Women Are Ruining Marriage

I know you all have probably already seen Suzanne Venker's article on Fox News, in which she bemoans the fact that there are no marriageable men and then asks, "What if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is women's fault?" But, UGH. Things like this article make me want to scream. And throw up.

Who are these men who are refusing to get married because "women aren't women anymore"? They sound like misogynistic jerks. And I don't know why anyone, especially any woman, would think that these men become more "marriageable" if women only stopped going to school and pursuing careers.

Thankfully, we have Suzanne Venker to try and convince us that we should think that way because, well, because of SCIENCE. You see, according to Venker:

"The so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to be self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families - it's in their DNA. But modern women won't let them." 

So, women, we are undermining men's ability to do things in life because we are also doing things with our lives. This makes the men  - and apparently their DNA - sad. And yet, even though the men are apparently the ones who are sad and we're the ones running around pursuing silly things like an education and career, we lose. Because the men we would be marrying are such entitled jerks that they would rather be a "slacker" than compete with women.

We are really missing out on all these would-be-great-if-it-wasn't-for-stupid-feminism men!

Destroying these patriarchal men and their dreams of a patriarchal marriage is a serious accusation. One that, if true, does demand some reflection. I encourage all women to do what Venker says and "look in the mirror and ask what role [you've] played in bringing about this transformation."

Then give your educated, employed, feminist-self a little pat on the back.

Governor Rick Perry Screws Over 130,000 Women

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas. The announcement came after Republican Governor Rick Perry decided to exclude Planned Parenthood from receiving any of the federal funding.

Currently, the federal government pays for approximately 90 percent of Texas' $40 million Women's Health Program, which provides uninsured women with access to contraception, mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, OBGYN exams, etc. Texas currently has the largest number of uninsured people in the country, so this program is pretty crucial. Planned Parenthood operates about half of the clinics that benefit from the program.

But Perry refuses to support the "abortion providers", even though none of the federal money from the Women's Health Program goes to abortions. In a letter to President Obama last month, Perry wrote, "The federal government should not be in the business of protecting abortion providers at the expense of the health of Texas Women." Apparently, Perry thinks that providing women with access to things like cancer screenings harms women if it occurs in a Planned Parenthood building. And he thinks that taking away access to crucial health services by defunding Planned Parenthood will improve the health of women in Texas. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe God told him this would work at his prayer rally last year?

Perry says that the federal government's decision to revoke the Medicaid funding is part of Obama's "pro-abortion agenda." But in a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services yesterday, they said that the administration's hands are tied. “Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid. Patients, not state government officials, should be able to choose the doctors and other health care providers that are best for them and their families. In 2005, Texas requested this same authority to restrict patients’ choices, and the Bush Administration did not grant it to them either.”

Perry better stop blaming this on Obama's political agenda and pretending his decision had anything to do with women's health. The reality is that 130,000 women in Texas are now losing access to health services because of Perry's blatant disregard for federal law and anti-choice agenda.

Jon Stewart: "You've Confused a War On Your Religion With Not Getting Everything You Want"

Hilarious. And so true!

Nun Admits Catholic Anger Over Birth Control Mandate Has Everything To Do With Sexual Politics

In the above video, which is meant to support the idea that the birth control mandate violates religious freedom, Sister Sharon argues that the Catholic response has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with having sex and protecting "true femininity."

Sister Sharon starts off by saying that "contraception isn't healthcare." She also claims that it is a carcinogen and linked to breast cancer. What she fails to mention is that compared to other reproductive and lifestyle factors that affect breast cancer risk, the increase in risk associated with the oral contraceptive is very small, and that oral contraceptives have been proven to reduce rates of endometrial and ovarian cancer by 50% or more.

She then goes on to say that "any drug that we as women are taking that is actually promoting sterility and suppressing our fertility is not healthcare, it is actually us as women not understanding what it means to be a woman and to be truly free... When we as women understand how God made our bodies and what it means to be truly feminine, it gives us the power to give ourselves as a gift to those we're married to. It helps me understand who I am as a woman, what it means to be a woman, what it truly means to be a maternal woman" (emphasis mine).

