A personal decision

Abortion is another example of how many social conservatives believe that their beliefs should be everyone’s beliefs.  There’s been a lot out there in the feminist community lately about the three major state ballot initiatives regarding abortion: Colorado’s Human Life Amendment, South Dakota’s Abortion Ban, and the one that I have first-hand experience with, California’s Proposition 4.

Human Life Amendment, Colorado
This potential amendment has been causing all kinds of uproar with the pro-choice community.  The text of the amendment doesn’t actually say anything about abortion.  If accepted, it would re-define a “person” as any human being from the moment of fertilization.  It would mean that any abortion at any time would legally be homicide.

This amdendment frightens me because it is so open ended.  It’s the kind of law that the courts can twist almost any way they want.  Let’s say a woman needs to have an abortion because of a life-threatening medical issue.  With this amendment in effect, couldn’t she be charged with murder?  Would she have to plead self defense?  It seems absurd to me that an anti-choice district attorney could prosecute her for killing her child…it sickens me to picture this poor woman on the witness stand, crying, “But I would have died…”  Even now, when most abortions are legal, few women feel comfortable talking about the specifics of an abortion they may have had, much like a rape victim doesn’t want to live through that trauma again.

This amendment could also lead the way to other initiatives that could ban contraceptives like the morning after pill.  It would call into question the legality of procedures like in vitro fertilization, because in that process, the egg is actually fertilized in a petri dish, then frozen until the embryo can be placed in the mother.  If a fertilized egg is deemed a “person,” part of in vitro would include freezing a little “person”!

The thing that galls me is that I don’t believe that Kristi Burton and Colorado For Equal Rights are thinking about the implications for reproductive rights that don’t include abortion.  I can’t imagine that organization telling a woman whose only option is in vitro that she can’t have children because of this amendment and consequential legislature.  But that’s exactly the problem–they aren’t thinking.  They have no thoughts beyond their own beliefs and ideals, no thoughts of how far-reaching this initiative could be.  So I ask you, Kristi and CFER, to be truly for equal rights and re-evaluate your support of this amendment.

South Dakota Abortion Ban
Rated as what could be some of the harshest controls on abortion in the country, the abortion ban aims to outlaw all abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health.

Has anyone ever read the text of this initiative?  It’s an anti-choice law that says it is trying to help women.  “An abortion subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks”…”The state has a right and duty…to protect the life, health, and well-being of any pregnant woman”…and, “A pregnant woman possesses certain instrinsic rights when enjoy affirmitive protection under the Constitution of the United States.”  Oh, that last one kills me.  Women have certain rights that are protect by the U.S. Constitution, so you want to limit women’s reproductive rights?  Color me confused…

Almost worse than the ignorant language of the act is the restrictions it places on abortions even in the case of rape and incest.  Victims “shall report the rape or incest immediately“…immediately?  Do these people know how few rapes are reported at all, let alone immediately?  And what constitutes “immediately?”  Like, the guy climbs off of her and she immediately phones in to the police?  That is such a subjective and dangerous term.  What a horrible thing to tell a woman: “I know you were raped, but because you waited 3 months to say anything, we can’t let you abort the pregnancy that resulted from this horrific attack.”

California’s Proposition 4
This is prop may, compared to the others, seem almost innocent.  It only prohibits abortion for minors “until 48 hours after physician notifies” the minor’s guardian.  But besides still infringing on reproductive rights and ignoring the possible consequences of notifying a parent, this is a “gateway initiative”–pass this, and the next one will be easier, and the next, until abortion is illegal in every way.

I was fortunate enough to grow up in a family that would have stood by me if I had gotten pregnant, and if I had aborted that pregnancy, before I was 18.  But many girls are not as lucky as me.  Domestic violence is a serious issue, especially among those in the socio-economic classes that have a statistically higher rate of teen pregnancy.  If this act causes even one girl harm from her family, it is a failure.  I would rather not take the chance.

As far as the “gateway” aspect of it goes, Californians wouldn’t even have to vote on another ballot initiative.  The legislative bodies could work to change some of the language, so that “unemancipated minor” becomes “legal dependent” (which would include college-aged women such as myself), and eventually “any woman.”  Again, I would rather not take that chance.

