Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

The Right's War on Contraception

By Gloria Feldt, Women's eNews. Posted July 3, 2006.


What rational person can believe that any but crackpots could oppose using birth control to prevent pregnancy?
Advertisement

The world was riveted when Natalie Holloway went missing in Aruba last year. Dan Brown's best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," mesmerizes readers and movie-goers by spinning the tale around how Mary Magdalene went missing from Christian theology except as a reformed harlot.

In an equally riveting mystery, women have disappeared from the story of attacks on contraception.

When the New York Times Magazine published a watershed story in early May, "The War on Contraception," the Times Web site noted it was their most e-mailed story of the day. Of course it was snapped up. What rational person can believe that any but crackpots could oppose using birth control to prevent pregnancy?

I tore into the article hoping it would unearth and expose the true reproductive rights battle lines. This is a struggle often masquerading as a moral controversy. At its roots, however, it's about sex and power; whether women will be allowed to keep striving for an equal place in society or confined, as much as possible, to the nursery.

The author, Russell Shorto, did a fine job detailing the dueling philosophies of abstinence-only sex education versus comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive programs teach decision-making skills and provide medically accurate information, including facts about abstinence, sex, relationships and childbearing. Abstinence-only programs exhort unmarried people to "just say no."

Primal Motive Missed

My high hopes for Shorto's article plummeted when he failed to discuss the underlying, almost primal, opposition to women's equality inherent in both the abstinence-only movement and the attacks on birth-control access.

Shorto also failed to discuss the female casualties of this contraception battle. A clue to their whereabouts can be found in a Guttmacher Institute study, "A Tale of Two Americas for Women," published the same week as the Shorto piece.

Guttmacher finds a 29 percent rise in unintended pregnancies and abortions since 1994 among low-income women whose access to low-cost contraception has declined dramatically as a result of the attacks on contraception. For example, funding for Title X of the Public Health Services Act -- the backbone of subsidized family planning health services for low-income uninsured women -- is less than half what it was in 1980 when adjusted for inflation. The program faces a pitched battle in Congress every year just to maintain level funding.

Meanwhile, funding for abstinence-only programs that provide no health services has catapulted from near-zero to almost equal Title X. It's no surprise then that low-income women feel the heel of this particular anti-woman boot.

Among higher-income women, in contrast, unintended pregnancies and abortions have declined by a significant 20 percent. They can afford the rising costs of birth control including very effective newer methods such as injectable contraceptives. They have greater access to uncensored information on the Web and the wherewithal to drive across town to get their prescription filled when their neighborhood pharmacist refuses.

Politically Invisible

Restrictions on access fall most heavily on young and low-income women who are the most vulnerable, have the fewest resources with which to advocate for themselves and are thus politically speaking invisible.

Birth control frees women to forge their own paths by separating sex from procreation. This strikes fear into those who, underneath it all, oppose the increased social power women attain from expanded equality and justice. Proof of this?

James Leon Holmes, nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas, says it straight out in an article: "It is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception ... To the extent we adopt the feminist principle that the distinction between the sexes is of no consequence and should be disregarded in the organization of society and the Church, we are contributing to the culture of death." His stated solution is that " ... the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband."


Digg!

Gloria Feldt is the author of "The War on Choice" and "Behind Every Choice Is a Story." She is currently at work on a book with the actress Kathleen Turner, entitled "Take the Lead, Lady!"

