Strollerderby : Pro-choice

UPDATE: President Obama Issues Statement About Dr. George Tiller

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:36:00 GMT

President Barack Obama has issued a statement about the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Well said, Mr. President.

TheRoot.com points out: "It's fairly unusual for the White House to comment on this type of local story. But the news of Tiller's murder, allegedly by an anti-choice activist apprehended this afternoon by local and state police, has reverberated across the country in a matter of hours—and inflamed a longstanding debate about abortion rights in America."

Methinks this won't be the last we hear about the matter.

Original post follows:

*-*-*-*

Sad news from Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while ushering at church. A suspect is in custody.

From Huffington Post:

WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Wichita church on Sunday.
Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion, making him a favored target of anti-abortion protesters. He testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

Anti-abortion group Operation Rescue was no fan of Dr. Tiller; there is a "Tiller Watch" page on their web site. The group has issued a statement condemning the murder.

Tiller was recently tried for "allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly 'independent' as required by Kansas state law." It was a big deal case (we covered it on Strollerdery), with both sides tossing out big deal rhetoric. "Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as 'a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.'" (Source for both quotes: Wikipedia)

This is an ugly end to an ugly story. Hopefully the police have the right person and they will be punished. That won't bring anyone back to life, of course. No matter what side of the abortion debate you are on, I hope you agree that shooting someone in cold blood is a horrible thing to do.

Source: Huffington Post

Image: CrooksAndLiars

Finish Line - Creepy Cakes, Sesame Street, And Much More

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

School Makes Teen Reveal Pregnancy

JeanneSager — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:01:00 GMT

How far should a school go to get help for a pregnant teen?

A mom in Texas says her daughter's school crossed a line when they forced the girl to reveal her pregnancy to staff, then sent her for medical testing and counseling.

Considering it's a Christian school, it's not surprising the First Choice Pregnancy Center, where they sent the teen, just so happens to be one of those abstinence-only, pro-life organizations. But then the Trinity Christian School allegedly expelled the girl in May of 2008, two weeks shy of the end of school.

The girls mom is suing the school, church and specific staffers at the school. But it sounds like her biggest problems are with the center, which the lawsuit says, "The pregnancy center interviewed, counseled and tested Jane Doe without the consent or knowledge of her mother and disseminated her private medical information to [school Bible teacher Shannan] Morgan and [school counselor Brad] Watson without consent or authorization."

So there was a violation of HIPAA here on behalf of the center. Her health info should not have been given to school staff based on federal guidelines regarding the privacy of health information. Period.

It's inappropriate too that the school ordered any form of medical testing, and that the girl was forced to reveal her pregnancy. Again, that's private health information. Her pregnancy was not swine flu. It was not going to affect public health. It's where the school clearly crossed a line. As they did by kicking out a student for her pregnancy.

But is the counseling part out of line? Even counseling at a place where they make it their mission "to give women and teens in crisis pregnancies and opportunity to examine their lives, think through their options, and gain vital information regarding positive alternatives to pregnancy termination"?

Remember, this isn't a public school. As a religious private school, the separation of church and state is null and void. So while parents with kids in public school could (should) throw up their arms for having their kid brought to a faith-based counseling service, that doesn't necessarily apply here. And counseling of some form is often put into place by school districts, some of which have a psychologist on staff for kids to consult. And that can be at the suggestion of a teacher or simply a student's own request. If a student or teacher dies, a trauma team full of counselors is called upon, and parents are not asked if that's OK.

I'd imagine counseling for a pregnant teen is appropriate. Even in a public school setting - although there I'd again call for something non-faith based, with no particular focus on whether or not she'll keep the baby.

What do you think, parents?

Image: supernannyrules.com (not the girl described)

Choose Life License Plates Debate Heats Up

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:00 GMT

If you're a pregnant woman, do you want to get stuck in traffic behind a car sporting a "Choose Life" bumper sticker? What if it wasn't a bumper sticker but a license plate, supported in essence by the taxes you pay and the state government by virtue of their oversight of the department of motor vehicles?

It's a fight raging in the North Carolina House of Representatives right now, and one that's been cropping up in other states. Are choose life license plates allowing the religious right to get its hooks too far into government?

Judges in Illinois, Arizona and South Carolina have summarily dismissed the proposal to add them to the fund-raising options in the department of motor vehicles' repertoire, citing the topic too controversial. In North Carolina, the current debate is over whether "choose life" is a political issue because civic groups are eligible for special plates but political issues are specifically not allowed.

Its proponents, of course, say it's political in the sense that it is free speech. That's why the pro-life Children First Foundation has taken the State of New Jersey to court over the plates - citing the state for denying them their Constitutionally protected rights. They've pointed out that individuals pay for the right to have the special emblems on their plates, an extra fee that goes to help support the department of motor vehicles as a whole - so pro-choice people aren't technically funding a pro-lifer's message. If anything, they'd be benefitting from it with the funds raised that offset our taxes.

But it's hard to separate license plates, issued by a government entity, from the emblems printed on them. Even if a pro-lifer paid for that emblem to be there, it still stands that the government allowed them to put it there, even took their money to do so. What's next? Nazi symbols printed on license plates? If this is a matter of free speech, than why not? Although I am very decidedly pro-choice, I am not equating the general pro-lifer with Nazis.