Presidential Debate the Second

This will be brief, as I don’t have much to say on last night’s debate.  Despite the format, it was almost exactly the same as the first one.  I heard the same statistics, the same answers, even some of the same metaphors.  I mean, come on…these people are undecided, obviously what you have said so far hasn’t persuaded them…so come up with something new!

I was getting very pissed off at McCain, though.  Don’t pretend to be my friend, you pro-war, anti-choice, old, ignorant bastard.  And he does not look good walking around with a microphone in his hand.  Obama definitely commanded attention more than McCain did.  And “this one” was so patronizing, it drove me crazy!  He is so retrograde, and not in the cool “I like wearing my mom’s old go-go boots” kind of way…in the stuck in the Reagan-era way, in the way that he cannot grasp the modern world and that we need a different approach to things…not the same old thing again and again.

The next debate is on a Friday…I think I’m finally going to get the opportunity to play drinking games without feeling so guilty!  Take a shot for every mention of maverick, POW, preconditions, “I looove yooou But-ray-us”, fundamental.  Wow, you are going to be so drunk.

California’s Prop 8

Although I go to school in Texas (who’da thunk it), my permanent address is in California and I am registered to vote there.  My mom sent me the Offical Voter Information Guide along with a bunch of birthday presents (PS I love my mommy!).  There are some interesting ones, and this being my first election as a legal voter, I want to make informed decisions on some of these issues.  It’s a little hard because I’m not in California right now and I can’t feel out the general feelings and impact of the various propositions.  There’s one, however, that makes me laugh my ass off while also trembling in fear: Prop 8.

Prop 8 would eliminate the recently, hard-won right of same-sex couples to marry.  Here’s what the info guid says:

Summary:  Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.  Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.  In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

What Your Vote Means
Yes: A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.
No: A NO vote on this measure means: Marriage between individuals of the same sex would continue to be valid or recognized in California.

(and here’s the kicker…)

Arguments
Pro: Proposition 8 restores what 61% of voters already approved: marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Four judges in San Francisco should not have overturned the people’s vote.  Prop. 8 fixes that mistake by reaffirming traditional marriage, but doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners.
Con: Equality under the law is fundamental freedom.  Regardless of how we feel about marriage, singling people out to be treated differently is wrong. Prop. 8 won’t affect our schools, but it will mean loving couples are treated differently under our Constitution and denied equal protection under the law.

The scary thing is, when a similar prop appeared on a ballot a few years ago, it did get voted down.  It took that landmark court decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry.

There are a few points I want to address here.  First, notice the bright blue portion of the Con argument.  It “doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners.”  Um, excuse me?  Doesn’t take away rights?  By forbidding ANYONE to marry ANYONE else, we would be denying them rights that other people have!  It’s like saying that because I am white, I cannot marry an African American or an Asian or a Native American.  How is denying same-sex couples the right to marry any different than denying people of different socio-economic status, religion, partisanship, or eye color the right to marry?

The historical document that Americans quote most is, in my opinion, not the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence.  People love that part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The pursuit of happiness.  These days, how many people marry because it is expected of them?  Marriage hasn’t been about possession or cultural necessity for decades now.  Ask almost any married American why they got married, and not matter what shape their marriage is in currently, they will probably tell you something like: “We were in love.”

Marriage no longer serves as that official permission slip to procreate that it was back in the Biblical era (and I mention this time period because it’s what so many social conservatives refer to when bashing gay marriage).  Back then, the man had to marry his wives so that it was OK with everyone that they had children.  If they weren’t married, those children were bastards (i.e. Hagar’s son Ishmael).  Although that language still exists to day, it is very not PC to tell an unwed parent that their child is a bastard.  And not just not PC, but for many people, insulting to the ideals of life, liberty and happiness that we have in this country.

So tell me this: What is so wrong with letting two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives making each other happy show that love to the world by entering into a sanctified agreement to do exactly that?

If it were a man and a woman wanting to do it, no one would care.  But when it’s a man and a man, people flip shit.