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Women Have "Equal" Blame
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jul 3, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is nothing new. The author recapitulates the basic theme of women's rights are being oppressed by men. Although abstinence education and lack of basic reprodutive information and contraceptive resources is touted as the cause there is specific mention only of what men have said or done that is used to document this injustice. I am also not sure what "equal place in this society...or confined to the nursery" means, except it is just as inciteful and ludicrous as the "women subordinate to men" quote. What I have learned in the past few decades is there are as many women as men who promulgate and support these policies and attitudes that restrict any woman from learning about their bodies, their sexuality and appropriate birth control. Men lack knowledge in these areas as well. My approach would be to target those women who support oppression of their peers and embrace those men who support factual sex education.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: lively56
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ekinney
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: judithkrain
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ecoMamaNY
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: lively56
» Thou shalt be stupid Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Thou shalt be stupid Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: Trytobeaware
» RE: Women Have "Equal" Blame Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Men Run Religion? Posted by: Joe Ox
» Women Run Religion? Posted by: Burton
» what a joke Posted by: CollD
sexism
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 3, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexism is still the 600 lb gorilla that controls the USA and most other nations in the world. The major reason for this is most people still believe silly gospels written thousands of years ago mostly by ignorant, domineering men who were lousily educated. Believe modern databases and proven science not ignorant men writing trash by modern standards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» History of Christianity 101 Posted by: mirimac
» WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!! Posted by: chasaturn
» RE: WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!! Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: GOD DIDN'T MAKE Posted by: SamFox
» Can't Debate It Posted by: Joe Ox
» Start your own religion Posted by: Burton
» RE: Start your own religion Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Start your own religion Posted by: ssegallmd
Artificial Contraception and Abortion Prefers Richer Offspring
Posted by: mtodorov_69 on Jul 3, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Face it, natural consequence of sexual intercourse is pregnancy, and contraception is artificial stopping of natural consequence of sex.
Is it accidental that poor women go to abortion? If the father is rich, would they still, or would they prefer an old, traditional shut-gun wedding then? If he was a millionaire?
Of course, you are guessing the answer.
The poor man's offspring ends in lab for medicine improvement, and the rich guys seed gets to see the day.
This is the result of you women being equal. I am not saying there are not irresponsible fathers, but the answer is: "Yes, if you eat too much cookies you get fat as a consequence, and if you have sex you can and eventually will stay pregnant."
Killing unborn baby because you don't feel like raising it, but you want to enjoy sex is just as you ate 10 pounds of cookies each day because you can afford liposuction each month.
And in liposuction, nobody is yet killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fathers' Rights Posted by: benzene
Women have beein using contraceptives and abortion for thousands of years
Posted by: Maya on Jul 3, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In prechristian religions women used herbal and chemical contraceptives that they scientifually discovered or made. They also used abortion when they knew that, due to whatever circumstances, they could not raise the baby. And yes i have to say to the guy above who believes children are "his," sometimes women just do not want to have a baby.

And that is something you, men, will never understand because you do not have the capacity to make life. So, it is non of your business and should just stay out of the whole contraceptive/abortion discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fine article, very strange comments
Posted by: Citizendeane on Jul 3, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Withholding technology and education that allow greater authority to women should be a crime just as is racial discrimination. The article rightly sees equality as the central issue about contraception and birth control. This issue gets some amazingly strange responses. A great many people cannot see it. Why? Maybe because people with very little authority (most of us) cannot recognize when other people (women) are denied it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Children, children, it's time to grow up. Instead of blame, light a candle.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 3, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I happen to believe that children are our most precious resource and that women are to be protected in order to give birth to healthy children. I cherish Margaret Sanger's heroic story.

Yes, women have not been treated fairly. In some cases, women have been recipients of special benefits. But the history is clear that poor women, whether oppressed or not, may well have had a difficult life because of their responsibilities as mothers.

But I am tired of being yelled at because I am a man. I am tired of being blamed for public attitudes and policies I have worked all my days to oppose. And I am tired of women using their gift of birthing children as an excuse to beat on us and control us.

The number of “you men” statements in this thread is sickening. How did liberation become so hateful and grossly prejudicial? Blaming men for the divisions in women’s attitudes distorts our common experience so dreadfully as to be almost laughable. Neither gender has a monopoly on morality.

How much more freedom do we have to have to grow up and take responsibility for ourselves? When will this incessant childishness of blaming others cease?

