure the fact that women are still discriminated against in the U.S. is that those who are feminist-wary* are able to contribute to a cause overseas, pat themselves on the back as being pro-woman, and continue to refuse to analyze the way the same patriarchal structures that oppress women in other countries function in the United States.

* This is what I like to mentally call the people I know who profess to hold progressive beliefs about equality for all (and who, in theory, do), but become combative, defensive, or totally shut down when confronted with examples of their own privilege, or when someone points out larger institutional or social forces that contribute to the oppression of those who are not white, able-bodied, cisgendered men. I think they just fail to realize that having privilege doesn’t make you a bad person, and benefiting from privilege doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t qualified to be doing whatever they’re doing.

Sonograms aren’t generally used to locate hypocrisy, but the Oklahoma House believes they should be used to make a choice.

The Oklahoma House has passed legislation that would require a physician to perform an ultrasound on a woman at least one hour prior to terminating a pregnancy. The bill, HB 2780, would also require the physician to describe what s/he is seeing in the ultrasound to the woman. The bill is expected to clear the Senate.

The requirements for the Oklahoma bill read as follows:

In order for the woman to make an informed decision, at least one (1) hour prior to a woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion on the woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or the certified technician working in conjunction with the physician, shall:
1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;
2. Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting;
3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;
4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable; and
5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with; and
6. Retain a copy of the written certification prescribed by paragraph 5 of this subsection. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.

Obviously there are huge problems with this sort of requirement, and yet 14 states currently have legislation in place that mandate ultrasounds to be performed one hour or more before an abortion. Other states, including Kentucky, are considering similar measures.

Never mind that most clinics in the country use ultrasound to date gestation and to locate the position of the embryo or fetus. Women always have the option of viewing it. Rep. Lisa Billy, author of the Oklahoma bill, sees no problem with the requirement: “The bill is necessary to provide women all of the information before they make an irrevocable decision … [HB 2780] actually provides her a choice — she does not have to view that screen.” However, the fact that the bill mandates the screen be pointed at the woman’s face means she has to actually make a concerted effort not to view it. And regardless of what she is looking at, a woman will always have to hear the physician’s (likely state-prepared) script of what s/he is viewing.

“The only purpose of this bill is to intimidate, frighten and discourage women from pretty much exercising their constitutional right,” says ACLU counselor Tamya Cox. Indeed, it is ridiculous to assume a woman who has scheduled an abortion has not completely “thought it though” and therefore needs government intervention to “help” her make an informed choice. No, these bills do nothing but create more roadblocks in the path to abortion access, not to mention add an air of rank paternalism to the clinic atmosphere. Women seeking abortions need honest, compassionate care, not more delays and paperwork.

Not surprisingly, supporters of ultrasound requirements are the same ones currently railing against health care reform in all its incarnations. It has been predominately socially-conservatives, the crux of the modern Republican Party, who author and co-sponsor ultrasound mandate bills; these are the same factions who have continuously railed against “government intervention” in our private lives during the recent debates on health care reform. I would implore these legislators to get their message straight. If their entire platform against health reform lies in a fundamental opposition to government intervention instead of just partaking in some stubborn form of political grandstanding, their continued support for government mandates in abortion care is hypocritical at best. And yet even after Congress completely sold out women’s health care in an attempt to gain Republican support, they continue to deny the American people the most moderate of reforms, still citing their complete disapproval of government intervention in health care.

In other words, the message of ultrasound requirement supporters seems to be as such: “We oppose government intervention in health care, except of course when it advances our political agenda of control over women’s bodies.”

Check out this awesome interview with Kierra featured over at Feministing today!

Last month I had the opportunity to attend a presentation that focused on the heated topic of immigration and what must be done in order to ensure that immigration reform does happen. The presentation, which was held at the Center for American Progress, was moderated by Nico Pitney (National Editor of the Huffington Post) and had Andrea Nill, Maria Elena Durazo and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga as panelists.

In a presentation that lasted approximately 2 hours, the panelists discussed the reasons for the lack of support on previous immigration bills, as well as why they think that this time the bill will be passed. They also shared their thoughts on the fundamentals of the current immigration bill introduced to Congress by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) and why this version of the bill will be a strong foundation for the final version.

Although the presentation was conducted in a very casual discussion style, the panel provided the audience with facts and information about the current bill as well as information on past immigration reform initiatives and why they failed to become law in previous years.

