Conservatize The Courts (More)!!!

Not content with winning the Prop H8 fight at the ballot box, and then having it upheld by the CA Supreme Court ruling in their favor, the professional homophobe set here in California are now saying that Prop H8 shouldn't have even been necessary if we'd had the "right kind" of judges, using that as their rallying cry to launch an effort to ideologically purify California's courts to their liking. (via) 


A couple of Religious Reich organizations, including NOM (they of the hilariously awful and much-parodied "Gathering Storm" ad, and efforts across the country to halt our homomentum and roll it back wherever possible, including here in California, but also in Maine, NH, NJ, WV, NY, and DC), have partnered with a couple of conservative California reps to launch "BetterCourtsNow.com", a site and an organization which they hope will galvanize the conservative base into voting ever more conservative judges into California's courts.  

"It’s important that we unify our votes so we ensure that solid men and women of high morals, who will not legislate from the bench, are elected to office." - Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa

And of course, by "solid men and women of high morals," he means anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, the usual laundry list of culture-war topics.

Can I just say, I would be happy to listen if anyone has an intelligent reasoning why judges ought to be elected rather than appointed by people who actually know a qualified judge when they see one, but lacking a good explanation, my uneducated self cannot see why it is we allow "the people", most of whom have little to no knowledge of law or court procedures or what it takes to be a judge, to fucking ELECT judges? 

But beyond that, I love the usual accusation about "legislating from the bench".  Mind you, when a conservative-leaning SCOTUS legislates from the bench that corporations count as people -  a concept not found ANYWHERE in the Constitution that I'm aware of - these assholes certainly don't let out a peep of contention against that kind of judicial activism.  They're quite fine with judicial activism when it's conservative judges, but gods help the librul judge who dares set any kind of precedent, even one well-reasoned and in accordance with the body of case law as it stands. 

But it's not all bad, because these assholes screeching about judicial activism?  That, is the sound of the losing side scrabbling desperately to hang on to their power in the face of progress' inevitable march. 

Unintentional Scary-Christian Irony

So everyone's been on about Repent Amarillo, to whom I will not link because they don't deserve even the minor traffic boost a small blog like myself might give them.  Use your Google-fu if you're that curious.  Short version is, they are a militant fundamentalist Christian group in Amarillo, TX, whose tactics consist of "spiritual warfare" that includes noise-ordinance-violating protests of businesses just trying to do their thing, when that thing violates their scarily fundie beliefs.  Their first target was a swinger's club; small, private, members-only, not harming anyone, consisting of all consenting adults.  They harassed the everliving fuck out of the club owners and members, took photos and license plate numbers of people coming and going, even protesting the building whenever anyone was in it, even if it was a non-related group that had just rented the place for their own event.  They made phone calls to members' employers and got people fired, ruined reputations, the whole nine yards.  And of course, the cops sat with their thumbs up their collective ass and just let it happen, declining to enforce any kind of harassment or noise statutes against RA.  The club has closed.  Now their targets include strip clubs, gay bars, pagan shops, and even a local nature park that they feel is too much of a draw to Goddess-worshipers.  


But for all that, for as terrifying as they are, I found a graphic of theirs and proceeded to laugh. my. ass. off. for like ten minutes.  It was that funny.  Here, check this out and see if anything catches your eye:

(Scary military imagery aside) Is it just me, or does that symbol on the left, over the "Army of God" bit, look like a solid-filled pentagram?  Five-pointed star, enclosed in a circle...didn't any one of these fanatically anti-pagan assholes LOOK at their fucking graphic and realize, um, hey, it looks like we've got a pentagram prominently featured on our banner...?

*wanders off giggling*

Depression Update. Also, Bleh.

I just wanted to apologize for having not posted all week.  I have been beset by a bad case of Cannot Be Arsed; sometimes, my depression sneaks up on me and eats my will to do anything other than stare blankly at silly flash games for a week or two.  This past week has been one of those times.  I may have a half-dozen tabs of things I'd like to write about, but my depression-addled brain just kind of goes "meh" and I find myself playing yet another timewaster, even as I'm berating myself for being lazy and not getting anything done.  