But I would ask whether pro-lifers are ready to have the government supporting pro-choice emblems printed onto their license plates, at the behest of the state. A bumper sticker bears the opinion of the driver, a license plate is representative of government.

And my baby, my body don't belong there.

Image: WRAL

Should Mixed Up Embryo's Mom Get to Weigh In on Abortion?

JeanneSager — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:25:00 GMT

Remember the outrage over the Japanese doctors who oh-so-accidentally transferred one couple's embryo into the wrong mom-to-be?

The story's back in the news - with a twist. It turns out the woman whose embryo was accidentally transferred into the womb of an ususpecting IVF patient (who later aborted) did not find out about the incident for a full two and a half months. Doctors said the woman, who was in her forties, was not overly concerned. Her exact words (according to the health officials) were "I'm sorry to hear that."

So what's the problem? Some members of the press are now debating whether that woman should have had a chance to weigh in on the subject when doctors realized the mistake. In other words - some are debating whether the embryo's "Mom" should have had the right to talk the pregnant woman out of aborting her "child."

Wait, what? Technically, they're suggesting that one woman should have the right over another woman's body. And they're not the only ones.

Some of the commentors on the original reporting of the story here on Strollerderby expressed their outrage at the woman who underwent the abortion - even pro-choice moms. As Emma says, "That's pretty disgusting. This woman was so desperate for a child she paid for expensive IVF treatments, but she couldn't bear to keep a child that wasn't her's biologically? I completely understand her anger, and a large settlement would be justified. For me, despite being pro choice, the abortion is unfathomable."

As a woman who was very happy to get pregnant and even happier when the pregnancy ended (with the birth of my daughter), I'm not sure I'm OK with the idea of going forward with a pregnancy for the sake of someone else . . . especially someone I've never met. Planned surrogacy is one thing. Accidental surrogacy, and suffering through all the ill effects of pregnancy for someone else's child is quite another.

On the other hand, this woman and her husband provided egg and sperm in good faith. They thought their embryo would become a child, and it was their flesh and blood. They didn't impregnate some poor woman on purpose, and they sure as heck could have suffered exponentially from the loss of either the chance to become pregnant or the loss of that fetus.

Should the biological parents' of the embryo have been allowed to know the situation right away? Should they have been allowed contact with the pregnant woman? Or was there enough of a burden on the women who suffered from the wrongly transferred embryo?

Image: PatDollard.com

Proposed Anti-Octomom Law Stalls, For Now

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:00 GMT

A Georgia state bill that would have imposed severe limits on IVF, promoted as a measure to prevent future "Octomom" situations, is unlikely to be passed this year, according to observers. The proposed legislation, which has been sent to a senate subcommittee for further study, would have required doctors and fertility clinics to fertilize no more embryos than they planned to transfer into a woman, and would have limited the number to no more than two or three, depending upon the woman's age. Proponents have suggested that this kind of legislation is sorely needed to protect both women and taxpayers from situations like Nadya Suleman's, in which the transfer of a large number of embryos resulted in a case of super-multiples with no visible means of support.

And we can all get behind that, right?

Well, not so fast. As Slate's William Saletan pointed out in a column this week, the bill, S.B. 169, is really a backdoor attempt to impose the same kind of "personhood" rights on embryos and fetuses that a state legislature in North Dakota recently passed. Under the guise of imposing sanity on the Wild West atmosphere still prevailing in some fertility clinics (and yes, Octomom is pretty much Exhibit A for what's wrong in that world), S.B. 169 would penalize all fertility patients, ban stem-cell research and declare that legally an embryo has rights that should be paramount (over the rights of living, breathing human beings).

Since the stem-cell and "personhood" issues are both facets of the whole reproductive freedom issue and most people have already made up their minds how they feel about them, I think it's most interesting to see how S.B. 169, if it ever were passed, would effect regular people seeking IVF or other fertility treatments. Under the bill's provisions, a mother could only have 2-3 embryos transferred, and due to the bill's "fertilize only as many as you transfer" language, she could not produce other fertilized eggs that could then be frozen and used in subsequent cycles (which is how nearly all current IVF patients proceed). This would vastly reduce the likelihood of success of each IVF cycle since not all fertilized eggs become transferrable blastocycts, and not all of those transferred blastocycts become implanted embryos, and not all of those embryos stick around long enough to become human babies; the more non-medical limitations placedon the number of eggs fertilized, the smaller the pool for even potential success. And given the cost of each IVF cycle, couples would quickly find themselves priced out of the fertility game unless they got very lucky, very early on.

As Saletan says of the bill's limits on egg fertilization:

How does this restriction "protect the mother" and "reduce the risk of complications" for her? It doesn't. If you wanted to protect the woman, you might limit the number of embryos that could be transferred to her womb, not the number that can be created in the dish. In fact, by limiting the number that can be created, you increase her risk of complications. The fewer eggs you fertilize, the lower your chances of producing an embryo healthy enough to be transferred and carried to term. That means a higher failure rate, which in turn means that women will have to undergo more treatment cycles, with the corresponding risks of ovarian hyperstimulation and advancing maternal age.