Panelist Maria Elena Durazo had some good insight on why it is important to reform the immigration system. As a labor rights activist, Mrs. Durazo said that unfortunately the current immigration system provides little to no rights for workers under a temporary visa status, much less for those who are here undocumented. Likewise, the fact that the last time an immigration reform took place was almost 25 years ago, says a lot about the need for an update in the immigration system.

Andrea Nill, research blogger for Thinkprogress.org, also provided some concrete information on why immigration reform should not be though of as “amnesty” and should be looked upon as an “earned path to legalization”. She explained that by providing a path to legalization in which undocumented immigrants would register with the government and be subject to background checks, the U.S homeland security would have a much easier job in identifying who poses a threat to our national security. Andrea also recognized that addressing ways to plan and control a future influx of immigrants should be included in this bill. She made a point that policy makers should look at the 1986 immigration bill, which did not have an outlined mechanism to address the influx of immigrants that came into the country during the last two decades. We must realize that a bill without a structure that focuses on future generations of immigrants will not suffice.

Another key point during the discussion was the timing of the bill. Many Latino voters are angry that president Obama backed down on his promise to pass an immigration reform during his first year in office. The panelists made it clear that the fact that during the 2008 election Latinos overturned 4 historically red states, should be enough for democrats to want to deliver their promise.

Markos (Kos) Moulistas Zuñiga made the point that in the 2004 election, first generation immigrants were more likely to vote republican. This is something that changed during the 2008 election. In a way, immigrants saw Barack Obama as someone that they could relate to. They trusted him with their futures and hoped that maybe this time the promise of immigration reform would become a reality. I know that as a first generation immigrant, I too had hope in Mr. Obama’s promise. Throughout the campaign I supported him and made sure that the immigrant communities that I worked with were aware of what he promised for the benefit of documented and undocumented immigrants. Now that more than a year has passed since he first took office, the chances of his promise becoming a reality seem slimmer and slimmer.

I know that I’m not the only person who is not only angry, but also disappointed with how the immigration reform debate has been delayed. It is time that our politicians realize the harm that they are doing by continuing to postpone the debate on this issue. According to the Center for American Progress, comprehensive immigration reform could produce up to $1.5 trillion in additional GDP and generate up to 700,000 more jobs. If the top priority in congress is to improve the current economic situation, they should be looking at immigration reform as a way to boost the economy.

Opinion polls constantly show strong support for comprehensive immigration reform among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. You too can make a difference and restore fairness to a system in crisis!

For more news on immigration go to:
http://www.americasvoiceonline.org/

Also visit the Center for American Progress Immigration link:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/domestic/immigration/

And the Reform Immigration for America website if you’re interested in learning more about how to take action:
http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/

The Chicago Tribune reports feminist, reproductive rights activist, and co-founder of the Jane Collective Jody Howard has passed away at age 69.

In the days before Roe, obtaining a safe abortion was difficult. Women often ended up with infections, perforated uteri, or worse from back-alley providers. Many women took it upon themselves to self-abort and ended up dead or unable to carry a healthy pregnancy again. Others report being mugged and raped by people who told them they would provide an abortion.

Jody Howard sought to provide women in the Chicago area referrals for abortion providers that they knew to be safe and honest. The Jane Collective eventually took it upon themselves to provide the abortions in a rented apartment. They estimate they performed 11,000 procedures themselves and never faced a serious complication.

Today, though abortion is legal throughout the United States, women continue to face financial, legislative, and personal barriers to obtaining a safe and legal abortion. 87% of counties in the United States have no provider, meaning women in especially rural areas must travel long distances to get to a clinic, and often anti-choice legislation (such as ultrasound requirements and waiting periods) forces them to make repeat visits. Around the world, the Guttmacher institute estimates approximately 219 women die from unsafe abortion every day.

Howard’s life’s work helped bridge these barriers for thousands of women. After her work with Jane, she worked on the board of the ACLU. She was a mother, an anti-racist advocate, anti-war activist, and feminist. Though the battle for unrestricted access to all reproductive options continues, Jody Howard’s work undoubtedly brought increased rights to countless women to live their lives as they choose.

A few days ago, Joy told me about The Roe Effect, a short film by Kiel Adrian Scott that follows a young woman who considers having an abortion soon after she becomes pregnant. It recently premiered on HBO.

Without sounding cliché, this is truly a thought-provoking film. If I never thought to myself, “what would I do if faced with these issues?” before watching the Roe Affect, I most certainly have both during and after.