After living with this for several years, I'm finally learning to ride the flow and ebb of my illness and ability; this means that until my energy and give-a-damn comes back, posting will be light.  I do apologize.  These times don't last too long usually, so I should be back to my usual volume by the end of this week or so. 

Well If You'd Just Go Back In The Closet, This Wouldn't Be A Problem

I just love conservadouche logic.  And by "love", I mean "it makes me want to smash things and bang my head against the wall."  


So at CPAC recently, there was a bit of a dustup over the fact that GOProud, a gay conservative group, was one of the event's sponsors, and the fact that one of the speakers was kind of an asshole about that.  The ensuing discussion in the blogosphere resulted in this absolute gem of a quote, from the AFA's Bryan Fischer:

And why is it that defenders of natural marriage are always the ones who get told to shut up? If advocates for special rights for homosexuals would just shut up, this controversy would go away tomorrow.

"Well, we wouldn't have to work to actively deny you equal rights [because I would REALLY, genuinely like to know what "special rights" it is we're trying to get.  They keep saying this, but what is so "special rights" about wanting to be able to live and work and love and marry just like they do?  We're literally trying to do the exact same things they're doing.  I don't get it.] if you would just be good little queers and go back in the closet.  Then we could deny you your rights quietly, without fuss, the way we used to.  Ahh, the good old days..."

Argleblargh!

Actually, Women Have Brains Too.

I know, I know, I seem to be on a bit of an abortion kick lately.  I can't help it; I write about what the world gives me to write about, and abortion's been all over the place lately.  This one was too good to pass up...

Oklahoma had a bill struck down recently, because it combined four abortion-related topics in one bill, contrary to Oklahoma's one-subject law.  So what did the antis do?  Split it up and passed each one individually, that's what!  W'ev.   The four bills are mostly standard anti-choice/pro-forced-birth stuff: requiring a doctor to be present when RU-486 is administered, thus adding extra and unnecessary hassle and expense for abortion clinics providing medical abortions; adding an ultrasound+explanation requirement to abortion procedures; a provider opt-out for those who object to abortion; and the scariest one, mandating personal information be gathered on every woman seeking abortion, which will be gathered and published on a state-run website.  They like to say it's non-identifying information, but when you have to report the date of the abortion, how far along you were, what county you're from, your age, race, marital status, and how many children you have...put all that together and you can really narrow a list down, especially in a small or rural community.  And what with the stigma surrounding abortion these days - thanks, pro-forced-birthers! We love you too! - having to give all this information has the potential to be a significant deterrent for women who would want abortion, but be afraid to be identified.  Which is, of course, the point.  Not that they'll admit that.

The panel also passed HB 2780 by Rep. Lisa Billy, R-Lindsay, which would require women who seek an abortion to have an ultrasound and have its contents explained to them.

... 

Billy responded: “This bill is about choice for women. It is an opportunity for her to understand what is growing inside of her and the consequences.”

Anyway.  As fucked-up as the reporting requirements bit is, I wanted to highlight the quote from the writer/sponsor of the ultrasound bill.  Because that?  Is misogyny, pure and simple.  From a woman, no less!  Love that.  So here it is, Lisa Billy: women are actually quite aware of what is growing inside them, when they are pregnant.  That is, in fact, the entire point of getting an abortion!  Because when you know what is growing inside you, you then may or may not want it to continue growing inside you.  Amazingly enough, when women seek to get an abortion, they are actually wanting to get an abortion!  I know, it's a staggering concept, that idea that women might have the intelligence lurking in their delicate, pink, ruffly ladybrainz to know that they are pregnant, and this means that they are going to have a baby, and that an abortion will mean they will not have a baby, all without someone mansplaining it to them.  Here, have some smelling salts, and clutch these pearls while you contemplate the consequences of the revelation that women might actually know exactly what the fuck they're doing when they get an abortion, and still get one anyway.

Today In "These Christians Scare Me..."

