Democrats really hate women or I use the skills I got in law school to analyze stuff that takes away my rights

Have you heard that the newly-passed health care bill treats women like second-class citizens?

Behold the absolute draw-dropping shittiness of The Stupak Amendment. Here it is, proof positive, that Democrats really hate women. What's also awesome is that the first female Speaker of the House presided over a Democratic majority that passed the most expansive restriction on women's rights in recent history. Not only was the amendment passed by 62 democrats (and all voting Republicans), the bill carrying the amendment was passed through Congress 220-215, with the majority of Democrats blithely signing the biggest roll-back of reproductive rights. Super.

Some Democrats (mostly women) did not take this sitting down. They tried to speak in Congress, only to have male Republicans heckling them and shouting "I object, I object, I object, I object" over them. Think Progress has the video. Thrown under the bus by their own party, some of the women we voted into office were forced to speak out against their own party signing away their rights while they were viciously silenced by the very men that orchestrated this new oppression. I'm sure that while the men in Congress, some of them in their own party, thought this was just business as usual, our minority of female lawmakers got a heady sense of deja vu. Men talking over them in a meeting? Nah, that never happens. Especially when you're talking about your own freedoms and liberty. I mean, just shut up, woman. Know your place.

Out of this process of ugliness came the unholy spawn of the Stupack Amendment. However, unlike some other places, I believe that the proof is in the pudding. I'm not doing to quote from some dude that quoted from some other dude that quoted from yet another dude. I'm including the full text of this steaming file of fail. Here's your hope and change, right here:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3962
OFFERED BY MR. STUPACK OF MICHIGAN
AND MR. PITTS OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEC. 265 LIMITATION OF ABORTION FUNDING

(A) IN GENERAL—
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the women in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(B) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN—
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as—
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using—
(a) individual premium payments requires for an Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds require to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(C) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN—
Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as—
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

The emphases are mine.

For those without a background in legalese, this is about as unequivocal and binding as law can get. There's no wiggle room. No exceptions. What this creates is a health care system in which women are second class citizens, forced to choose between even private coverage of a perfectly legal procedure and all federal funding of health care. This, simply, is an outrage. As far as I'm concerned, this violates both Roe and the substantive due process of the 14th amendment, but for those without a background in law, rest assured that this crap is really, really, really, legally dubious.

So let's digest this, line by disgusting line.

Section A explicitly prohibits any federal funding governed by HR 3962 (the larger Affordable Health Care for America Act) going towards the provision of abortions. But if you thought that they really needed to put this in, that anyone was really ever in danger of seeing their tax dollars going to "kill babies", allow me to enlighten you. Behold the related 30-year-old ickiness of the Hyde Amendment. Passed in 1976, in the immediate backlash of Roe decision three years earlier, the amendment explicitly bars all appropriations for The Department of Heath and Human Service budget from going to the purpose of funding abortions. It does not prohibit all federal funding of abortion, just anything out of HHS. Since H.R. 3962 would be administrated by HHS, there was absolutely no way, shape, or form that its provisions would go to funding abortion. Got it straight?

Moving on, the second clause is the kicker: "or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion". You catch that? If you have a health plan that covers abortion, you cannot receive any federal assistance. Can't make the last $300 for a root canal? Too bad. Choose between your teeth rotting out of your face or abortion coverage. Want part of your "exchange" to go towards a consultation with an allergist for your seasonal allergies that you couldn't otherwise afford? Too bad, you got an abortion last year on that plan.

This amendment goes beyond limiting federal funds. This explicitly bars even private insurance companies from covering abortions.

Well, so can insurance companies just offer plans with abortion coverage and ones without? Sure, if you're cool on getting totally substandard care and no government assistance whatsoever. Given that the majority of those who see themselves in low-paying part-time positions that don't offer health coverage are women, there's going to be a lot of women who need federal assistance. But they won't get it unless they accept prohibitions on their rights, and start saving for out-of-pocket abortions if they need it, instead of putting away money for retirement. That's other thing: men won't have to save for expensive procedures that they need. They won't have to choose between affordable health care and their reproductive rights.

But all this begs the question: will insurance companies continue to offer abortion coverage? The answer: probably not to the extent they do now. Providing abortion coverage will undoubtedly require additional administrative costs to make sure that the company remains in compliance with the amendment. Additionally, by section C Paragraph 3, those additional administrative costs will have to be covered entirely without federal assistance that insurance companies could get if they didn't offer abortion.

The result is obvious: some companies will just not offer abortion coverage. It's too troublesome and expensive. If they offer it, they're required by Section C Paragraph 3 to provide identical coverage that doesn't cover abortions. Notice that the amendment, however, does not require that companies offer plans that do offer abortion coverage. A company would be in compliance if they did not offer coverage for abortion at all. In fact, it's transparently obvious that this is the goal of the entire amendment: to make it so that insurance companies will have lots of incentives to never cover abortions.