According to Sister Sharon, the purpose of the birth control mandate is part of a larger agenda to promote sexually irresponsible behavior. And for her, sexually irresponsible behavior means having sex without intent to procreate. She goes on to say that, "This is about having sex. It isn't about healthcare. If people want to have sex, and misuse their gift of sexuality, and want to rely on a chemical component to stop them from getting pregnant and separate sex from marriage and sex from babies, of course bad things are going to happen."

The video is worth watching because it is a good example of some of the rhetoric going on inside the Church re: the birth control mandate. It shows the roots of the outrage and the gendered theology that surrounds contraception. It is also proof that feminists have been right all along; this has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with women's sexuality.

Straight from the horse's mouth folks.

Republicans Decide People with a Uterus Should Have No Say on Issues of Birth Control and Religious Freedom

Yesterday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform assembled a panel to discuss the birth control mandate (which I've written about here, here, and here). The goal of the panel was to determine whether or not the mandate violates religious freedom.

Since I last wrote about the birth control mandate, the Obama administration has offered a compromise to help protect people who, for religious reasons, think birth control is evil. Instead of requiring religious employers to subsidize the cost of of birth control, the insurance companies providing the institution's health care plan will have to subsidize the cost. But even with this compromise, religious extremists, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are unhappy and feel that Obama has declared war on religion.

I think many feminists knew all along that the outrage over the mandate had nothing to do with religious freedom, and had everything to do with controlling women. Religious extremists, including the USCCB, think it is bad and dangerous that women have the ability to have sex without getting pregnant, to have fewer children, or to delay having children, even if they're married. And many believe that taking hormonal birth control is the equivalent of having an abortion, despite that thing called science which tells us otherwise. Jill over at Feministe writes:

So fine, compromise time: Catholic organizations, even those that are not really all that religious and instead serve the public, won’t have to pay for contraception. Instead, insurance companies will have to cover contraception. Bam, women are covered, and no one is forced to violate their strong moral opposition to birth control by covering it for their employees. Good, right? Everyone’s happy?

Nope! Because, wait, this is just about a handful of celibate men wanting to control women’s reproductive freedoms? And it’s not really about religious freedom at all? It’s just about hostility to women having the ability to prevent pregnancy? Oh. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So despite the fact that no religious employer even has to subsidize the cost of contraception, a panel was organized to see if the fact that women have access to contraception at all interferes with religious freedom (newsflash: it doesn't).

California Republican Darrell Issa was in charge of the panel, and he rejected requests to have women on the panel saying, "the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception." Instead, he composed a panel of five men from various religious traditions. Not only did he decide that it was silly to include people who have a uterus or actually take birth control, he also decided that women don't have religious consciences. He could have included one of the 98% of Catholic women who use contraception. But apparently their religious conscience doesn't count. It is the religious conscience of the celibate men we should be worried about! Their religious freedom matters, not women's.

This video shows Representatives arguing against the panel because it only includes people who disagree with the mandate and only represents a small portion of religious institutions (for example, Catholic charities that support the mandate were not invited. Neither was Catholics for Choice). They also argue that it does not include women, who will be primarily affected if the mandate is overruled. They literally plead to allow a woman to participate. Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Martin walked out in protest. As Maya over at Feministing writes, "This is democracy in action ladies and gentlemen: Women actively barred from speaking about an issue that directly affects us, our health, and our lives." I'd also like to add that if this is actually a legal issue about separation of church and state, where are the legal scholars? None of the people on this panel have any great legal knowledge.



If this isn't enough, in Issa's opening statement he said that "a man's conscience" should guide laws in America (emphasis mine). Then Bishop William Lori compared insurance companies subsidizing the cost of contraception to Jewish delis being forced to serve pork. Does he know that not eating pork isn't exactly a public health issue, or that not having access to pork doesn't mean you'll wind up pregnant? Does he know that Jewish delis, or Jewish hospitals/schools for that matter, don't run around actively trying to bar other Jews, and especially non-Jews, from eating pork. They're not upset that some of their hard-earned tax money might end up supporting pig farmers or the meat industry, thus violating their conscience. In addition to being a ridiculous analogy (although not as ridiculous as an analogy I heard from another Catholic man, who said the birth control mandate is the same as telling Catholic doctors that they have to shoot their patients), comparing bacon to birth control and women's health is incredibly demeaning and insulting. Erin Gloria Ryan, from Jezebel, writes, "The comparison of birth control to cooked pig parts was effective in one way, though— it showed that the Church utterly devalues women, and views their health care as a recreational afterthought. Want to have some honey glazed ham? Wanna keep from getting pregnant? Same thing!"