These Christians scare me like whoa.  They're questioning candidates on religious issues and using that as a basis for whether or not to push the community to support them.  Including their feelings on having (Un)Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution in high school.  And the organizers outright SAY they're trying to mix church and state, that they want these candidates to "vote as followers of Jesus Christ".  Excuse me, scary Christian Dominionists, The Point was way back that-a-way.  You have missed it by far.  One of the major tenets of this country, espoused by our venerated Founders, was the idea of separation of church and state, to the mutual benefit of both.  Because every time people mix politics with religion, you end up with religious wars, and witch-hunts, and persecution of religious and cultural minorities.  These are not good things.  These things are not at all consistent with the vision of America as a place of freedom, with liberty and justice for all.  We cannot have liberty and justice for all, if these types of Christians are deliberately pushing politicians to vote their particular religious beliefs into laws that will affect all of us, including those who are not Christian.  That's just not how that works.  So knock it off, mmkay?


These Christians scare me a little less, because I am shielded from their predatory ways by the privilege that means I will be unlikely to ever find myself in a situation where I am reliant upon proselytizing missionaries for basic sustenance after a major disaster.  But they piss me off a lot more.  I realize a lot of Christian missionaries do not do this, and they really are there solely because their figure of worship told them to take care of the sick and the poor and the needy.  But the types who are offering baptism certificates to people who need ID documents before they can receive aid are giving the rest a bad name.  "Here, convert to our religion so we can feed you."  Fuck that.  That kind of thing is why I often liken that type of Christian missionaries to a wolf pack, swooping in on the weak and the sick and the needy and the hungry, because they are vulnerable.


I mean, really, why cannot this - "...missionaries have flocked to Haiti in droves since the earthquake — feeding the homeless, treating the injured and preaching the Gospel in squalid camps..." - just stop at this - "missionaries have flocked to Haiti in droves since the earthquake — feeding the homeless, and treating the injured in squalid camps..."?  Let people come to your religion on their own, if it is indeed as great as you say it is, instead of taking advantage of their vulnerability to reel them in.

Irony. They Has It.

This is a real thing in the world.  A shirt, which has a heart, a cross, and a gun on it, under which are the words "Pro Life/Pro God/Pro Gun".  

Please tell me I am not the only person who sees the screaming irony of this...because when I was searching CafePress for abortion-related items, and this came up, I laughed so hard my desk was shaking.  

For the record, ProLifeProGodProGun people?  Guns were created for the express purpose of ending lives.  It is therefore fucking HILARIOUS when you proudly proclaim yourselves to be both pro-life and pro-gun in the same breath, to those of us with a sense of logic.  Oh, and also.  That Jesus dude?  Was a pacifist for the most part.  Not big on ending lives.  So being pro-God and pro-gun is also pretty funny.  Just so you know.

This has been a Public Service Announcement from your resident Snarky Witch.  Carry on.

I Am One In Three

[Family TMI warning re: my reproductive history]

One in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, in America.

I am one of them.

It's not like I've really been terribly secretive about the fact that I've had an abortion. I've posted in threads on abortion at Shakesville, discussing the procedure and helping to allay a fellow Shaker's nerves pre-procedure. My immediate family all knows about it; hell, my mom made the two-hour drive to where I lived at the time so she could go to the clinic with me, and I spent the weekend afterward at her house so she could keep an eye on and take care of me. But I've also never publicly "come out" here, in my space.

I am inspired by Angie Jackson, aka @antitheistangie, who is live-tweeting and blogging her abortion this past week. She's a mother of one, whose birth control failed and who has health complications that would make carrying a second pregnancy to term quite dangerous for her. So she chose to have an abortion, and has chosen to share the experience with the world to combat the stigma, shame, and lies anti-choicers have surrounded the procedure with.

Those of us who work for social justice, who work to dismantle kyriarchy and raise the status of marginalized groups to true equality with the white-cis-currently abled-straight-Christian-man who stands at the top of the hierarchy, we know that visibility works wonders. It's easy to talk about "those people" when you don't know those people, have never met one of those people, and can believe the lies about them because you've never seen for yourself the real truth. But studies have shown that straight people who have openly-gay neighbors and coworkers and family members tend to be more supportive of equality for the LGBT community. The same goes for various racial and ethnic groups, for transpeople, for people with disabilities...and in this case, it will hopefully have the same effect of humanizing women who have had abortions, from the nasty stereotypes of selfishness and baby-hating.