So why limit the number of embryos created per cycle? Because the bill's chief purpose isn't really to help women. It's to establish legal rights for embryos.

So don't be fooled. This kind of bill will no doubt make its debut in other state legislatures, particularly in states with a strong lobby against reproductive freedom and for embryo rights. If its advocates would come right out and say that's what they're fighting for, I'd have a lot more respect for them. Instead, by using impressive-sounding scientific language and making grand gestures toward women's health and taxpayer's dollars, they're trying to fool the public and use state legislative means to make an end run around Supreme Court precedent. As for women who only want a healthy baby or two, they become the innocent bystanders who stand to get hurt if bills like this pass.

More by this author:

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

"Angels in Waiting" Apparently Still Waiting

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

JeanneSager — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:27:00 GMT

Why Texas? Why?

Do you really think women who are headed in to have an abortion are all happy-go-lucky sorts who have no idea what they're getting into?

Because leading members of Texas' GOP are sponsoring a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that's not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

According to the bill, the "pregnant woman may choose not to view the materials or avert her eyes." How sweet. If that's an option, how about just skipping the whole charade and letting women get on with it?

Its supporters have made clear they are looking to reduce abortion numbers, but they're also being careful throw a little "we're helping to cut down on medical malpractice" spin in there.

"I think that this bill will protect women from being at the hands of a doctor who is not performing best practices," study author Republican Sen. Dan Patrick said. But he's certainly sticking with the party line - he goes on to say, "secondly, it may change the thinking of that woman if she decides to look at that ultrasound, to hear that heart beat."

This move is right up there with North Dakota's recent declaration that "personhood" is achieved at conception. Neither directly reverses Roe v. Wade, but they skirt the rights of a woman being trumped by that of an unborn fetus. As my colleague Kate recently pointed out, the right-to-life movement often neglects the idea that there is life AFTER birth.

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman's mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she's been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; no matter the pain it inflicts.

Did these guys read the much-talked about Glamour piece on women who've gone through an abortion?

"In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy," Liz Welch said just last month. "But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs."

So Texas, just to give you an update women might not feel guilty or even wrong for doing it, but it isn't an easy choice. They don't need to hear a heartbeat or be beaten over the head with literature and a detailed ultrasound description to know that.

Image: PatDollard.com

Did Catholic Church Push This Woman To Abort?

JeanneSager — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:28:00 GMT

The Catholic Church may well be the strongest advocates of the pro-life movement in the world, but a Canadian woman says doctors at a Catholic hospital pressured her to abort her baby.

On the face of it, the charges sound outrageous, even to someone who is pro-choice, but like most of these stories there's always a back story.

What mother Nikki Cooke refers to as a "eugenic abortion," was actually a suggested early induction of a baby carrying Trisomy 18, a a chromosomal defect that claims ninety percent of children by their first birthday. Many don't survive to even be born, which happened to the Cookes - the baby's heart stopped beating a week before Nikki was due to give birth.

The doctors had explained the slim chance that the Cookes' baby would be born alive and that there was nothing they can do. At one point, Cooke says she was told to terminate. One paragraph later, she's quoted saying they were "pressured to have an early induction." Which is it? Because inducing labor on a baby is not the same as an abortion. My daughter was induced, and she's very much alive.

Here's where some of the Cookes' claims could hold weight: Nikki says she was told IF her baby was born alive, the hospital would not resuscitate the baby. If that's true, the doctors in this case may have been legally protected, but ethically, that's absurd. How does a doctor allow a living, breathing child to go into respiratory failure and refuse to respond? Even if the child has a chromosomal difference, it's their obligation to make every attempt to keep that child breathing and the heart beating; at least until it is clear that there is simply no hope.

With Trisomy 18, there is little hope, it's true. But once a child is alive, that ten percent chance of survival is nothing to sneeze at.

The hospital, by the way, denies they would not treat a living baby. From the National Post:

"What is key for them is that labour is not induced until at least 23 weeks, when the fetus has reached viability, so if the baby is born alive everything possible could be done to save it. And if the diagnosis was wrong, the child would still have a chance."

It's also important to get back to the initial findings by the doctors - they didn't see the Cookes' baby surviving. They didn't see this baby being born alive, and they were advising a mother that it would be better to get her pregnancy over with sooner rather than continuing to carry around a baby who would not survive. Essentially, there was no hope. It comes to a point, the priest in the National Post article points out, where the safety and health (including emotional) of the mother has to come first.

According to the hospital guidelines in this case: "Medical treatment is permitted to prevent or cure a grave illness in a pregnant woman that cannot be deferred until the unborn child is viable even though the pregnancy may be endangered ... even though they will result in the foreseen but unintended death of the unborn child."

What's disturbing are the attempts by the pro-life movement to use this story as evidence that a mother is being wronged by a doctor making the determination that a fetus is not viable. It's sad for parents when this happens, but faith can't trump science. Sometimes, babies just won't make it. And it's important for parents to face that - as painful as it might be.

These are the same arguments used against women who opt for a D&C after a miscarriage, when the heart has stopped beating, and they are walking around with a non-viable fetus inside of them. They're branded murderers by some in the pro-life movement for what is, essentially, an abortive procedure - even though there is nothing there, there is no life in that tiny body.