But aside from my socially liberal perspective, the reason this Prop should be voted against is because it also defies our constitutionally-defined system.  Let’s go back to high school history and government lessons.  The job of the legislature is to write laws.  The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws.  What happens is the legislature writes a law, someone has a disagreeable encounter with that law, and they sue the opposing party.  Eventually that case will make it to some kind of supreme court, whether the state or the United States one.  The job of that court is not to rule on the morality of the issue, or the religious or cultural relevance of the issue.  Their job is to look at the complaint and the law and determine whether said law violates any rights that are granted by the Constitution.  Everyone with me so far?

At that point, the court will announce whether the complainant has a reason to be complaining.  Often, if they do, the court will then rule the law as unconstitutional.  This basically repeals the law.

Now, this is definitely way oversimplified, does not apply to every court case, and completely ignores a lot of the nuances that take place in a court case like this.

But we’re talking about this because of how same-sex marriage was legalized in California.  In 2000, California voted in a measure that prohibited same-sex couples to marry.  Someone sued the state, it went to the state Supreme Court, and the Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that the law violated the rights of same-sex couples.  Contrary to what the Pro arugment says, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE VOTERS TO “FIX” THE “MISTAKES” OF THE COURTS!  Another court case can reverse a previous court decision, but if a law has been ruled unconsitutional, it is not the job of the public to re-instate a law that the courts said was not an OK law.  That’s why this prop should not be on the ballot in the first place!

Ultimately, I don’t care what your opinion on gay marriage is.  If you think that being gay equals sodomy in the absolute worst sense, and that anyone who engages in such acts will go to hell…OK.  You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.  But as an American citizen, everyone should have a problem with taking a person’s rights away.  Everyone should have a problem with going against the system that is been in place in this country for over 200 years.  AND THAT IS WHAT THIS PROPOSITION DOES.

Look at him, Senator McCain

It’s true that every other blogger who cares even the teeniest bit will be blogging about the debate tonight…but that’s because there’s so much for a blogger to work with!  Now I might be a little biased in my analysis, but I love Obama even more now.  I do have to give it to the CNN team, there is no clear winner here, but through my blue-colored glasses, there was a lot to ridicule McCain for here.  I’ll get that out of my system.

So let’s compare…

OBAMA:
Stressed his plans to help working and middle class families (I believe 95% is close to the percentage of people in the United States who own fewer than seven houses)

MCCAIN:
Has seven houses.

OBAMA:
Is not afraid to try to contact world leaders the US has been giving the cold shoulder to.

MCCAIN:
Does not negotiate.  Period.

OBAMA:
Did not hesitate to actually debate when McCain said something he disagreed with.

MCCAIN:
Said, “I don’t need to go back and forth.”  Um, isn’t that the point of a debate, Senator?

OBAMA:
Wants to utilize renewable and environmentally friendly energy sources like wind and solar energy.

MCCAIN:
Wants to add 45 new nuclear power plants (but freaks out at the idea of anyone else having nuclear anything) and keeps pushing the idea of off-shore drilling (which would only prolong our dependency on oil).

OBAMA:
Looks at his opponent when addressing him.

MCCAIN:
Determinedly avoids Obama’s gaze.

And a few other notes I took:

Lehrer: “Are you going to vote for the plan?” (Referring to the financial bail-out plan McCain wanted to postpone the debate to work on)
McCain: “Sure” (very nonchalantly, and after implying he’s waiting to see the final product…you just bit yourself in the armpit, sir)

McCain: “Are you afraid I can’t hear him?” in response to Lehrer asking Obama to address McCain directly.

McCain needed to remind us (more than once) that he has not won the Miss Congeniality award.  Well, that’s ok, you have her as your runningmate.

“We’ve succeeded” in Iraq.  First of all, and this is kind of a serious question, how do you win a war against insurgencies as opposed to organized national/political organizations?  Second of all, “success” is defined as “the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors.”  So I will consider this war a “success” when it has been terminated.

Ok, now we have 30 seconds left…obviously a great time for you to break out with the POW/veteran reference, Johnny boy.