So. This is what a woman who's had an abortion looks like (pic is of myself, Myspace-style, to show off some pretty purple eyeshadow):

It happened almost four years ago. I had been on the Pill at the time; my then-boyfriend and I were long-distance and saw each other two to three times a year, so I tended to go off the Pill when we were apart, and then about 6 weeks ahead of a visit, go back on it, to give it time to be fully effective when we saw each other again. That visit had been shorter-notice, so I'd only been on it for about three weeks. Knowing that, we also used a spermicide, as an extra precaution. It failed. I found out about a week after he'd gone home. We had talked about the situation in hypothetical terms before, so when I called him, it was mostly to let him know, rather than discuss our options.

See, I've long known I don't want kids. Not now, not ever. I'm not a kid person. And I know myself well enough to know I'd resent having to constantly be putting this other person first, denying my own desires where they conflicted with the needs of my child. No child deserves that. I'd be a lousy mother. So instead, I won't be one at all. Which makes the question of what to do with an unintended pregnancy pretty damn simple, for me. (Yes, I'm aware adoption is an option. Three problems with that. 1: I'm terrified of pregnancy and childbirth and the toll it would take on my body, and I'm not willing to go through that only to give the child away anyway, 2: There is NO way in hell I can afford the costs of pregnancy and birth, cause that shit is expensive, and 3: emotionally, I couldn't stand to live the rest of my life knowing I had a child out there somewhere, but never knowing what was happening to it. See, I know I'd make a lousy mother cause I'm too selfish for it, but it's not that I wouldn't *care* about the kid at all. I would care, and it would compound my already-not-insignificant depression a hundred times over to care about a child of my blood and body and not know where ve was, if ve was loved and having a good life, all that.)

Thus, abortion was a decision I'd already made in the hypothetical, and as soon as the test confirmed I was pregnant, I knew what I was going to do. My first call was to my boyfriend, my second to my mother, and my third to the local Planned Parenthood, to find out if they provided abortions, or if they didn't, if they could refer me to someone who did.

Because I'd found out so early in the pregnancy, at only 4 weeks along, I was within the window of eligibility to have a chemical or medical abortion, as opposed to a surgical abortion. The nurse at PP (which did, in fact, provide abortion services) explained that it would be a set of two pills, spaced 48 hours apart, the first of which would stop fetal development, and the second of which would provoke the expulsion of the pregnancy tissue. I could take the second set at home, and spend a weekend basically having an induced miscarriage in private, instead of having the whole thing take place at the clinic. It sounded better than the alternative, so I picked that option, and that Thursday, I took the first pill at the clinic. They gave me the second set, along with some anti-nausea meds, because one of the side effects of the second drug can be severe nausea, and told me to take them Saturday morning.

I finished out the week's classes, packed up, and drove to my mom's for the weekend. I spent the weekend relaxing on her couch, watching movies together and just chilling while the drugs did their thing. It was remarkably easy, for me; I've heard of women who had terrible cramps and threw up all the time, but I basically felt like I was having a heavier-than-usual period. I went back to school on Monday, and by the end of that week, it was all over and done with. I had a follow-up appointment to make sure the pregnancy tissue had been fully expelled; it had, and that was all.

Maybe this is overshare. Maybe this is TMI. Maybe the world didn't need to hear about my abortion. But for now, when abortion is stigmatized and secretive and something to be hidden and ashamed of, the visibility is needed to combat anti-choice lies and misinformation. I look forward to the day when the culture war is won and women aren't demonized for exercising their reproductive rights in this way, and when that day comes, I will happily keep my abortion to myself, just like I would keep the details of any other medical or surgical procedure to myself, because they're personal and private and mine. Until then, though, I will stand up and say it.

I have had an abortion. I do not feel shame, or guilt, or regret. I don't think wistfully about how old "my baby" would have been now. In fact, I have to think hard to figure out how many years ago it was now. I am not sorry. I made the best decision for me, my boyfriend, my family, and my life. That's what matters.

I am one in three.

