Jezebel: naral

"We Will Not Go Gently Into That Good Night"

Anna — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:40:00 EST

That's NARAL's Nancy Keenan, appearing on MSNBC a few minutes ago. [NARAL]

Website Claims To Have 68-Year History On Every Abortion-Having American Woman

Jessica — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:30:00 EDT

A reader sent us a link to something called Abortiontracker.com, a site that claims to have compiled "a comprehensive list of every woman who has had an abortion procedure performed in the United States and Canada, dating back to 1940." To get access to this alleged database, you need to pay $799 for a seven day pass to the site or up to $16,999 for unlimited access to "full names, complete addresses, unlimited contact information, false names used during operation procedures, reasons listed for abortions, known STDs at (and since) time of abortion, [and the] name of person believed to be the father."

Abortion Tracker claims that it gets all this information from disgruntled workers at abortion clinics "who have since found the Lord, or whom always had the Lord, but only decided to deliver 'borrowed' records to us after the fact." The website is registered to Moniker Privacy Services which masks the identity of the true website owners. We gave NARAL a ring, and they'd never heard of these yahoos. We're calling bullshit on this one. The entire thing sounds like a sick get-rich-quick hoax. HOWEVER! One word of (probably paranoid) caution: while I don't believe for a hot minute that these jerks have access to any medical records, I would advise people who go to the website not to enter anyone's name into the search engine. The only way I can imagine these people get any names of abortion-havers is through the information viewers enter in unwittingly.

Abortion Tracker [Official Website]
NARAL [Official Website]

If You Won't Vote For Barack, Would You Consider Voting For Michelle?

Megan — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:00:00 EDT

A lot of people would like to believe that the world — and politics — is a fairly rational place outside of the crazies. Crazy is, though, a definitional problem — by definition, crazy is defined as "outside the norm." So what is the norm? How many non-normals can there be until "crazy" is its own norm? Is irrationality the norm and — if it is — then is irrationality rational and rationality irrational these days? These are the questions that run through my mind when I read articles like this one on Politico which says "About one in five voters who supported Clinton in the Democratic primaries tell pollsters that they are not voting for Obama."

Am I supposed to believe that these are Republicans and conservative independents who crossed over to vote for Clinton despite the polls at the time showing that Obama had the lead in self-identified independents? Or am I supposed to believe that they include the likes of Geraldine Ferraro, New York NOW Chapter President Marcia Pappas (she of the "psychological gang bang" statement), Missouri NARAL Chapter President Pamela Sumners and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who are all quoted within stating their opposition to anyone but Clinton for VP? One would think that if anyone could look gimlet-eyed at the political situation in this country — especially in regards to the candidates and reproductive rights, where Obama and McCain sharply disagree — it would be the likes of women who head state-level reproductive rights organizations, a former Democratic governor nearly excommunicated from his Church over his stance on choice issues or the first female candidate for the Vice Presidency. But is the irrationality of continuing to insist that Hillary Clinton be the Vice President the new rationality for twenty percent of Clinton voters? Is insisting on combating sexism in the media by electing the male Republican candidate the new normative behavior? It begins to get disheartening when the same people who insisted 6 months ago that people, if they looked at the issues, would nominate Clinton would now ignore the issues to express their disappointment that she didn't get the nomination.

And it's even worse to me when you have a potential First Lady — Michelle Obama — who isn't talking about cookie recipes or standing by her man or the other potential First Lady's patriotism, but about juggling work and family and how to have difficult conversations with your children on issues like racism, slavery and sexism. She even talks about those thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters that haven't yet come around in a far more rational and conciliatory way that I've yet been able to manage:

For me, it's not personal. The way I see it? There are a lot of people like me, like how I am about my husband, my candidate. They invested their hearts and souls into Hillary Clinton, and many of them did this for years. They have to figure out how they want to leverage their political power. I understand that. Politics is a patience game. You can't do this unless you have patience.

That's rationality, and attributing to Clinton supporters some sort of minimally-irrational rationality that, in some cases, I'm not sure is actually there.