And Anderson Cooper is a creeper.  I don’t know why I think that, just every time I see his face I think creeper.

OK, in all seriousness, this was not a deciding event by any means.  Despite my relentless ridicule, I do think that McCain put up a good enough presentation to make up for points he may have lost with wanting to suspend the campaign and the crap he’s been getting about the financial crisis.  Is he a strong debater?  No, Obama kicked his ass as far as delivery and eloquence.  I’ll even go so far as to say that he let himself look a bit like a idiot by allowing Obama to talk over him.  But on certain topics, McCain did a better job as far as content in his preliminary addresses.  Obama has been attacked for his lack of foreign relations experience, something McCain considers his strong suit (because he was a POW? sorry), and that was highlighted a couple times tonight.  However, Obama is very confident as far as domestic issues, and something I admire about him is that he acknowledges his weaknesses and tries to become stronger in those areas.  McCain’s views sometimes seemed dated; Obama’s arguments were all about change.  And, because Obama is the better debater and speaker, while you were watching, you had the impression that Obama was dominating the debate.

Another important thing to remember about the presidential race is that the vice-presidential candidate is an important part of the package, and Biden is still the better choice.  I really hope that he crushes Palin in next week’s vice-presidential debate.  I’m going to be very biased and belittle Palin ruthlessly in anticipation.  I mean, can you imagine what her responses would be to the same questions Obama and McCain were asked tonight?

LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
PALIN: Right on top of it, Jim!

LEHRER: Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?
PALIN: Well, seeing as how I have family over there, just like thousands of other Americans, I would have to say that the most important lesson I’ve learned is how to properly apply lipstick over my pitbull teeth.  Because you know what they say about hockey moms and pitbulls…

Now, I can’t go on and on about this forever.  But everyone should be keeping up with CNN because they’re actually doing a pretty good job of doing a mostly unbiased analysis of the debate.

Oh, one more thing: Spending freezes? Are you serious, John?  So basically you don’t want the government to pay for anything except for the military and its retired personnel?

The Feminist Stereotype

I decided to start this blog because 1) I love to write and 2) with all the important political things going on, I felt that some college girl out there should start a feminist blog.  There are plenty angry women out there blogging about all the anti-women things happening in this election, but there are just so few from my age group voicing their opinions.  We do care.  We have opinions, and we want someone besides our roommates to listen to them.  And so here I am.

I want to start by addressing the feminist stereotype.  You know the one I mean — big, angry white woman, usually a lesbian, who has forsaken bras and razors for the freedom of acting and looking like a man.  Think Rosengurtle in Boondock Saints (“Untouched by man”).  And some feminists fit that stereotype because they want to challenge gender norms and all that jazz.

Here’s the thing.  In some cases, by challenging gender norms, some women are in fact reinforcing gender norms.  By trying to be “unfeminine”, they are confirming the stigma that being feminine means being weak and delicate and emotional.  Why do so many people think that being a feminist means wanting to be like a man?  Why are so many people convinced that by wearing pants and no bras and short hair and hairy legs that they are helping the feminist cause?  Does this mean that if I like wearing skirts and doing my hair that I am not a feminist?

I believe I am a feminist.  I’m even female-power-esque on occassion.  But to me, feminism is not about pulling women up to the cultural status of men.  It means putting both women and men on the same level, without pulling one down or the other up.  By trying to act like a man in any sense, we would just be reinforcing the idea that being like a man is better than being like a woman.

Fortunately this is no longer a super-dominant stereotype.  The modern feminist can wear pantyhose and highlight her hair and be working moms.  In fact, I would say there are more feminists today who defy the feminist stereotype than perpetuate it.  And I don’t want anyone to think that I’m hating on those women who fit the feminist stereotype, because if that is truly what you believe and how you love yourself, I will love you that way also.  But don’t burn your underwear to prove a point.  It just gives those pompous male assholes another opportunity to shake their heads and say, “Those women, man.  They can use PMS as an excuse for everything.”

I am a makeup-wearing, leg-shaving, Gossip Girl-watching, sorority sister, and I am a feminist.