If a company decided to offer coverage including abortion, the coverage would be prohibitively expensive. Not only could the insured not use federal monies for any medical procedure so long as they are covered for abortion, they also would be forced to pay higher premiums. After all, the additional administrative costs of the plan could not be paid for with federal assistance, which would transfer the additional fees directly unto women. To really sweeten the deal, you'd also be ineligible for Medicaid matching even from your state while your insurance covers abortion. Awesome.

At the end of the day, you're left with a tiered health care system. At the very top are men. They can purchase private insurance. They can use public funds. They can do what you want with them, within reason, and not have to worry about losing coverage.

Quite a way below them are women paying for identical insurance except for abortion coverage, but paying much higher premiums. They cannot use public funds for anything.

Below them even further are women who can't pay for the prohibitively expensive private insurance of their female peers. Among them are women that need any assistance whatsoever for anything, even something as simple as a teeth cleaning. They must pay for abortion out-of-pocket or choose between any federal or state assistance. It's arguable that most women will find themselves here, as the prohibitive cost of the above will make it unfeasible unless you plan on getting abortions often.

And at the very bottom are the women who can neither pay for prohibitively expensive private insurance or out-of-pocket abortions. They get pregnant, and they're forced to procure risky abortions by untrained providers or have a baby against their will. At best, they succeed. At worst, they bleed to death or lose their fertility to a massive infection.

Oh, and they will suffer from those cheaper abortions. I'd bet all the money I have that someone will make it so the prohibition against paying for abortions will extend to paying for the complications from botched abortions. Or they'll extend it to birth control, IUDs, and all those things that wackos say "kill babies". Before long, everything that has to do with your right to exercise your entirely legal reproductive rights will damn you to fork over big bucks. No assistance. No coverage. Additionally, because paying massive premiums for abortion coverage is totally unfeasible and uneconomical for basically everyone, it will come to pass that all women in America must pay out-of-pocket for abortions.

Lo and behold, our Democratic majority has opened its collective butthole and gifted us a mammoth steaming pile that only allows us to avoid bankruptcy by medical bills only if we promise to be good girls and never ever kill babies.

There's your Hope™ and Change™. You thought that Democrats were cool with just throwing gays under the bus? We're not stopping at anything. Screw the poor. Screw women. Screw the environment. Screw the Middle East. Screw accountability. Screw ending tax cuts. Screw our progressive base. Screw federal law and Roe v. Wade and the things we could do with a Democratic majority.

If you have a Senator that would otherwise vote to pass this bill (mine are all Republicans), please, for your rights, send them a letter. Give them a call. Do something! Otherwise, I'm afraid that this is the death-knell for reproductive rights.

How I came to yell at a woman on the street about feminism

My sister and I were walking back from the bus and a woman came riding up on her bike beside us, talking about how crappy men are and how unlucky in love she is. We mumbled in agreement, etc, and thought we left her behind us. Then she rode up again and started talking about how men are wusses and pansies and girls when they don't do their "job" (whatever that is). I told her I didn't appreciate her comparing weak men to women, saying that it put women in a hierarchy under men. Well, I said it less academically. Eventually we ended up shouting and she called us lesbians, and then somehow I ended up yelling across the gas station area, "'Man up' is not an acceptable term!" At that point, I became the yelling lady and the circle was complete. The student became the teacher.

Honestly, I started talking back to her because I've had enough with people not living their beliefs. I believe in gender equality, even - especially - in language. How we speak and the words and idioms we use reveals our inner biases and beliefs. Inclusive language in church is another fine example of this exact thing. If we're for something, well then, let's be for it.

All in all, I just didn't want to think later, "Why didn't I say anything?" Casual sexism is sexism is sexism.

Would I have been nearly as vocal if it was a man, or a person of color of any gender? No. Her whiteness and gender made me bold in ways I wouldn't have if it was another person. Well, maybe it didn't make me bold, but it made HER non-threatening. I may have said something, but definitely not yelling the way I was.

Would I have even said anything if it was in a group of my friends or family?

Casual sexism is sexism is sexism.