So, maybe if we're all going to be irrational and ignore the issues we used to pretend mattered to us and vote based on who is taller, or not-too-thin, or more handsome, or didn't beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries or whatever, maybe we can be perfectly irrational and just choose who we'd rather see as First Lady. Michelle's got my vote either way. But it might just be because she always looks so stylish and didn't put a silent "H" in her daughter's name

VP Pick May Chafe Hillary Supporters [Politico]
Obama's Independent Edge [RealClearPolitics]
NOW Head Described Treatment Of Clinton A "Gang Bang" [HuffPo]
Michelle Obama: I'm Still Me [Creators.com]

Bush Administration Memo Tries To Define Birth Control As Abortion

Jessica — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:30:00 EDT

There are 188 days left in the Bush administration, and it is becoming painfully clear that if George W. cannot end the war, or boost the economy, he'll sure as hell make it his mission to chip away at Roe vs. Wade. As Reuters reports, a leaked Department Of Health and Human Services memo describes a plan to cut off federal funds to states, hospitals and clinics that discriminate against employees who refuse to offer birth control or abortions on religious or moral grounds. As if that weren't bad enough, the proposal redefines all birth control as abortion. According to Reuters, in the memo, the HHS draft "proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures — including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

Reuters adds that the Department of Health and Human Services would not verify the contents of the widely-circulated memo, "but noted their responsibility to protect against discrimination of doctors and pharmacists who object to abortion or birth control on religious or moral grounds."

Pro-choice organizations and women all over the country are understandably up in arms over this. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, asks the New York Times, "Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?” Good question! Apparently, they're peeved over recent state laws, like Connecticut's 2007 legislation requiring hospitals to distribute Plan B to rape victims, and according to Reuters, the proposal was "specifically designed to counter" those laws. How convenient for Republicans to be in favor of states rights…for everything except a woman's right to choose!

And speaking of Republicans, NARAL's blog notes that while John McCain has yet to comment on this specific proposal, he has voted against choice 125 times in the Senate. It's obvious that the Bush administration will stand behind the straw man of "religious freedom" when defending this proposal, but if it's so concerned with religious freedom, why does this law only apply to birth control? Some Christian Scientists are against using modern medicine. So, by this logic, it would be discrimination to not hire a Christian Scientist because he or she refused to dole out insulin for diabetes, or declined to give a cancer patient chemo? Exactly. The only discrimination here is against a woman's right to choose.

Family Planning Groups Object To Abortion Plan [Reuters]
Abortion Proposal Sets Condition On Aid [NYT]
Another Day, Another Dangerous (Proposed) Bush Regulation [NARAL]

NARAL's Endorsement Of Obama Is Neither Disrespectful Nor Disloyal

mcarpentier — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:00:00 EDT

Here's a reminder of what the pro-choice movement is supposed to be fighting: the anti-choice movement. I put this picture up in case you, like a lot of women today, have forgotten that these people are the enemy, and John McCain is their candidate. Because from all the ugly backlash against NARAL Pro-Choice America's endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday, it seems like a lot of Clinton supporters have decided the enemy is Obama/NARAL and not people that are, you know, actually actively fighting to deny women the right to choose. But, hey, why bother tearing down the anti-choice movement, their leaders and the politicians that pander to them when we can just tear other pro-choice Democrats and organizations down? No one undermines women like other women, right?

With 3 weeks to go in the primaries and virtually no chance of a Clinton upset, NARAL came out yesterday in support of Barack Obama who, along with Hillary Clinton, has a 100% score on their ratings scale. (They also both score 100% with Planned Parenthood - Obama is here, Clinton is here). Besides the obvious political advantage of being the first pro-choice organization to endorse him, NARAL said this about its decision:

Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public office. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.
Sen. Obama has been a leader on this issue in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both side of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. Sen. Obama supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services.

Since then, many of NARAL's state affiliate groups have taken pains to point out that they remain neutral in the race. EMILY's List President Ellen Malcolm called the endorsement "disrespectful" of Clinton's continued pursuit of the nomination, adding, "It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them." EMILY's List, by the way, backs only female pro-choice Democratic candidates and thus would never back Obama regardless of his stance on choice, unlike NARAL and Planned Parenthood, whose PACs support pro-choice candidates regardless of gender.