You can't kill someone who isn't alive. You also can't call an inducement an abortion simply because the baby will not survive its chromosomal defects.

What do you think? Do you think the hospital was wrong here, or is this blown out of proportion?

Image: National Post

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

In the latest salvo against abortion rights, North Dakota's house of representatives this week passed a law defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights of a human being. The bil, which passed with a 51-41 vote, will now move to the state's senate for its consideration. If it is approved, legal challenges are expected that could end up in the United States Supreme Court -- a body that is now widely seen as having a five-justice majority willing to restrict abortion rights first enumerated in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Dan Ruby, the Republican state congressman who sponsored the bill, says it's not intended to ban abortion, simply to define when life begins -- a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, but apparently is obvious to the North Dakota Republican Party -- and to give that life "some protections under our Constitution."

This is hardly the first or the only legislative assault on Roe, and it certainly won't be the last. It is, however, part of an interesting new political/religious movement that uses the term "personhood" to attempt to define not only fetuses, but blastocytes (what's next, follicles?) as fully-fledged human beings deserving of all the legal status of a baby, child, or adult. The so-called "personhood movement" aims to roll back abortion rights by means of state legislative action, primarily working in states that outlawed or restricted abortion in the days pre-Roe, when each state had its own laws regarding reproductive rights. In defining even a fertilized egg as human, backers are not only taking aim at abortion but also at many forms of birth control, which operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the woman's uterus. It could also result in pregnant women being prosecuted for behavior said to endanger their fetuses.

I'm interested in this movement, and wonder when they will turn their attention to granting "personhood" rights to children who have already been born. One group of persons whose rights need protecting is children who are US citizens but whose parents are not -- an estimated 100,000 parents were deported over the past decade whose children, having been born here, should be enjoying all the rights of other US citizens, rather than left behind by their parents or forced to return to countries with fewer opportunities for them. And how about extending "personhood" rights to gay Americans who would like to marry and raise their children together, just as their straight friends and relatives do?

The religious right's emphasis on what happens before birth and after death is mystifying to me at times. I'd like to remind them that there's life after birth, and protecting those lives seems a much better use of everyone's time, energy, and attention.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

"Pro-Choice Women Shouldn't Cry Over Miscarriages"

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:30:00 GMT

Just in case your day is going a little too smoothly, let me share an article that will make your blood boil—particularly if you are one of the numerous women who has suffered the pain of a miscarriage and also happens to believe in a woman’s right to choose.

A guest blogger named Gina over at Mom Logic has written a gem of offensive inanity called “Pro-Choice? Quit Crying Over Your Miscarriage!” Here’s how Gina characterizes the pro-choice women who “break down in hysterics” over a miscarriage: “It's a baby when they want it to be, it's a bundle of cells when they don't.”

This is such a shameless confusion of the issue that we need to put Gina’s thinking in perspective with an extreme—but real-life—example: do I believe that a 12-year-old rape victim should be forced to keep her baby? Absolutely not. Would I be heartbroken if I lost the baby I was carrying, whom I had carefully planned my life around for years? Absolutely. These are two entirely different issues. One has to do with my belief in the universal right to reproductive freedom, which is essential to ending the oppression of women; the other has to do with my personal feelings about motherhood.

Many women who would not choose to have an abortion themselves (except perhaps in extreme cases such as rape or incest) respect other women’s right to choose—as do many men, who will never face the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. That’s why it’s called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. By Gina’s line of thinking, no one who wants kids—male or female—should support a woman’s right to choose.

Gina also writes of pro-choice women who have the gall to want kids of their own: “Suddenly the monthly visitor that they were relieved to get when they were 20, now, at 32, plunges them into the depths of depression.” Well, Gina, this is a little something called “family planning”: making life choices that give both you and your future children the best chances for happiness and success—and therefore, bettering the world. How could anyone take issue with women who were responsible enough to avoid pregnancies when they were too young to care for a child? If it weren’t for unplanned pregnancies, there would be no need for abortion in the first place.

Gina claims that she “respects women’s right to choose.” If she truly is pro-choice—which, by her own definition, means believing that all babies are nothing more than “a conglomeration of microscopic cells” until they are out of the womb—then I sincerely hope she never gets pregnant. It’d be pretty difficult to avoid things like smoking and drinking if you have zero emotional attachment to your baby.

Photo: Flickr/Steve Rhodes

Anti-Abortion Group Up In Arms Over Krispy Kreme Abortion Donuts

Cole Gamble — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:30:00 GMT

It started off such a sweet idea. In honor of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration, Krispy Kreme decided to offer free donuts to everybody on January 20th. As their press release stated:

"Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be."

The American Life League, an anti-abortion activist group, saw this sweet deal as an attack on defenseless unborn fetuses. These pastries had a baby-killing agenda. These were ABORTION DONUTS!

Is Kripsy Kreme offering free abortions with the free donuts? Can you pick up a baker’s dozen of abortions at any convenient donut shop on Jan. 20th? Surely these donut-glazing Nazis must be doing something horrendous to earn ALL’s righteous scorn.

