Take back the Ursus Arctos Horribilis!

There was an interesting blog today in the daily report for the National Partnership for Women and Families. Gail Collins, New York Times, writes that she "think(s) it is time to take back the mama grizzly," which former Alaska Gov. and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used as a symbol of GOP female candidates in the midterm elections. Feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinem told Collins that real female grizzy bears "are famous for their reproductive freedom." She added that they "mate later than other bears," have fewer cubs, wait longer between pregnancies and "re-absorb the embryo into their body" if they are faced with a poor situation for raising cubs.

Is this true? Is the female grizzy bear a better symbol for the pro-choice crowd? Of course we needed to check out the sources and you can check them out also, on Wikipedia.

• grizzly bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates of all terrestrial mammals in North America
• once mated with a male in the summer, the female delays embryo implantation (birth control!) until hibernation, during which abortion (abortion!) can occur if the female does not receive the proper nutrients and caloric intake.
• on average, females produce two cubs in a litter and the mother cares for the cubs for up to two years, during which the mother will not mate (of course they're not married so they should be abstinent!)
• once the young leave or are killed, females may not produce another litter for three or more years depending on environmental conditions.
• grizzlies are subject to fragmentation, a form of population segregation, which can decrease the average litter size (more birth control!).
• ...and they can reabsorb the embryo.(Eastern Slopes Grizzy Bear Project)

And btw, blond grizzlies are rare and they don't look white.

And the heat goes on...

It's so very unfortunate that the House of Representatives will now be ruled by anti-choicers, who will do all they can to make not only abortion illegal or difficult to obtain, but also birth control. They will not doubt try to slash government subsidies for family planning - especially the government subsidy that currently keeps Family PACT afloat (the California state-run family planning program.)

As Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony group "This shift in numbers from pro-abortion to pro-life women is historic and not accident. It is a corrective moment for the women's movement who must either drop abortion out of its center or risk dropping off the face of the earth."

Oh, I don't think so.

Positive Sexuality!

If you're a teen, you need to visit Coalition for Positive Sexuality.

Here's what they say:

You have the right to complete and honest sex education. Demand information from your school, healthcare provider, and parents.

We have a quick and easy online tour through the most important topics for teens who are sexually active now or just thinking about having sex. It's called "Just Say Yes" because we're tired of people telling us what we can and can't do. There's no preaching. No moralizing. Just the facts.

Pro-life? Nah, they should be called pro-death.

The term "pro-life" is a great example of political framing, which means that the term is constructed that puts the beliefs in the best possible light; and in this case implies that the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death." It's a term that sounds as though its followers believe in the health and well-being of every living organism but in reality the majority are concerned only with fetal rights, and not with the health or rights of women.

Anti-choice, anti-women groups are almost always religious-based (each major religion has developed moral codes covering issues of sexuality, morality, ethics, etc. They want to control who can have sex, and when). These groups can either be single-issue, such as anti-abortion, or can be truly anti-choice, that is, wanting all contraception to be banned, even for married couples, no sexuality education, and probably no testing or treatments for STIs. A great many are completely anti-choice but don't want to alienate others who may be anti-abortion but not anti-choice.

As Pam Chamberlain and Jean Hardisty state in their article Reproducing Patriarchy: Reproductive Rights Under Siege "Sometimes the politcal "frame" promoted by the anti-aboriton movement is meant to deceive the public. For instance, the anti-abortion movement would have us believe that it is siimply anti-abortion; in reality, it is more broadly a movement that opposes reproductive rights, since it seeks not only to eradicate abortion, but to limit or prohibit other reproductive decisions by women. It is important for pro-choice activists to understand the larger agenda of the anti-abortion movement, and to see it for the broad-based attack on reproductive rights that it is." http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v14n1/ReproPatriach-01.html.

Pro-choice is also considered an example of political framing but I don't agree with that. What other name is there? "Pro-abortion" is too narrow (and I can't imagine many people liking medical procedures); "pro-reproductive justice" explains it fully (pro-choice being just one part of reproductive justice) but it is a bit lengthy.

"Pro-lifers" should really be called "pro-deathers:" they ignore the heatlh of the woman; indeed they often trivialize women by never mentioning their health or their rights, so that the emphasis in on the fetus, and so they don't look like what they really are, anti-woman. Since some pregnancies can end in death due either to complications or botched abortions, this is a descriptive term. Perhaps they could expend some of their energy on women's health - per Amnesty International, maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 lived births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 lived births in 2006. While some of the recorded increase is due to improved data collection, the fact remains that maternal mortality ratios have risen significantly. Although the US spends the most in healthcare, women in the US have a higher risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than those in 40 other countries. For example, the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the US is five times greater than in Greece, four times greater than in Germany, and three times greater than Spain. http://www.amnestyusa.org/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/the-united-states/page.do?id=1351091.

But they would rather let women die.

Here's a more personal and recent case: in 2009 a pregnant woman was admitted to Catholic St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, suffering from pulmonary hypertension, which limits heart and lung function and can be fatal during pregnancy. Sister Margaret Mary McBride, the senior administrator, approved the abortion that saved the patient's life. She was automatically excommunicated for saving the woman's life, and was reassigned.

So I think that "pro-deathers" fits the bill.

OTC Birth Control?

A group of women's health experts is trying to get the FDA to approve an over-the-counter birth control for non-prescription use. They believe that prescription-only access to birth control patronizes women, restricts access to birth control, and does nothing to curb teen pregnancy. Visit www.ibisreproductivehealth.org.

And after only 50 years!

...of course it will take another 50 years for it to get approved...

The Death of Family PACT?

Family PACT is a California family planning program that provides reproductive healthcare for the uninsured and under-insured of California. Because these women and men have access to birth control that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, this program has reduced unwanted pregnancies by almost 300,000 - averting over 122,000 abortions - and has saved the state almost $6 billion (from conception to age five; the cost of healthcare and the raising of a child is about $20,000). That doesn't even include the savings and disease prevention/cure from STI testing and treatment...

On June 30, 2010, the waiver for Family PACT will need to be renewed. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Service (CMS) needs to approve a waiver (a legal thing) for the federal government to fund this program.

The cost per year (in 2007 it was about $438 million) is offset by the federal government, who pays almost 2/3 to California. Every dollar that is spent on Family PACT saves almost $14.

Pay $438 million, save $6 billion. It's a great program and keeping it going is a no-brainer, right? Wrong. Governor Scharwzenegger's current budget proposal cuts funding to Family PACT reimbursements which means that some clinics will close because the medical staff won't be reimbursed for services. And if California can't get the federal funding, then the entire program will be scraped, which ultimately will cost the state that 6 billion... There's an old adage that goes "Cut off your nose to spite your face."

Bottom line for The Clinic!? It could close.

Are young women really apathetic about reproductive rights?

A Newsweek article iterated the belief held by many that young women today don't think that abortion rights need defending; and that with the elections of anti-choice politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, the reproductive rights people (denigratingly I think, called "the menopause militia") have waning influence in Washington.

Do you think that this is true? Do young women tend to not worry about access to BC and pregnancy testing or abortion or even STI testing, because those rights have always been there for them? Here in Nevada County, California, we have a group of college-age women and men who've formed a group called CHOICES and are activisits for reproductive justice. But then again, our donor base and our Board members are made up of mainly older people...