The fact that access to birth control is compared to access to bacon is infuriating. The fact that no one on the panel was a woman, supported the mandate, or had a background in law or medicine is infuriating. But the most infuriating thing is that in 2012, we're actually having congressional hearings about access to birth control.

Picture from the Congressional Hearing. Where are the women?

Occupy the Church: The 98 percent

I've written two posts on why I think the HHS mandate is a huge victory for women's rights, why I believe it in no way violates religious freedom, and why providing a broad religious exemption is caving to extremism.

Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, published an op-ed in USA Today, affirming that the mandate is necessary and that it respects religion. In the piece, which was obviously a response to outcry from certain religious groups, she talks about how the mandate has no effect on the conscience clause protections for medical providers and that the mandate does not cover abortifacients, as some religious groups have falsely been claiming. She also brings attention to the fact that 28 states, including California and New York, already require contraception to be covered by insurance. Eight of these states have no religious exemption whatsoever. The religious exemption adopted by the federal government, one that provides exemptions for places of worship and religiously-affiliated organizations that can prove that the majority of their employees are of the same faith, is the same as the policy already in place in California, Oregon, and New York. I was actually quite surprised to learn this, given that the Archbishop of New York has been incredibly vocal about the fact that he opposes the federal legislation. But if what Sebelius says is true (and I'm going to assume it is) then nothing will even change for Catholic institutions in the state of NY. So why is he so upset and why does he feel like the federal legislation is an additional assault on his religious liberty? And why does he feel like his religious beliefs should trump the rights of the women who are the life blood of the Catholic schools, hospitals, and even churches in New York?

 I'm reminded of a conversation I had recently with a friend, B, who is Catholic, has an M.A. in Theology, and teaches theology at a very conservative Catholic school. Her insurance provides coverage of contraception, even though she works for an uber-Catholic school. She is appalled by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' outrage over the mandate and angry that they are monopolizing the conversation on how Catholics feel about coverage of contraception. In addition to the fact that most women will use contraception, she pointed out that there are already very many Catholic institutions that do provide coverage of contraception. These institutions obviously do so without feeling that they are somehow terrible Catholics or violating any religious dogma, but even they are silenced by the USCCB.

I think B raises an important issue about questioning who the USCCB speaks for and even who we think of when we think of the Catholic Church. She's also left me thinking quite a bit about how women and men within the Catholic Church who do not follow the USCCB's extremist and minority opinion can make their voices heard. How do these women, the 98 percent if you will, make it clear that they are the majority? Is there a way to change that power dynamic if they stay within the Church?

I feel like I'm inundated with anti-choice, or "pro-life," ideology day in and day out. And it is exhausting because it is an attack on ME and my rights. It's not just political, it is personal. But over the past week, watching the whole Komen/Planned Parenthood saga unfold, I've been inspired by how many women and men stood up for reproductive rights. They made their voices heard and the consequences are enormous, not only in that they forced Komen to re-fund Planned Parenthood and provide life-saving cancer screenings, but by showing that the majority of Americans believe in women's rights and reproductive rights; that they care about women's health. Most women use contraception and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 77% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. Can we keep the momentum from the Komen situation going and change the conversation on reproductive rights once and for all? Can Catholic women change the conversation about what the Church believes? If they expressed their outrage over restricting access to contraception, could they make the USCCB back down, shut up, or even change their position, as Komen did? Can the 98 percent Occupy the Catholic Church?

BREAKING NEWS: Komen reinstates grants to Planned Parenthood

UPDATE: Komen VP, and anti-choicer, Karen Handel has resigned. She said in her resignation letter that she had supported de-funding Planned Parenthood. This is important in part because it shows that Komen recognizes the severity of their decision and hopefully indicates that they're moving in the right direction re: women's health. Learn more here. 

UPDATE:  Planned Parenthood just sent me an email saying that in the past 3 days, they have received 3 million dollars in donations. All of this money will go toward cancer screenings. That is amazing! I'm so happy that so many people put women's health ahead of politics.

After a huge outcry, the Susan G. Komen foundation has issued an apology and reinstated funding to Planned Parenthood!

Read more about it here and here.