I interpret the point of this article to indicate that we are living through another Dark Ages. But as Unamuno reminds us, "It's the cold that kills; not the dark. Not more light but more warmth" is what we need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "You men"? Posted by: Allison
» RE: "You men"? Posted by: FauxPorteno
» you're exaggerating Posted by: Allison
» WOW Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: Handmaid's Tale Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» What? Posted by: owleyes
This just in from the MEN vs. WOMEN news desk!!
Posted by: FauxPorteno on Jul 3, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again Alternet is running a story touting the brutish insensibilities and misogynistic behavior of men contrasted with the helpless condition of women in our archaic society. What's new?

Interestingly enough men AND MEN alone are responsible for restricting access to birth control. Does anyone really believe that there are more fundamentalist men than women out there? Do you really? To be brutally honest I have known more backwards, right-wing Christian women than men who oppose abortion and birth control and let me tell you this: they were much more outspoken and active in protesting Planned Parenthood locations one of which was located 50 meters from an apartment complex I inhabited for 2 years! In addition wealthy, white women have enormous influence on their powerful, white husbands (the obvious culprits) and to deny their roles in this is hypocritical to the point of being ridiculous. I know this is not always the case but in many conservative enclaves where issues like these are concerned, politicians act in accordance with what their constituency wishes and as far as I know that still includes women.

"Birth control frees women to forge their own paths by separating sex from procreation." It sure does and last I saw condoms were still a bargain when weighed against the emotional and financial cost of abortion or raising a child. If a man refuses to use them then a women can kindly tell him to get lost! If she really doesn't want to get pregnant she can abstain but we can't ask that of humans. The final option is for all women (52% of the population) to get together and demand better treatment! Want to know why this will never happen?? Because 50% of women think just like these neocon pigs but women just hate the idea that they may actually be partly responsible for their own dilemma and therefore unable to blame men like they have been doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocrisy Posted by: benzene
» Women Run Church Posted by: Joe Ox
» Love the name there benzene Posted by: Joe Ox
Woman May Not have Monopoly Over Reproduction
Posted by: mtodorov_69 on Jul 3, 2006 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feminist would often like to reduce men to sperm-bank + alemony.

The decision about pregancy, in their opinion, is woman's monopoly, since it is her body.

Likewise it is possible to feed the country by having only ground and no seeds - everybody dies. Child inevitably holds the genes of both parents. Slightly more mithochondric female DNA, to be precise, if the science is correct.

If we aborted unborn monkey's, we would be nailed down by animal protection activists. And nobody sane is doing it. But when humans are in question, then we have "higher interests". And such interest is often money.

1) Money must not have a role in deciding who will live and who will not.

2) Father also suffers emotional damage from losing unborn baby

3) Life is precious. Nobody should have authority over deciding who will live and who will not.

The fact that it is troubling to have many children only increases need for restraint, not for abortion. I don't eat expecting that my eating habit will be corrected through surgery; I don't drive reckless because there are blood donators and surgeons who will patch me; I should also not have sex because there is a surgical or chemical "remedy" to uncontrolled sexual desire.

It is wrong. Self-control is what makes me human.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My favorite bit of irony in this whole debate...
Posted by: writeval on Jul 3, 2006 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is the fact that for much of history the Catholic Church (like it or not, much of Protestantism, and by extension Christian fundamentalism, still takes its cues from the Holy See) had no problem with birth control... OR abortion. It was only in the 1850's when the Vatican realized that their numbers were dwindling that they decided to make both a sin. Suddenly 'poof' -- it's a sin since the dawn of time! I wonder if religious wing-nuts bothered to learn their history, might they start to notice the man behind the curtain?

I love organized religion. It isn't about spirituality in the slightest (I so love the "Who would Jesus bomb?" bumper stickers -- right on); it's about instilling fear and prejudice to manipulate the masses who won't think for themselves, for the sole purpose of geopolitical gain for the handful of Old Guys at the top of the hierarchy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Man Behind the Curtain Posted by: mirimac
MARS-VENUS
Posted by: Roverton on Jul 3, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some women DO fight against their own best interests. ESPECIALLY if they're with a violent and dangerous man, whose convictions give him a moral "Out-Clause" for their actions.