According to the ALL’s President Judie Brown:

"The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme, you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand…

Want to know how you picking up your free donut today will help kill “over 50 million preborn children”? ALL wants you to know.

- including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20.

"Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that 'choice' is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.

"President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.

"Celebrating his inauguration with 'Freedom of Choice' doughnuts - only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion - is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

"A misconstrued concept of 'choice' has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this ‘freedom?’ “

So now you know, donuts kill babies. Maple bars make Jesus cry. And some pro-life activists really, really, really, really, really, really crave attention.

More by this author:

"I Ate Little Black Girls for Two Years"

Bizarro News: Flaming Squirrel Sets Elementary School on Fire

Should You Take A Risk on Orgasmic Birth? (Orgasmic Birth Video included)

4 Ways Birth and Breastfeeding Will Ruin Sex

Pete Wentz: "I've Tasted Ashley's Breast Milk."

A Guy’s Take on Stay at Home Moms and Dads (Part 1: The Cons)

Banana Dildos and the 10 Worst Toys and Gifts This Christmas (part 1)

Designer Baby Born Without Cancer Gene

Brett Singer — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Pop quiz: you have a history of cancer in your family. You want to have children. Science has progressed to the point where you can alter your unborn child's genetics so that they will be born without the particular gene that causes the particular type of cancer in your bloodline. What do you do?

This is no longer a hypothetical question. A baby girl was just born in Britain without the defective BRCA1 gene, which causes cancer in 50 to 85 percent of girls, according to London's Daily Mail. That gene is rampant in this particular London family, who wisely chose to remain anonymous. (No reality TV show for those two.)

When the unborn are mucked with, controversy follows. Various Pro-Life/Anti-Choice advocates, such as James Dowson of LifeLeague, are against the practice, calling it a "slippery slope…It is designer babies. Screening for cancer is an emotive issue - my own father and grandfather both had cancer, so I know - but it is a dangerous road to go down. Today it is cancer, next year it will be IQ, and the year after that blue eyes and blonde hair."

I don't like the term "designer baby". It sounds like something you create in a lab. But isn't that what doctors are doing? I realize that I'm not offering a good analysis of the science involved here. The Daily Mail article is decent, and there is lots of information online if you want to read up on it. I'm going to stick with the more parenting-related issues that come up with this story.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the idea of genetic screening, and even more hesitant to agree with genetic manipulation. Although I'm not a scientist (I even graduated college without passing a single science class, for what that's worth) I feel strongly that doctors can't possibly know what the long-term effects are of adding and removing genes from anyone, in utero or fully-grown. Like most Jewish parents, my wife and I went through the genetic screening process when she was pregnant, but declined to know all of the information that they found. It's one thing to check and see if you are a carrier for a horrible and incurable disease such as Tay-Sachs. It's something else to find out what the chances are that your child will contract various types of cancers. We decided that we'd rather not know.

And therein lies the core of the issue – choice. If a technique is available and medically possible, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide whether or not it can be used.

My ambivalence comes from the idea of trying to create a baby with traits that you pick off of a menu of human characteristics – "I'll have the blue eyes with a hint of hazel, and a boy with a strong right leg so he can grow up to be an NFL punter like Jeff Feagles." (Hey, Jeff Feagles is one of the best punters in football. And punters can play longer than any other position in the game because they don't get hit much.) This may sound silly, but I've read enough comic books and seen enough movies to know that messing around with genetics rarely ends well. Eventually some lunatic – Hitler, perhaps – decides to create a Master Race of Super Soldiers and starts World War III. Hm, maybe it's not just a comic book thing.

As with abortion, this is a religious issue. Conservative British politician Ann Widdecombe said, "'A lot of embryos have genes in them that could lead to nothing but them turning into perfectly healthy humans. Once again this shows a worrying precedent that man wants to play God."

This is the argument that nobody ever makes when it comes to the death penalty. But that's a different story.

What do you think? Is this just another issue of personal choice and women's reproductive freedom? Or is it more dangerous? And even if it is more dangerous, does anyone have the right to tell someone not to do it?

Source: Daily Mail

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

A Quiverfull Of Kids

Brett Singer — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

I learned a new word today – Quiverfull.

According to a blog entry on Sodahead.com (doesn't sound very impressive but hey, let's take our new words where we can get them), "Quiverfull…is a growing movement of Protestants" who believe that "since children are blessings from God, we should receive as many as God will give." Therefore, no birth control. The Duggar family is about to have their 18th child, and they are a quiverfull family.

The best line from the Sodahead post is, "I'm not sure how to tell the difference between a husband who wants sex and God saying that it's time to put another bun in the oven." I imagine that someone who has a strong faith in God would say that it's all the same thing – that is, if daddy wants some and that leads to another baby, then it was all God's will. (No, I am not a theologian.) The comments on the post bring up a host of issues ranging from whether or not it's responsible to bring children into the world willy-nilly to abortion rights.

The quiverfull movement takes the following Biblical passage literally:

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.

If I may be flippant for a moment, let's analyze this passage.

"Happy is the man" – well sure, he's not the one who has to change all of those diapers! (Well, in my house he is. But remember, I'm being flippant.) And since the quiver in question is, in fact, the type that arrows are stored in, how many babies can one really fit into a quiver? Here's a quiver for sale at Amazon.com that measures 13 x 3 x 2 inches. According to this site the average length of a newborn baby is 20 inches. I don't think you could fit more than one kid in a quiver.