I'm beyond thrilled, especially now that Planned Parenthood will have lots of extra money from recent donations on top of the Komen grant. But I'm not sure the Komen foundation can recover from their mistake and honestly, they've lost my support unless they can demonstrate that they've thought long and hard about what their priorities are re: women's health. If anything, this whole debacle has brought attention to the organization's leadership and raised serious concerns about their practices.

Susan G. Komen Stops Grants to Planned Parenthood

Yesterday, Susan G. Komen announced that they will stop supporting Planned Parenthood. In the past, they have given approx. $700,000 to Planned Parenthood, helping provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals at Planned Parenthood centers across the nation. 

In the past five years, Planned Parenthood has provided more than 4 million clinical breast exams and 70,000 mammogram referrals, often helping low-income or uninsured women detect breast cancer in the earliest stages.

When I found out about this last night, I was outraged. I couldn't believe that the Susan G. Komen foundation would put politics ahead of women's lives. Luckily, I quickly learned from facebook and twitter that many others felt the same. Planned Parenthood and Komen were actually trending last night because there were so many people denouncing their actions. The Komen foundation's facebook page was also full of negative comments, although they seemed to be working overtime to delete them. I wrote a post telling them that their actions were shameful and that I wouldn't support them financially or attend any event sponsored by them until they re-fund Planned Parenthood. It received about 30 likes in the seconds before it was deleted.

Ironically, the Komen foundation just posted a study conducted by the CDC on their facebook page, which says that more work is needed to reduce the disparity of cancer screenings between white women and minority, low-income, and uninsured women.

And then they have the nerve to stop funding Planned Parenthood, the place where these minority, low-income, and uninsured women actually have access to cancer screenings?

That is shameful.

Today, Komen released a statement saying that their move wasn't political. But as Lori Stahl of the Washington Post writes, that is total bull shit. Her article is worth reading in its entirety, but I've copied some of the relevant info below:

The decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood comes shortly after Komen unveiled a new partnership that strengthens its ties to the George W. Bush Institute. The institute is the policy-making arm of Bush’s presidential library, which is scheduled to open in Dallas next year. The founding corporate sponsor [of this new initiative] is Merck, which is making a financial contribution of $3 million over three years.Merck, which manufactures the Gardasil vaccine, is a longtime campaign donor to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose ties to the company were briefly an issue during his failed presidential bid. 

Erin Gloria Ryan, of Jezebel, also calls Komen's statement bullshit. She writes:

Komen's absolutely a political organization, and one of their most recent political moves was to hire as it's Vice President of Communications one Karen Handel, a Sarah Palin-endorsed, rabidly anti-choice failed gubernatorial candidate from Georgia. Even though the services that Komen grants support at Planned Parenthood are breast exams for poor women, Handel was vocally in favor of defunding the organization as a candidate. In addition, Komen's founder Nancy Brinker was a major donor to George W. Bush.

If you think that the Susan G. Komen foundation shouldn't cave to extremists, or prioritize politics over women's lives, I encourage you to sign this petition. I also encourage you to send them an email letting them know that you're disappointed in their actions and that you will not financially support them until they re-fund Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has also created a Breast Health Emergency fund. I encourage you to donate to it! Democratic Underground also suggests that when you donate, you request that a thank you note be sent to the Susan G. Komen foundation. That way, they'll know exactly how much money and support Planned Parenthood is getting.

And while we're talking about the Susan G. Komen foundation, I'm going to recommend that everyone read the New York Times article from October 2011 about the Pinking of America. The article suggests that the foundation is really kind of a marketing machine, and that it isn't actually doing that much with all the money they're getting. This upcoming movie (which I have not seen) also takes a critical look at the organization.

Religious Groups Upset That They Have to Protect Women's Rights and Follow the Law

I've already written a long post on why the outcry from some religious groups over the administration's decision to require all institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception is ridiculous.So I'm not going to go into another rant. But the New York Times published an article today on the controversy the mandate is causing among Catholic universities, in particular, and I wanted to highlight one section I found particularly terrifying.

"Mr. Santorum has taken the position that health insurance plans should not be required to cover birth control. He also favors allowing states to decide whether to ban birth control. He and Mr. Gingrich both support “personhood” initiatives that would legally declare fertilized eggs to be persons, effectively banning not just all abortions but also certain contraceptives, including IUDs and some types of birth control pills."