A multi-generational Stockholm Syndrome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

religious women embrace their inferior status
Posted by: owleyes on Jul 3, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and do not value their reproductive rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hogwash Posted by: Joe Ox
E.S.I.S.
Posted by: benzene on Jul 3, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every Sperm Is Sacred...
How long before it comes to that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:YO-- .S.I.S! GIVE ME Posted by: SamFox
» RE: YO-- .S.I.S! GIVE ME Posted by: nickptar
» RE: YO-- .S.I.S! GIVE ME Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: YO-- .S.I.S! GIVE ME Posted by: benzene
» RE: YO-- .S.I.S! GIVE ME Posted by: celticsweetgrass
Hypocrites changing the subject
Posted by: deha on Jul 3, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting how discussions about access to contraception seem to inevitably devolve into tirades about abortion and how women are horrible because we don't all want to spend our lives putting the desires and wishes of men before our own physical and emotional best interests. Wah wah wah. The issue here is reliable and affordable access to contraception for ALL women who desire it, not just those who are economically privileged.

Human history has shown, time and again, that telling people not to have sex unless they are deliberately trying to reproduce DOES NOT WORK. It didn't work in the ancient world, in the Middle Ages, during the Industrial Revolution, or at any other time in history, and it doesn't work now.

I don't usually resort to ad hominem attacks, but anyone who attempts to reframe the debate about access to contraception into a debate about abortion is a fucking moron.

Anyone who is opposed to abortion and who doesn't work to assure that every woman has access to reproductive education and contraception so that abortion becomes rare is a hypocrite of the highest magnitude. Especially if you have EVER had sexual intercourse without the express intent of creating a child. Male or female, it doesn't matter - you are a hypocrite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Too Sensitive Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: Too Sensitive Posted by: LPB
» RE: Too Sensitive Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: Too Sensitive Posted by: LPB
Sex is good. Don't listen to the religious right!
Posted by: LRayn on Jul 3, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the above comment explains it all:

"I should also not have sex because there is a surgical or chemical "remedy" to uncontrolled sexual desire."

Bullshit. Sex is a good thing. Using contraception to avoid pregnancy is a good thing. Making it easier for women to control our own destinies is a good thing.

The idea that sexual desire is bad and must be "controlled" is straight out of Medieval Christianity. Backward ideas about sexual "purity" are not progressive or democratic. They are old fashioned patriarchal religious beliefs. In America, we have no state religion. Fundamentalist Christians have no right to force their religious views on everyone else.

It is my right as an American citizen to have easy access to safe and effective birth control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» are you happy? Posted by: Joachim
Keep your dogma outta my uterus.
Posted by: pixiequix on Jul 3, 2006 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This bogus dark ages mentality is the basis of non-involvement in reproductive health and choices for both genders; acting as an essential crippling device to all and a vehicle of aid to none. Well, ladies, we need to be resourceful -- and also to the many caring husbands and boyfriends, there is a a bit of wisdom I'd like to pass on... Wild Carrot Seed is an excellent birth control, acting to deter the actual act of implantation. I can vouch for it's performance personally, and I know of several others who would as well. It's natural, it's safe and healthy, and a non controversial means of maintaining control of our bodies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Keep your dogma outta my uterus. Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» Wild Carrot Posted by: Joe Ox
Let's be honest, folks!
Posted by: pianojo on Jul 3, 2006 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If MEN gave birth, abortion and birth control would be non-issues!

I am SICK TO DEATH of religious NUTS AND IDIOTS - be they men OR women - thinking they have the RIGHT to tell me what I may or may not do with MY OWN GOD-DAMNED BODY!!!!!!!!

If you don't want to avail yourself of birth control or abortion - fine. That is your right and that is your choice.

But kindly FUCK OFF and allow me the courtesy of the same right to choose whether or not I wish to to use birth control or abotion.