Glossary of Mansplaining

So discussions of the mansplaining phenomenon were all over the feminist blogosphere a couple weeks back, and the comment threads were rich with examples of all kinds of mansplaining. So varied were the types of mansplaining discussed, in fact, that I decided I wanted to create a glossary of mansplaining and mansplainers, as a handy reference guide. So here it is: the Glossary of Mainsplaining!

To begin, a quick explanation of what mansplaining is. It is what happens when a person with privilege (I refer to it as mansplaining and reliant on male privilege, but the idea may be equally applied to white people 'splaining to PoC, or currently-abled people 'splaining to disabled people, or cis people 'splaining to trans people, etc. Anywhere there is an imbalance of privilege between participants in a conversation.) takes it upon themselves to condescendingly explain something to a non-privileged person, regardless of whether or not they know what the hell they're talking about, regardless of whether or not the non-privileged person may in fact know quite a bit more about the subject than they do, and they rely on their privilege to back them up and support their right to hold forth.

The subtypes of mansplaining identified so far are as follows. If you have an entry for the Glossary of Mansplaining I haven't covered, please drop it in comments or email me, so I can add it!

• Task-Incompetence Mansplaining: Where a man takes it upon himself to perform repairs to a vehicle, or make household modifications, that he knows nothing about, over the protests of the woman with which he co-resides who actually knows how to fix the item in question, simply because he is The Man and therefore more qualified to fix things.

• Task-Incompetence Mansplaining Corollary: Where a man assumes that a woman with whom he is speaking cannot possibly know how to fix her own car/house/computer, because she is a woman, and must explain to her exactly how to do it. Bonus points if he combines it with Task-Incompetence Mansplaining by mansplaining how to fix something you know how to fix, with a method for fixing it that will not fix it at all.
  

• You-Do-Not-Know-How-This-Works-Because-It-Is-Man-Business Mansplaining: Related to Task-Incompetence-Mansplaining. Where a man repeatedly disregards a woman's advice for fixing a problem that he feels can only be understood by another man. For example, a man who will not take computer advice from a woman, but who will take the exact same advice from the man standing next to her. Bonus points if he then turns around and mansplains to her the advice he listened to from the man but not from her!

• I-Know-More-About-Being-A-Woman-Than-Women-Do Mansplaining: Where a man will mansplain to women that really, women *like* to be catcalled at, or that cramps really aren't that bad and women need to just suck it up and quit whining, or holds forth on any other woman-specific experiences as if he knows what the hell he's talking about. May also take the form of "Women like to do X because they think Y!", without a shred of evidence that actual women either like X or think Y.
  

• IKMABAWTWD Corollary: What-Women-Need-To-Do-Is Mansplaining: Where the mansplainer will be happy to tell women what they need to do in order to fix what he perceives their flaws to be. For example, the NY Bar Association's panel featuring a bunch of male lawyers telling female lawyers how to fix themselves to be more successful.

• IKMABAWTWD Corollary 2: My-Girlfriend-Says Mansplaining: Where the mansplainer says that his girlfriend/sister/mother/other female friend does X or thinks Y, therefore all women must do/think the same.
  

• My-Manliness-Knows-Everything Mansplaining: Where a subject comes up that the man knows little to nothing about, but he holds forth on the subject anyway, bullshitting like he's some kind of specialist, and expecting that nobody will call him on it because duh, he's The Man in the conversation.

• Emotions-Invalidate-Your-Argument Mansplaining: Where in the course of a heated discussion, the woman to whom the mansplainer is speaking gets visibly upset, perhaps even to the point of being teary-eyed or actually crying, and the mansplainer takes that opportunity to mansplain that her visible emotional state means that she automatically loses the argument and he wins, because he is able to remain perfectly cool and rational.

• It-Does-Not-Mean-What-You-Think-It-Means Mansplaining (aka gaslighting): Where a mansplainer will, upon hearing a woman describe some act of harassment or sexism, immediately jump in to tell her it wasn't sexist, or that she was imagining the creepy feeling she got from that guy, or what have you, based on the premise that, as a man, his interpretation of events (for which he may or may not have even been present) is more accurate and reliable than hers.