I know I've said this before, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this is why it is so important that we protect access to contraception. Because the religious groups that are upset over having to provide coverage for contraception think of contraception as "poison," and "baby killers" and "murder." They literally think it is "demonic" and that Obama is Satan (I can't find links to these now, but I promise these make up the majority of comments on Catholic blogs). And they don't want anyone in the U.S. to have access to it. They want contraception to be illegal.

This is religious extremism at its worst.

This is not a murder weapon.

 P.S. Do you support the Obama administration's decision to protect women's rights? Send him a thank you note.

Book Review: The Handmaid's Tale

On Saturday, I sat around all day wearing Brett's cozy flannel shirt, drinking tea, and reading Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

It was fantastic.

The Handmaid's Tale is a feminist dystopian novel, similar to George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It is set in the not-so-distant future, when a Christian group has taken over the United States and established a totalitarian theocracy called the Republic of Gilead. The book is told from the perspective of a woman, Offred, who lives in the Republic of Gilead (Offred is a patronymic that means "Of Fred"). She is a "handmaid," a class of women who are used solely for their reproductive functions.

The book primarily explores themes of women's subjugation and what could potentially happen if an extremist Christian religious group took over the U.S. It offers a critique of theocratic fascism and the idealization of "traditional values," specifically the idea that women are best suited for the home and making babies. Interestingly, it also offers a critique of anti-pornography feminists (the book was written in 1985 when the "sex wars" between feminists were raging), and Atwood implies that these anti-pornography feminists gave the religious extremists too much power and became somewhat fascist themselves.

The novel is rife with biblical allusions and plays on the idea of basing a society's morality on the morality found in the Bible. Gilead (Genesis 31:21) is used in the Bible to refer to a mountain region east of the Jordan River, and is frequently translated to mean "heap/mount of testimony." The handmaids, such as Offred, are sent to the Rachel and Leah Re-education Center to train for the position of handmaid, and Atwood makes it clear that the Gileadean idea of the handmaids is derived from the story of Rachel and Leah found in Genesis 29-35. In the biblical story, Rachel and Leah, the two wives of Jacob, give their maids to Jacob so he can have (more) children through them. This biblical story is read by the husband to his wife and handmaid before they all engage in a bizarre fertility ritual.

Atwood has stated that "this is a book about what happens when certain casually held attitudes about women are taken to their logical conclusions." I don't think she could have described it more accurately.

The book takes ideas that we hear all the time from the religious right today --  ideas like women should return to the home, that men are the rightful "head" of a household, that women shouldn't have access to birth control and/or abortion, and that women's pursuit of things like an education and career are to blame for a declining birth rate and the corruption of society -- and shows what happens if those ideas, and the people who believe in them, are allowed to influence law. In the novel, women are not allowed to be educated, to use birth control or have abortions, to work, travel freely, or hold private property. Divorce is declared invalid, and anyone who is in a second marriage when the Republic of Gilead is established is accused of adultery.

One of my favorite parts is about the wife of the husband Offred serves, who used to be a televangelist and was active in establishing the Republic of Gilead. She preached that women should return to the home, but becomes deeply depressed after the Republic is established and she is confined to the home and unable to speak in public. Through this story, Atwood critiques women who are active in political life while preaching domesticity, and implies that anti-feminist women would be unhappy if they actually lived out the traditional roles they idealize.

To me, one of the most disturbing aspects of this story is how quickly the United States became the Republic of Gilead. Much of it was done in the name of security (initially, an increase in military control is blamed on the need to protect from Islamic fundamentalists), and the constitution is actually suspended after the religious group realizes that the constitution does not, in fact, establish the religious theocracy they idealize. The warning of the novel is clear: you have to protect women's rights -- protect not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion -- because it is a slippery slope. Rights can be chipped at and taken away if we aren't careful, don't advocate for ourselves, and don't fight every attack.

Honestly, this is a book that everybody should read (the other one being the Price of Motherhood). Religious extremists are constantly trying to limit women's rights, take too much control of our government, and preach dangerous, limiting, and disempowering views on women and femininity. The Handmaid's Tale is a deeply distrubing picture of what our society could look like if these groups win. We don't want the Republic of Gilead to become our reality.

Thank the Obama Administration!