It's none of you GOD-DAMNED BUSINESS!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» please explain . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Thank You....I've always said it! Posted by: sirossisofliver
» I agree Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: I agree Posted by: LPB
» Check Again Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: Check Again Posted by: LPB
» RE: I agree Posted by: babs
ChrisLL et al
Posted by: fork on Jul 3, 2006 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's getting so tiresome. All these right wing nuts and this shrill whining about how women are to blame, stop blaming poor little men. Women are oppressing women, only a few men are rapists, blah blah blah. Man, you've got such an axe to grind.
You're always so quick off the mark in responding to any women's type issue and going off on this tangent. It's almost impossible to have any kind of progressive discussion that doesn't degenerate into this simplistic lowest-common-denominator drivel.
There are so many other sites (the vast majority of mainstream media sources) that would be more suitable to your ideology, and there are so few truly progressive sites. Is this really your objective, to rush in and stifle any non-conservative debate? If it's not, then you should try listening and practicing a bit of self-restraint.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sensitive Ponytail Guy et al . . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
In response to comments about women who are against abortion
Posted by: LPB on Jul 3, 2006 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would just like to point out that many of these women are against abortion because they have been indoctrinated against it by their religious leaders. A good friend of mine even admitted that she was opposed to abortion because it's a sin, then finally admitted that she learned that concept in church. So the anti-abortion stance is, for the most part, religious and these women who oppose abortion have, largely, learned to be against abortion through their religious instruction.

Now, who is MOSTLY in charge of religious instruction? Men. Who gives most of the sermons and writes most of the material which is taught in most churches? Men.

My conclusion is this: Yes, many women do oppose abortion, for different reasons. But many of those women oppose abortions because they were taught by their religious leaders, most of whom were men, to do so. The prevailing religion in America, Christianity, teaches that women should subordinate themselves to men, or at least many Christian churches teach this.

So using the fact that many women are also against abortion, and for the anti-birth-control policies, as proof that these policies don't hurt or penalize women is not entirely a valid point, because if they weren't taught by (mostly) men from the time that they were children to view abortion and sex for pleasure as sins for women, many of these women would feel differently about both issues.

So again, birth control, as well as abortion, is being restricted by mostly men!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: CollD
» RE: NICE TRY Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: NICE TRY: STILL NO CIGAR Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: NICE TRY: STILL NO CIGAR Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH Posted by: CollD
» So women are automons? Posted by: Burton
» Who is the brainwashee Posted by: Burton
It's Not About Babies
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Jul 3, 2006 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about keeping women under the thumbs of male dominators. Once she's saddled with children, her freedoms of choice (where and how to live) are greatly reduced. It really is that simple.

Having been born gay in a mostly gay-hating world was no blessing, but women have it much tougher, since they can be (and usually allow themselves to be) controlled by impregnation. However, they themselves must take control of their reproduction.

Having been so thoroughly conditioned to feel they NEED to be sexual objects, (traditional) "wives" (slaves!) and mothers in order to qualify as "real" women, makes it even tougher for them. They have to fight against their own internal tapes.

As a (predominantly) gay person, I had to switch off my own tapes about how I'm less than human, and deserve to be punished by society, and by the law. Women all over the world must do the same, if they really want to be free.

I was shocked and dismayed when American women failed to protect their own rights back in the 70s, when they rejected the Equal Rights Amendment, and since then "Feminism" in general. It reminds me of the pathetic US Gay Rights movement, which still seems more bent on its rights to drag parades and economic exploitation of the word "gay", than to its Equal Rights under the law (marriage, and its hundreds of automatic entitlements and family protections).

America is still ULTRA-conservative, sadly including those who suffer the most from it. Freedom (or lack of it) is, for most, a choice.

Steven Wanzell
artist/activist/ex-American
www.wanzellarts.com.ar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Women opposed ERA Posted by: Burton
right??
Posted by: excaliburtb1982 on Jul 3, 2006 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that access to contraceptives is a good idea. More is better. I still believe that we need to teach both, the health education about sex and abstinence(which is also scientific). For those who want to argue that, scientifically, those educated have a decreased risk of pregnancy and for those partaking in abstinence have no risk of pregnancy. I do think that people need to take some responsibility for their actions but this doesn't mean that government can't help those who chose poorly.

