RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
misskitty said:
Right.
So when can we all grow up stop all that nonsense? cause it’s pretty annoying
The first group would have to learn both humility and tolerance.
I expect the heat death of the universe will happen first.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
Women's Rights - News & Discussion
[1032 posts] [69 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: 5)
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Two different groups, isn't it? The social conservatives are the ones against birth control and abortion as moral issues while the fiscal types tend to focus more on high levels of social spending.These are two different things, to me. There is the group that wants to control women through moral issues - for some, there is a moral base behind it, for others, it really is about control and weird oppression. Then there is the other side that realizes women know what's best for themselves, individually, and is nonplussed by the desire of a legislature, generally made up of (white) men, to want to interfere with an individual's medical care.
Where fiscal spending comes in is that those on the side of oppression are also ironically on the side of smaller, and smaller spending --- curtailing programs to help women with the medical care they'd need in pregnancy, or the children they'd be forced to have. It's the old "love the fetus, hate the child" saying. From a fiscal standpoint, it saves massive amounts of money for birth control & abortion to be available.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
misskitty said:
I guess…?
I am not sure any more the one thing I am sure of is that people are mixed bag of fucking nuts. I am also sure there is something better we could waste our time fighting instead of women’s issues. On the other end if they are occupying our time with this B.S. What the hell is really going on behind the seems..The thing that worries me is that people who care will get annoyed and just wish it away. Meanwhile, the OH legislature is still meeting about the budget and still actively trying to defund Planned Parenthood, curtail programs that support battered women, elminate funding for a whole host of things that directly impact the women (and children) of this state. If they get their way, it won't be easily undone.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SusanB
Hungarian Village, Columbus' fastest growing Gayborhood!
Login to Send PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/rick-scott-florida-govern_n_1447294.html
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) shocked the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence this week when he vetoed $1.5 million in funding for 30 rape crisis centers in the middle of Sexual Assault Awareness Month. State lawmakers allotted the money to offset an increase in need and a lack of sufficient funding for victim services.
Posted 1 year ago # -
sirlancelot
Login to Send PM
Twixlen and others worry about government funding for agencies such as Planned Parenthood, and worry about further restrictions on access to abortion or contraception. Don't sit on your hands and whine but organise to find legal methods that circumvent these restrictions. Obviously, you need to educate the public on why access and choice is important. Face it, the religious right has done a better job promoting their views and influencing govt. officials. The word cuts both ways.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
sirlancelot said:
Twixlen and others worry about government funding for agencies such as Planned Parenthood, and worry about further restrictions on access to abortion or contraception. Don't sit on your hands and whine but organise to find legal methods that circumvent these restrictions.I appreciate your assumption that this is as far as my (and other's) activism extends, but it's not. I call. I write. I show up.
While we're on that subject, a pal wrote a great piece for Plunderbund - Don't Be A Slacktivist!
Ohio government is now firmly controlled by Republicans. With that power, they’re doing exactly what everyone feared, which is writing incredibly bad legislation and passing it into law. Laws that we may not be able to wipe off the books for decades—perhaps ever.
You may be angry. You want to do something—anything—to stop them. But what to do? Often, you will be asked to sign an online petition. I have a message about petitions.
Petitions are—quite literally—the least you can do.
By all means, sign one when asked if you support the cause. But don’t think your job is finished. Petitions are just the start.
The way to fight back is to make passing bad bills so uncomfortable for legislators that they have to back away. And even this very often fails to work (see: SB5). But it’s truly our only real hope of stopping harmful legislation before it becomes law (more on that later).
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
The Criminalization of Bad Mothers
You might not expect a rural Alabama mother with a felony conviction to have in her corner a national army of feminists, civil libertarians and gynecologists, but Kimbrough’s case has attracted the interest of groups like Planned Parenthood, the A.C.L.U. and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who all maintain that her conviction sets a dangerous precedent. Emma Ketteringham, the director of legal advocacy at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a New York-based reproductive-justice group, has been following Kimbrough’s case closely. She has drafted “friend of the court” briefs for Kimbrough signed by groups like the National Organization for Women-Alabama and the American Medical Association. She argues that applying Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law to pregnant women “violates constitutional guarantees of liberty, privacy, equality, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.” In effect, she says, under Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law, pregnant women have become “a special class of people that should be treated differently from every other citizen.” And, she says, the law violates pregnant women’s constitutional rights to equal protection under the law. Ketteringham also recruited two prominent Alabama lawyers, Jake Watson and Brian M. White, to take Kimbrough’s case pro bono. “I love babies, too, but I don’t like locking up their mamas,” Watson told me.