Now, I apologize if that offends anyone, that's not my intention. But it does illustrate something that I find difficult to understand about the quiverfull movement. If you are taking this particular Biblical passage literally, well, put the kids in a quiver! And if not, then you really AREN'T taking the passage literally. Right?

Personally I think there is some validity to the argument made by many commenters on Sodahead that having that many children is a bit selfish and irresponsible. I respect other people's religious beliefs. But is there a point when those beliefs start to negatively impact the rest of the world? On the other hand, this isn't China. Everyone is entitled to have as many kids as they want to. Or, depending on your beliefs, that God wants you to. For me, two is enough; now that I’m a parent, "Eight is Enough" is basically a horror film. (I kid, of course.)

Do people with tons of kids bother you? Or is it none of our business?

Source: Sodahead

Image: People via Babble

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

Mini Baby Sculptures Not Edible, Selling Like Hotcakes

Are You Cutting Back This Holiday Season?

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

From the Chicago Tribune:

"What do you get the person who has everything—except adequate health insurance? If you live in Indiana, consider this offering from the state's Planned Parenthood affiliate: gift certificates in $25 increments."

In news even less surprising than Clay Aiken coming out of the closet, anti-choice groups are not happy. The Tribune quotes Jim Sedlak, who is with both the American Life League and Stop Planned Parenthood (where DOES he find the time?) as saying that the gift cards are just PP's "annual [attack] on the Christian community at Christmastime...[Planned Parenthood] could easily have said, 'these certificates are not to be used for abortions.' But they intentionally chose not to do that." Because I'm sure that Planned Parenthood spends most of their time thinking about how they can ruin Christmas for Christians everywhere.

Now my initial reaction was a great big ol' "Huh?" Luckily my mother was present when I heard this news (on The Daily Show). She pointed out, as does president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana Betty Cockrum, that most of what PP does is "provide basic health care." In fact, Cockrum says that's 95 percent of what they do. Still, "a pap smear in a Pear Tree" doesn't sound very appealing.

All joking aside (you can see Jon Stewart's slightly reluctant mirth-making on this topic in the video below), I guess this isn't as weird as it sounds. It's not weirder than a doctor's office selling gift cards. Well, that would be weird too. The underlying message of providing health care is a good one. But who do you buy one of these cards for? The Duggar family? Jon and Kate? Kevin Federline? (I know, it's about health care, not just birth control. The jokes are almost too easy. If Jon Stewart can apologize, so can I!) I guess in theory you could pick one up for someone you know who doesn't have health care. But isn't that incredibly awkward? "Hi, I know you're uninsured, so I thought you could use one of these. Happy holidays!" I would love to know how many cards Planned Parenthood Indiana (who have the unfortunate acronym PPIN – say it out loud and then make a Beavis and Butthead chuckling noise) actually sells. So far, they say they've sold about twelve. This isn't Vegas, but I'm putting the over-under at 25. Anyone want to take that action?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Planned Parenthood Gift Cards

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Source: The Daily Show, Chicago Tribune

Image: PPIN

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Girly Gift Guide

Make Your Own Religious Doll

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

White House Sends Chanukah Card With Christmas Tree On It

Kevin Federline Answers To One Name: Daddy

Rite Aid Says They Will Stop Selling Expired Baby Products

Teen Attacked by Mom Over Hidden Pregnancy

JeanneSager — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:54:00 GMT

I would love to be the Dad from Juno. I'll tell you right now. I wouldn't be. I'd be the tempted-to-smack-my-kid parent if my teenage daughter waltzed into the house and dropped that kind of bomb. The difference between me and the mother of a Detroit teenager who is now in protective custody? I said tempted.

It's one of the worries that comes with parenting a girl; as sexist as that may be. Parents worry about their daughters getting pregnant. They worry about their sons crashing a car. And the failure earlier this month of California's (oft over-looked of late) Prop 4 ballot measure that would have required doctors to contact a teen's parents before providing her with an abortion, pointed to more parents' admission that their kids' futures are out of their hands once the sperm hits the egg.

But it doesn't mean parents are making it any easier on their kids. In the Detroit case, the girl initially told police she'd discovered the newborn when a cat pulled at a trash bag in the garbage near her home. She later admitted she was afraid of her mother's reaction to the truth - and with good reason. The mother is facing assault charges after allegedly beating the girl for concealing her pregnancy. The girl and her baby are in the hands of protective services.

Her daughter's future really is out of her hands now. Or maybe it was before the girl got pregnant? Because teens are going to have sex, and unfortunately, on occasion, that sex will lead to pregnancy. But the parent whose kid is that scared of telling her parents that she's got a baby on the way probably hasn't had a frank discussion about much with Mom and Dad in recent years. It seems like a mom who reacts to a daughter's dilemma with her fists is setting herself up to be disappointed somewhere down the line.

Image: Amazon

Journalist Suing for Sperm-Donor Dad's Identity

The Trouble with Safe Haven Laws: Some Thoughts for National Adoption Month

$7M Book Deal: More Rope for Sarah Palin to Hang Herself With?