Are you grateful that the Obama administration has stood with women and protected access to contraception? Do you believe, as the United Nations does, that access to contraception and family planning services are a fundamental right?

Then sign this thank you note to Obama!

I promise you, anti-choice extremists are protesting Obama's decision, so it is important for him to know that the majority of those in the US support him and access to contraception.

Happy Birthday Roe v. Wade!

Happy, happy birthday Roe v. Wade! 

Source: Sweetapolita

It has been a tough fight -- one we're still fighting. But we're so thankful for you and the right to choose!

Women's Health and Religous Freedom

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared that health insurance plans must cover preventative services for women, including birth control. The goal is that all women, regardless of their faith or where they work or go to school, should have access to birth control if they so choose to use it- without having their access restricted by expensive co-pays or an insurance plan that does not cover contraception.

The move was strongly opposed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who wanted the law to allow for a religious exemption. Obama took their concerns seriously (too seriously, in my opinion), and a meeting with the U.S.C.C.B. sparked outrage and protest from many concerned about religious encroachment on women's health.

But yesterday we learned that Obama didn't pander to religious groups, who want to hide behind religion and religious exemptions to strip women of their rights and endanger their health. Or at least, he didn't totally pander to them. The ruling still includes a religious exemption that allows religious institutions, like churches, and small religious-based nonprofits that can prove that the majority of their employees are people of the same faith, to not provide insurance that covers contraception.

Unfortunately, some people of faith are absolutely outraged by the decision, calling it a "disaster" and saying that Obama is marginalizing people of faith and pandering to the far-left's sexual politics. Even the pope is involved, issuing an address to the bishops of the United States in which he says:

It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres... Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level. In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights.

There are also lots of comments with a liberals-are-so-quick-to-cry-out-separation-of-church-and-state-so-shouldn't-that-also-apply-to-this-outrage! theme.

Honestly, I think the outrage is ridiculous and demonstrates that many people don't understand exactly what separation of church and state means.

Obama isn't pandering to the far-left's sexual politics, because it isn't just the far-left who think that birth control should be accessible. And it isn't just crazy liberal women who use it. As the statement by the Dept of HHS itself says, "Birth control is the most commonly taken drug by young and middle-aged women." And as we know, 97% of Catholic women will use birth control at some point in their lives. This isn't pandering to some far-left sexual ideology, this is ensuring that women have access to a drug that they clearly want and use, one that is crucial to their health and quality of life.

Secondly, the law isn't forcing anyone to do anything that their faith prohibits. It isn't saying that people MUST use contraception. It simply says that if they want it, they need to have access to it. If you are a Catholic woman who strongly opposes contraception at a place where it is now covered by insurance, simply do not ask for a prescription for contraception. The ruling isn't encroaching on your religious freedom to do so.

One of the big concerns over a religious exemption was Catholic universities, where many non-Catholic students attend and many students - both Catholic and non-Catholic alike - are having sex and should be able to do so safely. From what I can tell, universities are one of the few places that will really be affected by the ruling, since churches and many religious non-profits are exempt. I'm sure many people would say something along the lines of, "If you're not Catholic, don't go to a Catholic school!" which is fine and dandy for them to say. However, it doesn't change the fact that by depriving non-Catholics, or Catholics who disagree with the idea that contraception is wrong, access to contraception, they are depriving those people of their rights and their religious freedom. Religious freedom means that you have a right to make a moral decision about your actions and behavior based on your religious beliefs. It does not mean that you have a right to make it impossible for other people to do something that contradicts your religious beliefs.

I suppose a final argument could be made that religious persons are now having to spend their tax money on something that they disagree with. And honestly, I sympathize. I do. Because I have had to pay taxes that largely fund wars I disagree with, prison systems I think are inhumane, a justice system that uses the death penalty, and programs I think are inefficient and ridiculous (hello, abstinence only sex-ed!). But the bottom line is that despite my objections, I had to pay them. Because while I can vote and advocate to change the system, I can't opt out of the system. Catholics, in in particular, should be well aware of the fact that that is how it works, because the last time I checked the Church also disagreed with the recent wars, our inhumane prison system, and the death penalty. Where is your outrage over your tax money being used for these things? Why do I only hear the "tax money" argument brought up around reproductive rights?