Several Congresswomen who back Clinton's bid for the nomination weighed in today, with Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz telling reporters she feels "abandoned" by NARAL and California Congresswoman Jane Harman calling it a "betrayal" that NARAL has decided to back the presumptive pro-choice Democratic nominee for the Presidency. And, of course, they're not alone in their hyperbolic condemnation of a pro-choice group endorsing a pro-choice candidate who happens to be the presumptive winner of the primaries and, you know, pro-choice. A quick glance at NARAL's blog reveals a startling 3,152 comments, many of them screeds of rage against NARAL and Obama. One great commenter, Liz B says with no apparent sense of irony:

Et tu Brute! That's quite a blow to your gender and delivered at a prime time in the campaign, too. The most rabid woman haters could not have done more damage.
It's not enough that I've endured months of witnessing "Hillary hate" in the media, on the Internet, etc., and had to listen to calls of "F——g whore" and "bitch" and "c—-t" hurled at the candidate I support. Now, at a crucial moment in this tremendously important race, you choose to betray the interests of the women of America by endorsing a man who has inspired slogans like "Bros before Ho's" and who, in appearances made after his Pennsylvania debate with Clinton, "flipped off" his opponent and her whole gender. You expect him to defend our rights?

I very much doubt that your choice will win the presidency if he is the candidate. He is no match for McCain and Huckabee (the Republicans' probable vice presidential nominee). Unlike Hillary, your guy does not connect with and cannot win over the bulk of mainstream working people in America. Huckabee, who is rooted in the religious right and sees women as the "servants of men" is perceived as a "populist" who can "talk the talk" with everyday working people. We need Hillary, with her proven ability to connect with working Americans, in the race to avoid defeat in November.

Congratulate yourselves on helping the Democrats once again fulfill their historic mission by seizing defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Ah, yes, endorsing the candidate that is sure to be the nominee 3 weeks in advance of the concession of the candidate that almost certainly cannot win is a betrayal of the cause of choice and women everywhere. Can you hear Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter snickering with joy as they watch the pro-choice movement attack itself over a pro-choice group endorsing one pro-choice candidate over the other?

So, look, can we please, please take a deep breath, all of us, and look at the picture above and remember that McCain is no longer going to support even a rape/incest/health exception to the Republican party's anti-abortion platform rather than trying to tear down the candidate, please?

[Full disclosure: This writer volunteered for NARAL at the Million Woman March handing out stickers to, hopefully, many of you.]

NARAL Pro-Choice America Supports Obama [NARAL]
And There's Even More On NARAL [American Prospect]
EMILY's List Hits Back At NARAL [The Atlantic]
Clinton supporters push back against NARAL endorsement [Salon]
Blog For Choice [NARAL]
McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform [ABC]

Florida Kittens Save Lives • NARAL Endorses Obama

Dodai — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:20:00 EDT

Two kittens meowed so loudly when a Jacksonville, FL building was on fire that they woke up one resident who was able to help everyone get out before the flames gutted the building. • Naral Pro-Choice America has endorsed Barack Obama. • That has pissed off some other pro-choice peeps, like EMILY's List prez Ellen R. Malcolm, who calls the endorsement "...tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton." • A new study has found that chocolate consumption during pregnancy may lower the risk of preeclampsia. • Has the demise of "you" in text messaging has been greatly exaggerated? A study found that "you" was used over "u" 9 times out of 10. • Some dude in Sweden turned his girlfriend's cell phone into a bugging device: He taped it to the headboard of her bed and when he called her he could hear what was being said in the room. • Um, beer-flavored, non-alcoholic beer for dogs. Why? • Don't go around saying people don't read books anymore; we're in a "second golden age" for teen fiction. • An interesting story about sperm competition contains this info: "Men — even those with vanishingly low sperm counts — ejaculate more healthy sperm if they masturbate while watching sexual videos than if they do it while staring at the ceiling." •

• Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian writes, " There are few more wonderfully enjoyable ways to spend a touristy weekend in Manhattan than on a Sex and the City vacation package, unless of course you count buying a souvenir New York penknife and then repeatedly stabbing yourself in the face." • Chicks are more open-minded about smaller cars than men are. • Women are underrepresented in research focusing on significant health issues unrelated to reproduction. • Jennifer Sharpe of Dearborn, MI sold 17,328 boxes of Girl Scout cookies this year, which is probably a new national record. Jennifer's mom says selling cookies has made her really confident. "When she first started selling, she was very shy and quiet and you had to push her out to talk to customers, but now she's right out there, first to the door."