The Roe Effect may be a good tool for advocacy and awareness groups to show their membership to reaffirm why it is so important that we fight for and keep our reproductive rights. It may also serve as a way to start the conversation with people not convinced that abortion should be legal.

Unlike some choice related films, Roe does not make it appear all too easy to receive abortion services. It reminds us that even though abortion is offered in many locations, circumstances such as clinic/provider standards, abortion law and political influences, personal beliefs, and social pressures or expectations may make it difficult.

Not wanting to give anything away, folks should be warned that the film may be hard to watch due to language, strong sexual content and violence.

For more information about the film, check out the film’s profiles on Facebook and the Internet Movie Database (IMDB).

For more information on theories about the social and political effects of both pro-choice and anti-choice advocacy, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect and the Wall Street Journal article by James Taranto are good places to start.

In the whirlwind of controversy over CBS’ decision to air an anti-abortion commercial despite their previous ban on “advocacy ads,” Super Bowl Sunday will likely be no different than the game in previous years: people will gather with their friends, chow down on wings and guacamole, drink some brews, and watch the newest Budweiser Clydesdale commercials. But behind the competition between the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts, the debate over CBS’ policy continues to rage.

It goes like this: Focus on the Family submitted an ad to air during the game featuring Pam Tebow, a Christian missionary who was advised to undergo an abortion while pregnant with Heisman winner Tim while in the Philippines. She declined, despite the risks placental abruption could pose to herself and her pregnancy. The message of the ad is simple: if you choose abortion, you could be ending the potential to create an American football star.

Pro-choice groups are taking action against CBS for their decision to reverse a previous policy that has already led to the rejection of ads with anti-Bush and pro-LGBT acceptance messages. Additionally, CBS says it will not air an ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating service. It seems advocacy ads that don’t represent “heartland American values” just aren’t appropriate for stereotypically anti-gay, anti-gay football fans.

New Orleans Saints linebacker Scott Fujita would disagree. He has been called “courageous” for standing up for abortion rights and equality for the LGBT community, but as he said in an interview, “It’s just me standing up for equal rights … It’s not that courageous to have an opinion if you think it’s the right thing and you believe it wholeheartedly.”

Fujita in many ways has broken a silence that plagues professional athletes. It’s always difficult and often unpopular to speak out on controversial issues, especially the ones that support women and the LGBT community. I can imagine this increases tenfold when your job is to play one of the most “manly” sports in the U.S.

To be sure, many say politics and social issues have no place in sporting events. But have we forgotten the places once occupied by Jesse Owens in 1936, Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968? Besides, why should the Tebows reign supreme unchallenged? In other words, yay for Scott Fujita!!!

Check out Executive Director, Kierra Johnson, on Fox News talking about CBS’ decision to run a Focus on the Family ad during the superbowl:

Scott Roeder has been found guilty of the first-degree murder of Dr. George Tiller, the later-term abortion provider from Wichita, KS who was shot and killed in the foyer of his church last May. The 51 year old anti-abortion extremist faces a life imprisonment sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years, MSNBC reports.

Roeder’s defense had hoped to push for a voluntary manslaughter charge, which would have resulted in significantly less prison time, because Roeder felt he was acting in “defense of the unborn.” Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that the jury could not consider such a charge.

The trial of Scott Roeder is significant in the abortion debate for obvious reasons, among them the rejection of a “necessity defense” in harming a doctor providing a legal medical procedure. However, regardless of Roeder’s conviction, anti-choice forces are highly organized and emboldened by a continuing trend of violence against clinics and providers. Even though the murder of a provider or the bombing of a clinic are relatively rare occurrences, clinics all over the country continue to experience escalating threats, increased sidewalk bullying, and more legislative and financial barriers to providing such a service almost daily.

Anti-abortion groups can denounce Roeder’s actions all they want, but their inflammatory hate speech and activities that push the limits of clinic protection laws are at the core of extremists like Roeder’s actions. Roeder testified that he received most of his information regarding Dr. Tiller from Operation Rescue’s “Tiller Watch” website, which listed the doctor’s home address, his place of worship, the fact that he wore a bullet proof vest, and the fact that he drove an armored car. In light of these facts, we must ask key questions about the complicity of the anti-abortion movement at large in the death of Dr. Tiller and other providers who have been killed or harmed, clinics that have been bombed or vandalized. Roeder may have acted alone in the actual shooting, but he was emboldened by the work of anti-abortion groups that are largely seen as law-abiding organizations simply exercising their First Amendment rights.