I think one of the reasons this ruling has been so difficult for certain religious groups is that it highlights an increasingly divergent understanding of religious freedom. To many religious groups, religious freedom means that no one in the U.S. should have a right to do something they find morally wrong; no one should have access to abortion, no gay couple should be allowed to get married, no one should be able to conduct stem cell research. Yet, as stated previously, that means they are depriving others of their right to religious freedom, to make decisions based on their own construction of morality.

That isn't religious freedom, that is religious tyranny.

The Christmas Story is a Pro-Choice Story

I've been busy eating up a storm in Miami with my family, but I wanted to link to this Christmas reflection even if it is a little late. In this reflection, the Rev. Dr. Maria LaSala writes about how the Annunciation story found in the New Testament is really a piece of pro-choice Scripture. As someone who has frequently heard Christian anti-choice advocates use the Annunciation story to promote an anti-choice message, proclaiming the tired old, "What if Mary had had an abortion?!?!" I find LaSala's reflection much more theologically accurate and refreshing. If God had faith in a woman's moral agency, why can't Christians demonstrate that same faith today and give women the right to make reproductive decisions?

My favorite painting of the Annunciation - by Henry Ossawa Tanner

Are You Going to Lose Access to Birth Control?

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is campaigning against no cost birth control. And Obama might actually give in to their demands. If the administration doesn't, nearly one million people who work at Catholic hospitals and approximately two million people who attend or work at Catholic-affiliated colleges will lose contraceptive coverage they already have.

Why does this matter to you if you don't work or attend school at a Catholic institution? Well, I for one am very, very uncomfortable with seeing a President cave to the extremist demands of a bunch of old men instead of standing with women and supporting basic human rights (remember this recently released UN report?). Furthermore, religious extremists, including the USCCB, have made it clear that the war against women doesn't just mean restricting access to abortion, but restricting access to things like birth control as well. I know lots of "good Catholic women" who are anti-abortion but use birth control and/or support access to birth control (97% of Catholic women will use birth control at some point in their lives). Well guess what?! If you think that religious extremists are going to stop at restricting access to abortion and leave you and your birth control alone, you are wrong.

That is because, as I've long suspected, the anti-abortion argument isn't solely about the "right to life" or the rights of fetuses. It is also about women having children - lots of them. If these people really cared about reducing the number of abortions, they would make sure that birth control was readily available. But they don't! Because they view women as baby making machines and think it is a travesty when they care about other things, such as their career or their own health. Religious groups that fight to end access to abortion also have a gender ideology that says women are inherently different than men and belong in the home raising children. That gender ideology isn't distinct from the anti-abortion fight, it is intrinsically related to it.

All women and men should recognize that the "pro-life" movement isn't really pro-life, it is anti-woman and extremist. And the USCCB's attempt to eliminate access to birth control proves it.

Take action! Tweet @Whitehouse and @BarackObama to resist the USCCB's demands. Use the hashtag #bcrefusal. You can also sign NARAL Pro-Choice America's petition.

Eggs Aren't People!

Yesterday in Mississippi, people voted on Proposition 26, which intended to include fertilized eggs in the state's definition of personhood. In my opinion, the whole thing was ridiculous because people do not look like this:

Source: Science! and The Radical Housewife

Furthermore, women are not just walking baby incubators. They are people! Who have rights! Whose decisions, bodies, and autonomy should be respected.

The bill was problematic, in part, because it meant women who miscarried could possibly be charged for involuntary manslaughter. This has already happened in Utah, so it isn't even hard for me to imagine it happening in Mississippi if Proposition 26 passed.

But it didn't!!!

EGGS AREN'T PEOPLE IN MISSISSIPPI!!

Which is the way it should be.

For a fantastic theological perspective on Proposition 26, and on being a Christian who is pro-choice (and pro-life in the real sense of the word), check out my friend Katelyn's perspective on her blog!!

Fixing Problems - Republican Style!

Source: Kansas National Organization for Women

In a time when many are jobless, graduating from school with tens of thousands in student debt and no job prospects in sight, struggling to make ends meet, find health care, and pay for their children's education, many Republicans have decided to focus on where it really matters - making sure women don't have access to contraception and abortion!

I'm sick of hearing the GOP say they are pro "family values." When you spend all your energy and money telling women what to do with their bodies, and you're more concerned with whether a couple is using condoms and birth control pills than you are about whether they have a job or can afford to care for their family, you don't have "family values."