The Plus Side to McCain's Scorn for Women's "Health"

Kelly Mills — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:26:00 GMT

Flowers grow out of, uh, manure, don't they? Over at Jezebel, they point out that since McCain used his finger quotes about women's health (you know, our concern for our "lives" and "future reproductive health" which are apparently, quite silly) there have been a slew of women sharing stories about subjects you don't hear much about. Things like late-term abortions and miscarriages. You know, a couple aspects of our health stuff. The stories are often wrenching to read.

Brett already told you about A Little Pregnant's feelings on the subject. If you missed this very personal story of late-term abortion from the Boston Globe, I highly recommend you read it, with kleenex handy. And Dooce also pointed to Flotsam's story on pregnancy loss at 22 weeks. Oh yes, lots of "health" concerns. We women are just full of those.

I suppose if nothing else, it is a strange blessing women are sharing all their most profound and gut-wrenching experiences. If politicians feel comfortable dismissing very real matters of life and death and health, while at the same time legislating them in ways that do not protect our most basic rights, then it's only right they should have to look in the faces of the women who have suffered immeasurably and maybe someday answer to them. Though I won't hold my breath.

They Say: No One with a Uterus Should Vote McCain

Bipartisan Group Says McCain Would Be Bad For Kids' Health

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents With Teenage Rape Victim's Plea

JeanneSager — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:36:00 GMT

In a chilling video for any parent of a little girl (and those of not-so-little girls too) Women Against McCain Palin have struck hard at the "unapologetically pro-life" vice presidential candidate.

Watching the sniffling teenage girl relate the tale of being raped, without a choice, made a lump form in my throat. I'd like to see any parent - pro-life or otherwise - watch this one stone-faced.

"I was raped, and then I got pregnant," the girl (whose identity I haven't been able to determine - is she an actress?) says. "Sarah Palin believes the government should be able to force me to carry the pregnancy to term. Sarah Palin believes that the government should make that choice. Not me. Governor Palin, I didn't have a choice about being raped. But I should have a choice about this."

The words coming out of an adult woman's mouth would have been striking, but this campaign ad is going straight for parents. It's a reminder that no matter what decisions we make for ourselves, we have to be making them for our kids too.

Does it change your opinion?

GOP Shows Obama With Fried Chicken and Watermelon

Palin's Ohio Rallies Reveal Frightening Misconceptions about Barack Obama are Alive and Thriving

Video Gamers Find Obama in Xbox 360

Does PSA Blame Parents for their Daughters Being Raped?

Palin Urges Voters Not to Forget the "Right to Life"

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Palin Urges Voters Not to Forget the "Right to Life"

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Desperate times call for desperate measures. No one knows this better than the McCain campaign, which is attempting to make abortion a key issue in this year’s election, yet again. Yawn.

As Sarah Palin told Pennsylvania voters, “In times like these with wars and financial crisis, I know that it may be easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life, and it seems that our opponent kind of hopes you will forget that.”

Actually, I’m pretty sure he’s just more focused on the “wars and financial crisis”—as, apparently, are the American people. As Slate’s Melinda Henneberger points out, even people who have been single issue, anti-choice voters in the past have decided that the economy, the environment, and health care matter more than Roe v. Wade this time around.

Photo: Jim Young/Reuters

Baby Pictures: The Best Part of this Election

Palin and Biden's Love Child - Take a Look

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:28:00 GMT

OK, so Palin and Biden didn't really make a love child. Although, if they did, I betcha she'd deliver - even if the amnio said it was going to be a Democrat. And thanks to the wonders of Photoshop (which has done wonders in removing from each family picture the smear of something or other that my daughter has wiped across her cheek juuuust before the shutter was snapped), we now know just what the BiPal would look like.

You might want to lower your speakers, the accompanying music reminds me of one of those movies we used to watch in science class, but definitely take note the smearing on of lipstick. On this, day 26 of the countdown until the election, enjoy!

Should We Raise Little Democrats or Republicans?

Teen Marriage: It Can Last a Lifetime

What Bristol Palin Can Expect, After Baby Algebra

Preventing Teen Pregnancy, One Tick at a Time

Sarah Palin is Not a Lesbian?

How much is Sarah Palin worth?

Sarah Palin pro choice -- for gays

They say: Sarah Palin should step down

National Organization for Women President Endorses Palin

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:10:00 GMT

Remember that video of Sarah Palin misquoting Madeline Albright at a rally in California? Well, the faux feminism gets more and more outrageous. Guess who introduced Palin? Shelly Mandell, the president of L.A. National Organization for Women, who has endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket.

I attended the March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C. back in 2004, which Mandell organized. It was one of the most unifying, uplifting experiences of my life, to be surrounded by thousands of women peacefully demanding reproductive freedom. The fact that Mandell would go on to endorse a staunchly anti-choice presidential ticket is not the only reason her judgment should be seriously questioned. Jezebel has done some digging on Mandell and it turns out that she’s got some skeletons in her closet, including helping to get a fellow NOW rising star arrested.