• It-Only-Exists-If-I've-Personally-Seen-It Mansplaining: Where a mansplainer will only acknowledge the existence of, for example, sexual harassment in the workplace, if he has actually been a witness to the harassment. Often takes the form of "Oh, that doesn't really happen. I've never seen it happen." as if the two are equivalent statements.

• Telepathy Mansplaining: Where a mansplainer, upon listening to you say "I think X/I feel X" on a given subject, will then argue with you that you don't really think/feel that way, despite repeated protestations that no, really, you *do* know how you feel about it without being told, thanks.

So there it is, the Glossary of Mansplaining. As I said, if you have suggestions for new entries, feel free to post them in comments or email me!

A Bad Day to be Pro-Choice

It seems today is a bad day to be pro-choice, if you value your sanity. The news is not good.

So Utah is criminalizing miscarriages, and Florida is trying to outright challenge Roe v Wade by banning abortion entirely. Scary shit.

The first bill, in Utah, attempts to punish pregnant women who "arrange illegal abortions", including defining "reckless behavior leading to miscarriage" as an illegal abortion. Which basically ends up meaning, anytime a pregnant woman miscarries, everything she has done during her pregnancy is up for debate and, if it's arbitrarily decided to be "reckless" - which is a frighteningly low threshold - she can be prosecuted for murder. Say a pregnant woman gets in a car accident and it's determined the accident was her fault. She can be charged with murder. Or a woman in a domestic-abuse situation, who does not leave her abuser and miscarries as a result of the violence against her. Under this bill, SHE can be charged with murder, not the abuser who beat her until she miscarried.

And how about this hypothetical (which may not be so hypothetical; I could see myself choosing this course if I were stuck in that situation, and I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that): a woman is pregnant, wanting to abort, early first trimester. There is no clinic nearby which provides abortion. She does not have access to transportation to get herself to a clinic which does, and she cannot afford an abortion even if she could get to a clinic. She's frightened and desperate, so she decides to induce a miscarriage. If she were found out, this law would punish her, not for having terminated her pregnancy (the bill specifically does not affect legally-obtained abortions, i.e. those performed by physicians in a clinic setting) but for the sole fact that she did so outside of a doctor's office. What the hell?

Then there's the Florida bill. It's a complete ban on abortion, no exceptions for rape and incest - which is fucking coldhearted, but at least they're being consistent; if a fetus is a life, shouldn't matter the source, I suppose - and an exception for maternal mortality, but only with two doctors signing off. No exceptions for maternal health, mind you. If having that baby will blind you and ruin your digestive tract and leave you with diabetes, well, too fucking bad. Shouldn't have spread your legs, then, should you? That'll teach you to have sex.

The thing that's getting me about the Florida bill, though, is some weird inconsistency. Here's what the link above says about the bill's provisions:

Among the bill’s major provisions:

- Makes induced abortions illegal and punishable by up to life in prison

- Allows doctors and hospital to refuse to provide abortion services.

- Continues judicial bypass that allows minors to seek a judge’s order instead of telling a parent or guardian.

- Prohibits abortions resulting from pregnancies involving rape or incest.

- Requires a second physician to sign-off on the procedure when a doctor believes an abortion was medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

- Requires women to receive information on adoption as an abortion alternative

Wait. So it makes abortions illegal. But it also "allows" hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services. Wouldn't they be *required* to refuse to provide those services, given that if the bill passes, they will be illegal? It also has a judicial bypass option for minors...again, isn't abortion supposed to be illegal anyway, so then what do they need a judicial bypass for? And the last one is my favorite. If abortion is made illegal except for maternal mortality reasons, then, uh...why would they need to be giving women adoption information as an "abortion alternative"? If the only circumstances under which a woman may obtain an abortion is if her very life is at risk, why the hell would adoption information change her mind? "Having this baby will kill you, two doctors say so...but still, please think of the children! Give it up for adoption instead!"

Can anybody explain why they have added this stuff to a bill which is supposed to criminalize the entire act anyway? It seems strangely inconsistent, even for the pro-forced-birth crowd's usual level of idiocy.

We are deep in the backlash, it seems. But remember, in the immortal words of Mohatma Gandhi: first they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then...you win. We're in the fighting phase. And that means the win is soon to come.