Coffee and consent

From Until Someone Wakes Up, a play written by Hamline University professor Carolyn Levy and a group of Macalester College students:

Waiter: Would you like some coffee?
Woman: Yes, please.
Waiter: Just say when. (Starts to pour.)
Woman: There. (He keeps pouring.) That's fine. (He pours.) Stop! (She grabs the pot; there is coffee everywhere.)
Waiter: Yes, ma'am.
Woman: Well, why didn't you stop pouring?
Waiter: Oh, I wasn't sure you meant it.
Woman: Look, of course I meant it! I have coffee all over my lap! You nearly burned me!
Waiter: Forgive me, ma'am, but you certainly looked thirsty. I thought you wanted more.
Woman: But -
Waiter: And you must admit, you did let me start to pour.



via Telling: A Memoir of Rape and Recovery by Patricia Weaver Francisco

Crying in the face of opposition

This post about emotions during arguments really struck a chord with me because I very rarely let my emotions show to people - something I've decided comes from a misogynistic culture that equates emotions with women and weakness.

However, I burst into tears over a discussion with my dad where he didn't believe rape could be used as a tool of war, especially in places like the Congo, and he thought it was stupid to talk about how materials use in cell phones and digital cameras contributes to the ongoing civil war there.

It could have been the fact that he was in town for my grad school graduation, I was moving away from all my friends and facing unemployment and the unknown, but honestly, he just came off as an asshole. He lacked in caring about my emotional investment in the issue to the point where I had to go into the bathroom and burst into tears. Twice. I infrequently display unhappy emotions to other people, much less cry more than two or three tears.

Anyway. That's just my story about facing an argument and coming off as emotional. Anybody else want to share?

Question of the Day: Dismantling gentrificiation as a white person

Here's a question that's been bugging me for awhile:

How do I, as a middle class, highly educated white person committed to dismantling white privilege, find, move and live into* a multicultural neighborhood without contributing to gentrification?

Any thoughts?



*I choose into deliberately because I want to live into the life of my neighborhood. I want to contribute to the well-being of my neighborhood and actively take part in events and my neighbor's lives.

Not all abortions are unwanted pregnancies

Renee's commentary on the ridiculous Judy the talking embryo from ChoiceKills.com got me thinking about another type of choice often overlooked in the abortion debate. She writes, "Choice does not always end in abortion but it does mean that every child that is born is a wanted child."

In addition, not all abortions are unwanted pregnancies.

Sometimes women and families have to make the painful decision to terminate a pregnancy on medical grounds (both mother and child) when the child is very much wanted. Often, these women go to late term abortion clinics and in some states, force fed "Women's Right to Know" bullshit on how much pain a fetus can feel and shown pictures of a developing fetus.

What to know what I think women have a right to know? That they can make their own personal and medical decisions free from another person's judgment, especially during a terrible time such as terminating a pregnancy due to health reasons.

Just one more reason we need to keep reproductive rights safe, legal, and in my opinion, free from pro-life harassment.

Ronald McSexy

Hey, let's use women's bodies to sexualize EVERYTHING, mmmkay?

Today: Ronald McDonald.



Ugh.

Everybody Needs Somebody To Love

It's a bit delayed, but here's a Sunday song in honor of Coming Out Day:

Question(s) of the Day

After comments on my National Coming Out Day post, I thought the topic of coming out could use another place for discussion.

So, Impersonators, are you out? Want to be out? As an ally, has someone come out to you? Want to share a story or discuss the pros and cons of being out? Let's try it.

A reminder that comments are moderated, so I'll make this as safe a space as I can for anyone interested in talking about this.

Female Impersonators Radio Hour - Today, 5pm!

Kate and I will be hosting the newest edition of the Female Impersonators Radio Hour today at 5pm Central time.

We'll be talking about Roman Polanski, "chick lit," and playing female-friendly music like Alanis Morissette, Ani DiFranco, and more!

Tune in, and call us 309-341-7441.

Happy National Coming Out Day!

Today is National Coming Out Day. Let's start some conversations about LGBT issues and rights, because talking is the beginning of understanding.

Hope you all have a great day!

Guest Post: Inked - Ink, religion, and politics

This guest post was written by Galina of Oh, You're a Feminist?! . Galina is working towards her phd in clinical and community psychology, focusing on empowerment as prevention and discrimination's effects on mental health. For fun she likes to trail run with her dog, create jewelry, and travel.

I began wanting a tattoo and nose piercing when I was 12. My parents, conservative immigrant Jews, were very much opposed to both ideas. The tattoo they talked me out of by convincing me I wouldn't be able to be buried in a Jewish cemetery when I died. The nose ring was tougher. My mom used good old fashion guilt and scare tactics, "you'd be breaking my heart," "no one will take you seriously," "what will my friends think?" I decided then that I would obey my parents' wishes for a few years and if I still wanted the body art as an "adult" I would make the choice based on my person politics, not theirs.