Conservative British MP Calls America "The Abortion Capital Of The World"

Jessica — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:00:00 EDT

To quell the rising rate of abortion in Great Britain, Tory MP Nadine Dorries has begun a campaign to reduce the limit for late-term abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Dorries' snappy marketing campaign to push this piece of legislation is called "20 Reasons for 20 Weeks." The right-wing Daily Mail published all 20, and most of Dorries' tactics include the display of the sad-teeny-feet of babies born before 24 weeks. Zoe Williams of the Guardian pokes holes in these 20 Reasons, calling them "so flawed, often so illogical, so savagely misogynistic and so repetitive." Here's just one example of Dorries' and the DM's tenuous handle on the truth: they say that "two-thirds of GPs support a reduction in the time limit," but Williams points out that 77% of the British Medical Association voted to keep the limit as is. Dorries argues that "If we don't [lower the time limit for abortion] there is no question that we will overtake America in the next couple of years, making us the abortion capital of the world." But is America really the abortion capital of the world?

Dorries' calls America "The Abortion Capital of the World" because the rate of abortion per 1,000 women is 19.4 to Britain's 18.3 (Australia's is the highest in the world, at 20.0). The Daily Mail has a chart comparing abortion laws in 9 different countries; in it, the newspaper lists the "Upper Limit" of legally-acceptable abortions in the U.S. to be 26 weeks. But the reality is that getting an abortion after 12 weeks in many states is outright impossible.

According to NARAL, the pro-choice organization, "23 states have unconstitutional and unenforceable bans that could outlaw abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy, with no exception to protect a woman's health." In addition, "15 states have unconstitutional and unenforceable near-total criminal bans on abortion." Zoe Williams points out that "If you really wanted more abortions to take place earlier in the pregnancy, then you would work towards improving access to terminations on the NHS." Similarly, if Americans really wanted fewer late term abortions, they would provide better sex education in public schools and easy and cheap access to birth control. As we said earlier, 87% of counties don't even have access to an abortion provider. And anyway, Dorries is just picking on America because we're so loud and crass and angsty over the abortion issue. If she were really being accurate, she'd go after those abortion-happy Aussies, who "kill babies" even more than we do.

Britain Is 'Becoming The Abortion Capital Of The World' Claims Tory MP Fighting To Lower Legal Limit [Daily Mail]
Fact, Fiction And Foetuses [Guardian]
Abortion Bans After 12 Weeks [NARAL]
We Had Our Babies Under The 24-week Abortion Limit - And They All Survived [Daily Mail]

Earlier: Pro-Life Teen Says "I Feel Like We're All Survivors Of Abortion"

NARAL is selling some pretty awesome t-shirts...

Jennifer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:40:00 EST

NARAL is selling some pretty awesome t-shirts that we're pretty sure we all need, stat. Because who amongst us is not a "Rebellious Jezebel"? [Feministe]

Ever Sent A Text Message You Wished You Could Abort?

Moe — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:30:36 EDT

So there's been some big hoo-hah about the abortion rights crowd sending out mass text messages to supporters because our tender eyes are too impressionable not to go out and get an abortion every time we're reminded it's still legal. Which made us think: how many ill-advised text messages have you sent only to wake up pining for the text message equivalent to Plan B? Like for example, this is the actual text of an actual text message I sent early this morning. To an actual person!

"fear dumbass, you needn't fare seventeen, and who the fuck cares. like you"

What, were they spiking the beverages with SENILITY? Or did predictive text prevent me from sounding even more profound? Okay, so: because not every state is as progressive as Virginia, where people are actually getting fined for sending annoying texts, I hereby deem the space "after the jump" your graveyard for your best specimens of drunk text. With a very special set from a certain ladyfriend of ours on Capitol Hill.

Him: "Oi! Fantasy fulfillment on deck. Interested?" (1:05 a.m.) Her:" Was sound asleep, just saw this this a.m. Intriguing offer. Hope your show went well, will try to catch it next time" (9:50 a.m.) Him: "Lol! Me & [redacted] wanted 2 commemorate our biggest gig yet w/ a tag team & I knew the perfect girl" (10:04 a.m.)

And that, guys, is the difference between girls and dudes. We regret it in the morning! Which is why we're the only ones allowed to have babies.