Tag Archives: birth control
Had I been a member of Congress, I would have pressed the “yes” lever for the health-reform bill when it came down to the vote for final passage. It was incredibly important that we start somewhere to make health care accessible and affordable to all Americans. And we can celebrate, as Ms. magazine recounts in “What the Health Care Bill Means for Women,” that contraceptives will be covered, gender rating that discriminates against women has been eliminated, and preventive services such as pap smears will be covered without co-pay under the new plan.
Posted in Health Care Reform
Tagged abortion, Affordable Health Care Act, birth control, contraceptives, family planning, gender bias, gender equality, health care reform, Obama, pro-choice, reproductive justice, Stupak-Pitts amendment
after 35 years, I’m tired of arguing about what is the most persuasive language to bring the most people into what we have for some decades now been referring to as the pro-choice fold. And frankly, I have moved on–or outward, as I prefer to say–to the bigger canvas of women’s equality and power, not just between the navel and the knees but also in politics, at work, and at home.
However, thanks to the perpetual obsession about women and sex by those who want to outlaw abortion, I find myself drawn in once more to the fray over the rhetoric of–well, whatever you want to call it. Historian Nancy L. Cohen started the latest public discussion of the terminology in her Los Angeles Times op ed proposing that we switch from “choice” to “freedom.”
What were your thoughts, feelings, worries this morning when the Senate passed the health reform bill?
This is the question I asked on Facebook this morning and there were so many thoughtful and interesting responses
that I just had to share them here. Please add yours too!
Lilith Magazine asked me to review Michelle Goldberg’s The Means of Reproduction. The book waspublished earlier this year and at first I thought this review would be a bit dated. As it turns out, given the health reform debate in which women’s reproductive health is once again the battering ram for Republicans who want to kill reform and controversial fodder for the pundits, the subject matter couldn’t be more timely. In particular, Goldberg’s discussion of the damage done globally to women’s health by the Helms amendment shouts the warning about what might well happen in the U.S. if the Stupak-Pitts amendment prevails.
Michelle Goldberg’s captivating book, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World (Penguin Press, 2009) is perfectly timed to remind those who came of age post-Roe v Wade and might think they can relax under an Obama administration, just how much work is left to do. An investigative journalist and author previously of Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism, Goldberg has imbued this long-running story with fresh power by telling it in her young feminist voice.
The Means of Reproduction is a sweeping history of U.S. foreign policy on international family planning that spans four continents and the covers issues such as birth control, abortion, HIV/AIDS, their intersections with environmental concerns and economic development, and the gender politics of all, while staying in intimate touch with how America’s policies affect real women globally.
The story begins during the 1960’s cold war when Republicans like John D. Rockefeller and, yes, George H.W. “Rubbers” Bush led the charge to secure U.S. funding for international family planning, convinced that population pressures threatened national security. Then as now, family planning proponents met predictable adversaries. Goldberg writes, “There is one thing that unites cultural conservatives throughout the world, a critique that joins Protestant fundamentalism, Islamists, Hindu Nationalists, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and ultramontane Catholics. All view women’s equality and self-possession as unnatural, a violation of the established order. Yet in one society after another, we can see the absence of women’s rights creating existential dangers.”
Folks have asked me to post this speech that I gave at the Brooklyn Museum Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art on September 13. Today, September 14, would be the 130th birthday of the founder of the American Birth Control Movement, Margaret Sanger. So here you go!
I just got back from my high school reunion in West Texas. It was a long journey from teen mom with little sense of power over or intention for my life to a movement leader and an activist for women’s human right to reproductive self-determination.
So when I tell you I’m amazed to be here with you, so near 46 Amboy Street in Brownsville, where Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic 93 years ago next month—believe it! This is hallowed ground.
Yesterday, Bristol Palin was all over the media talking about her own teen pregnancy and that prevention is best. Though she focused on abstinence, she acknowledged teens need to know about birth control.
Today, the president’s budget (.pdf) says in clear terms that the U.S. government won’t be wasting our tax money on abstinence only ineffective sex non-education any more if he has anything to do with it. Who would have thought that conservative abstinence-only proponent Gov. Sarah Palin’s splash onto the political landscape would have helped created the impetus for this sweeping policy change? This is what makes politics so eternally fun! Here’s the relevant language from the budget-now we have to keep the pressure on Congress to follow suit:
Sex and relationship conflict always give the morning news a little sizzle to go with the caffeine jolt.
Jill Miller Zimon over at writeslikeshetalks already said most of what I was thinking this morning as I watched media reports of the breakup of Bristol Palin and her boyfriend-fiancé-baby daddy, Levi Johnston:
Frankly, I think the only one who should be asked questions and be allowed to say, “no comment” is Bristol herself. She is 18, she is a single mother and it’s her life. Questions to Palin should go only to her existence as Bristol’s mother and either she is going to comment on that or not. I’m not even happy that she’s being asked about the subject at all – leave them all alone as far as I’m concerned. True, she kicked the door wide open during the campaign, but the Bristol-Greta interview demonstrated that Bristol is at least making some decisions, it seems.
I’d love to have an epistemological conversation with Sarah Palin about the word, “choice,” even knowing her whole thing about God opening doors, or not.
On the plus side, both Bristol and Sarah have now acknowledged that perhaps abstinence isn’t the 100% foolproof birth control method it’s cracked up to be. Because like all methods, it only works when it’s actually used.
However, I doubt that media attention will disappear from Bristol and baby Tripp for quite some time, at least as long as Sarah Palin is in the political limelight where she seems determined to stay to the chagrin of many in the party that used and abused her during McCain-Palin’s failed presidential campaign.