In her introduction for Palin, Mandell pointed out that Palin will be a champion for Title IX because she plays sports. I'm all for Title IX, but will having an athletic woman in office help other women when her running mate opposes equal pay, as McCain has already done? Will the fact that Palin played basketball in college help women when she fights to make abortion illegal even in the case of incest or rape?

If it were up to Mandell, the National Organization for Women would need to change its name to the National Organization for Powerful People with Female Genitalia. Fortunately, it’s not up to Mandell. The California NOW president has issued a statement that says, in part, “I can assure you that there is no local or state affiliate of NOW, including LA NOW, which endorses or supports the McCain/Palin ticket.”

Photo: Jezebel

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

Hillary Clinton on Repro Rights

Brett Singer — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton (actually, its Hillary Rodham Clinton again; not sure if she used the middle name while she was still a Presidential candidate) and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood had an Op-Ed piece in the Times a couple of days ago that I thought would be of interest.

The Op-Ed discusses, "a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would…require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception."

A clear definition of abortion is left out, which means it is open to the interpretation of the health care provider. "The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?"

"The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25," which is just a couple of days away. If you feel strongly about this issue, call your Senator or Congressperson.

Source: NYTimes

UPDATE: Tainted Milk Tally tops 50,000

Arkansas Evangelist's compound raided, six children removed

Preventing Teen Pregnancy, One Tick at a Time

Second Best for the Hard-to-Adopt?

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Mom leaves kids in a Jersey parking lot

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Back Away From The Breast and No One Gets Hurt

Adrienne Martini — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:30:00 GMT

Not since Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" has a work of satire been so brilliantly crafted. While a recent essay in response to the Bush administration's push to protect all people who want to save fetuses before they are even implanted stops just short of suggesting we eat the poors' babies, it is still a work of delicious genius.

In short, Slate's William Saletan takes this piece of legal pokery to its logical end in an open letter to Michael O. Leavitt. All women of childbearing age who breastfeed, exercise or drink caffeine are free game for pro-life advocates who want to protect all possible unborn babies, since all of those activities could lead to a fertilized egg not implanting.

No word yet on Leavitt's response. Also no word yet on when Saletan's updates on the proposed legislation will be pushed through. Enjoy your coffee now, chicas. Soon it can be snatched from your warm, shaking hands.

What Does Bush Have Against Planned Pregnancies?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:42:00 GMT

Although I am unequivocally pro-choice, I respect those who are peacefully opposed to abortion on moral grounds. But anyone who supports the Bush administration’s most recent attack on family planning is completely nuts as far as I’m concerned.

The administration has put forth a proposal to deny federal funding to any health programs, including schools and hospitals, that “discriminate against” providers who refuse to provide abortion or some types of birth control. To give you a feel for how this policy would affect women’s lives, the draft proposal, according to The New York Times, “expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.”

To that end, the Bush administration would like to make the definition of abortion much broader. According to the proposal, abortion should be redefined as anything “that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

That “before or after implantation” is crucial: it means that birth control pills and emergency contraception could be considered abortion—and that any clinic that thinks otherwise could lose federal funding.

Does anyone else feel like she’s in the Twilight Zone?

Photo: prochoice.org

11-Year-Old Romanian Permitted to Have an Abortion

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:39:00 GMT

Romania has ruled that a young rape and incest victim may be allowed to have an abortion. The shocking news is that this was a very controversial ruling.

"I want to go to school and to play. If I can't do this my life will be a nightmare,'" the 11-year-old wrote in a letter to the government committee deciding her fate. Already, the girl had been shunned by her former friends because of her pregnancy.

Romanian law prohibits abortions after 14 weeks, unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy, and the preteen girl was 21 weeks pregnant. An earlier abortion was not possible since no one, presumably not even the girl herself, knew she was pregnant. Her parents took her to a doctor on June 2 because she seemed sick. There, she told doctors that she was raped by her 19-year-old uncle, whose current whereabouts are unknown.

The mainly orthodox country is divided over the ruling. Pro-life groups have rallied for the pregnant child to give birth, offering to care for the baby after it is born. But child rights organizations say the young victim should not be made to undergo further hardship. Even the Orthodox Church aired on the side of tolerance, arguing that although abortion is a crime, this is an extraordinary situation that can only be decided by the girl and her family.

Photo: Romanian girls on a holiday (pbase.com)

Supreme Court Ruling Bans Partial Birth Abortion

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:32:00 GMT

There are no two ways about it. If you are a pro-choice person, you'll find yesterday's Supreme Court ruling worthy of black arm bands and quickening despair. In the most stunning defeat of abortion rights in 30 years, the Supreme Court (In a 5-4 ruling) banned partial birth abortion, making it easier to enact further restrictions and erode the constitutionally protected rights of women to choose, rights until now protected by Roe v. Wade.

Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg decried the decision, stating that the court was essentially sanctioning an all-out attack on a woman's right to choose. Partial birth abortion has been challenged many times before by pro-life advocates, most recently in 2000. This is the first time the Court has ruled against a specific procedure.

Not surprisingly, President Bush is calling this another successful effort by his administration to protect the sanctity of life. Nevermind the war and the poverty and the millions of children without insurance. Bah.

Pro-choice groups are rallying to protect the rights ensured by Roe v. Wade and will continue to do so despite today's defeat.