Fast forward to college where I studied psychology and women's studies: I still wanted the tattoo AND the nose ring. I headed my mom’s advice on the nose ring, since I’d be applying to clinical psychology programs and they are traditionally conservative. My plan was to get in and effect massive change from the inside, studying social justice and progressive issues rarely examined in the field. The admission process includes an interview, and I didn’t want to give them any reason to exclude me. Little did I know I would end up at a very progressive program where social justice is a core value and I don’t have to pretend to be anyone else to scan my way in.

I wanted my first tattoo to be symbolic and meaningful not just to me but to my goals and values. I settled on an adaptation of Picasso’s dove, holding an olive branch in her mouth. She has a green eye to match my eyes. In Judaism, doves symbolize peace and love. According to the story of the Great Flood , Noah released a dove in order to see if it would find land. The dove came back carrying an olive branch in its mouth, indicating that there was dry land (and hope for a peaceful future) once again.

I spoke with my rabbi at the time about the antiquated notion of not being buried in a Jewish cemetery if I got a tattoo. She assured me that this would not be a problem in the congregations I was a part of (non-orthodox sects of Judaism) and that body art will not determine my relationship with G-d.

My second tattoo is a bit more political. It is an Audre Lorde quote that reads, “your silence won’t protect you.” This tattoo has provided me with many opportunities to educate others on who Audre Lorde is and her impact on the women’s movement and the world. I love when people ask me about what my tattoo says because that means I can start a conversation about women’s rights, privilege, and discrimination. I chose to put such a feminist imprint on my body for several reasons. Most obviously because of the vast impact feminism has had in my life. Also because of the common feminist phrase the “personal is political.” I find it much harder to “hide” my politics now that I have this tattoo, which keeps me honest and gives me ample chances to speak my mind.

In a purely aesthetic sense, I love the way tattoos look. I find them incredibly sexy and telling of people’s lives and stories. If I were (physically and psychologically) brave enough, I would get a much bigger piece in a much more visible place. Because just like what you wear and how you look does not define you, neither should your ink. But it should tell a story, because we’re all unique and deserve our voices heard (or seen as the case here).

Impossibly beautiful but in your face

How can I respond to this Facebook request from a high school friend in a thoughtful, constructive and feminist way?

Photoshop the Ugly out of your pictures

Hello all, I'm working on a project right now where I want to
show my skills retouching photos in Photoshop. I need some before photos so I
can make some lovely afters. So it would be awesome if you could send me photos
that you have that could use some free retouching. I'm looking for photos that
have:
Acne, wrinkles, arm fat, tan lines, etc. that you would like
removed
old photos that have dust spots, scratches, smudges, etc.
bad lighting
a sign or some small object removed

I could even do fun things like maybe add some bling to you,
add a new hair do, give you more muscle definition, put your face on a hot
ladies body, whatever you wish, just let me know.

I know this woman from high school and she was calling herself a feminist before I was. I know she works in graphic design, but how can I explain (in a context on Facebook) what exactly my issues are with her work? Any ideas, Impersonators?

Today, 5pm - Female Impersonators Radio Hour

Female Impersonators Radio Hour, today at 5pm Central Time.

Kate and I will be discussing current events from a feminist perspective and playing some good tunes.

Tune in and call us at 309-341-7441.

Attention Trolls: A quick definition

From the lovely comment moderation box on "Apologize." for your consideration:

Feminism: Advocates of censorship and thought control.

Rape means more than "Sex with a woman that didn't want it".

Shame that feminists refuse to acknowledge this, and instead try to make every single thing on earth solely about them.

Why... one might as well call it "What about teh wimmenz???"

Not. Everything. Is. About. You.

Rape has multiple meanings, look it up, please. Celebrating this moron makes you look foolish and ignorant.

Also, there's no such thing as rape culture. Pushing idiotic buzzwords just makes you look idiotic.

Thank you, Anonymous for your lovely, though-provoking comment.

I'll have to admit, you're right about one thing. Rape does mean more than "sex with a woman that didn't want" - I'll broaden the definition to "sex with a person that didn't want it". Because that's EXACTLY what rape is.

Unless, of course, you're refering to the less commonly used definition of rape as "an Old World herb (Brassica napus) of the mustard family grown as a forage crop and for its seeds which yield rapeseed oil and are a bird food" (M-W). I'm going to use my deductive reasoning skills here and guess that's not what you mean, or what the person who used rape originally intended. "I'm going to herb of the mustard family you in this video game"? Nope.

So when we refer to rape, it's talking about "sex with a person that didn't want it", FYI.

Impersonators, any other important things I'm forgetting about in our definition of rape?

Carnival of Feminists!

Check out Chally at Zero at the Bone and the 5th Carnival of Feminists!

I really liked the post on toddlers as triggers... Certainly raised points to consider in the way I interact with the PreK kids I work with. That's a whole other post to look out for soon.