One thing... this article failed to link its facts with its title accusation of the right..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feminist Taliban Posted by: Burton
Too bad the right doesn't use enough contraception...
Posted by: enzolima on Jul 3, 2006 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where do those cultish religious drones come from?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cuba
Posted by: benzene on Jul 3, 2006 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting note from an article I read on the AP today about Fidel's niece leading a sexual revolution. The article mentioned, in passing, that the right to choose is a constitutional right in Cuba. I can't help but find some irony here given how thoroughly the U.S. insists upon smearing Cuba.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you think Babs really wanted to have W?
Posted by: enzolima on Jul 4, 2006 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She msut have know that he was the anti-christ. If ony she had had him aborted. Or, maybe she did abort W but missed his evil twin - the imposter W. You see, she didn't know she was carrying twins. Soshe had one sucked out and W was sneaking around in the womb looking for his cocaine straw and a bottle of booze.
The possibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Brilliant! Posted by: sirossisofliver
Menaces to Society Classifications and Solutions
Posted by: pbr90 on Jul 5, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As women's equality issues become more and more clear via debate at the roots of its existence in sexuality and gender biological differences, identifying what is really a menace to society also becomes easier to isolate.

Clearly out of wedlock babies has always been a prime concern for men and women since it produces unwanted children. The increasing impact of the hierarchy of deterrents: social and economic stigma, birth control, and finally abortion has worked to reduce the social menace of unwanted babies. Prohibitions on abortion is a drastic measure couched in an inconsistent morality that favors men's rights over women's rights, not equal rights and social obligations.

For moral consistency, the social menace of pedophiles and rapists must also be addressed, and although it is the flip side of the abortion issue, it relates to the equal rights and social obligation to prevent men from the unequal social preference that allows them unlicensed or illicit sex that harms and endangers women. It is the other half of the sexual and gender social control as yet unaddressed since unwanted babies come from engagement with men who also ignore equal rights and social obligations. As a social menace, it lies near the top of everyone's priority, and though the fear of castration for men typically outweighs their movtivation to use it as an alternative to unwanted harms, there is as yet no hierarchy of controls over male gender to prevent them.

What difference is there, actually, in using social castration of women by social stigma of sex out of wedlock while allowing it for men, and chemical castration of men to prevent their uncontrollable sexual/predatory drives that result in years of incarceration? The perception that male sexual privilege is a right, while that for women is immoral is the heart of a double standard that justifies female control but not male control.

In a land where the death penalty exists, chemical castration may be more compassionate and lesser expense than incarceration as the answer to this social menace. If the Catholic Church had mandated chemical castration of priests, there would have been few pedophilia problems and they would have achieved their goal of virtuous priests in the model of a celibate Jesus. The fact that they haven't mandated this option shows the hypocrisy by which the Church attempts to accomplish its unequal status power dominion, but only at the expense of women and children.

If priests make the commitment to be celibate, and women are expected to be celibate unless married - in the moral context of human lifestyles - then, equal rights would suggest that celibacy for men is equally an option, and that castration is not beyond the human rights boundary of acceptability. Both women and Priests have been forced into the rules of celibacy for hundreds of years. Life without sex is not perceived as a diminution of their lives or their importance as persons.

While surgical castration admittedly evokes the horrors associated with that procedure, chemical castratiion is conceivable as a kindness for a social menace that is needed to control the sexual and violence oriented sexual appetites of men unable to control themselves.

If society aims to claim a right to determine the reproductive outcomes of women - by granting or prohibiting abortion, certainly the policy is applicable to males - by offering, or mandating castration as the alternative to enduring the social menace of irresponsble men as also the application to determine the reproductive outcome of men.

Sex, used responsibly, causes no unwanted pregnancies or births, nor does it produce victims of pedophilia and rape.
For equal rights to be just, castration like abortion would become legitimate methods of social control to prohibit the social menace of sex to destroy lives.