There have been approximately 60 chemical-endangerment prosecutions of new mothers in Alabama since 2006, the year the statute was enacted. Originally created to protect children from potentially explosive meth labs, Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law prohibits a “responsible person” from “exposing a child to an environment in which he or she . . . knowingly, recklessly or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance or drug paraphernalia.”
Criminal convictions of women for their newborns’ positive drug tests are rare in other states, lawyers familiar with these cases say. In most places, maternal drug use is considered a matter for child protective services, not for law enforcement. Advocates for Kimbrough insist that, in any case, Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law was never meant to apply to pregnant women’s drug use. “The words ‘womb,’ ‘uterus,’ ‘pregnant women’ don’t appear in the law,” Ketteringham says. “It was a law meant to protect children from meth labs.” One state legislator has filed an amicus brief, claiming the law was not intended to be used this way, and the Legislature has repeatedly rejected amendments to expand the law’s definition of “child” to explicitly mean “fetus.” But shortly after the law passed, Alabama prosecutors began extending the term “environment” to also mean the “womb,” and “child” to also mean “fetus.” In 2006, Tiffany Hitson was charged with chemical endangerment the day after she gave birth to a baby girl who tested positive for cocaine and marijuana but was otherwise healthy. When that prosecution was successful (Hitson was incarcerated for a year), other counties followed suit, making Alabama the national capital for prosecuting women on behalf of their newborn children.
Last summer, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld this expanded interpretation of the chemical-endangerment law, ruling that the dictionary definition of “child” includes “unborn child,” an interpretation that will be challenged when the state’s Supreme Court considers Kimbrough’s case in the coming months. But the implications of that ruling go far beyond Alabama. Critics like Ketteringham argue that Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law offers a back door into what has become known as the “fetal personhood” argument.
...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
The Alabama thing is absurd. What a stretch of the law that is - imagine. Men doing drugs can alter their DNA (Meth, particularly) and weaken their sperm and potentially create birth defects - where's the prosecution for that? Christ.
Also. Men can beat the shit out of women or kids and get less jail time than this. That, the law is OK with.... but don't be an addict, and get pregnant. Gah.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
Since being engaged was brought up - here's your big chance...
Rally at the Statehouse - this Saturday, west lawn, 10-12am!
We’ve told you for months that there is a national assault on women’s rights and Ohio is on the front lines. A new, national grassroots organization—UNITE Women—sprung up in the wake of nearly 400 bills introduced in state houses across the country to fight back. The group has organized large events in state capitals nationwide for this Saturday, April 28 and Ohio is no exception.
Posted 1 year ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
I'm ambivalent on the general principle behind the Alabama chemical endangerment law (I do see human fetuses as humans, not "just fetuses"), but I'm dead set against the 10-year-to-life sentence. That is ridiculous, and is the kind of thing that explains why we have too high a prison population in this country.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
gramarye said:
I'm ambivalent on the general principle behind the Alabama chemical endangerment law (I do see human fetuses as humans, not "just fetuses"), but I'm dead set against the 10-year-to-life sentence. That is ridiculous, and is the kind of thing that explains why we have too high a prison population in this country.The general principle, if it is to be believed, was that it was to criminalize the presence of children in a meth lab.
I think the more disturbing trend that this induces, according to the examples of the article, is that women then hide or avoid seeking medical attention for their pregnancy in order to avoid being found afoul of the law. It won't take long before that activity becomes ingrained as a social behavior which doesn't bode well for life's supposed proponents, and turns the medical community into a perceived bunch of snitches.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM
Twixlen said:
Since being engaged was brought up - here's your big chance...Rally at the Statehouse - this Saturday, west lawn, 10-12am!
We’ve told you for months that there is a national assault on women’s rights and Ohio is on the front lines. A new, national grassroots organization—UNITE Women—sprung up in the wake of nearly 400 bills introduced in state houses across the country to fight back. The group has organized large events in state capitals nationwide for this Saturday, April 28 and Ohio is no exception.
Thanks for the reminder. I'll be there, barring acts of Gaia :) I'll barely mention animal rights here; that controversy, if mishandled, divides would-be allies among progressives.
So...how does institutional sexism connect with the class war ( the rich have been waging on the poor, as Warren Buffet himself puts it)?
This extremism regarding women's control over their bodies comes from the same crowd that seeks to cut the taxes of the super rich and big corporations even more, while trying to make labor unions even weaker, and pushing for cuts in funding for education and various social programs.
Religious conservatives are a significant part of the Republican base. Not only do some of them support, in a reactionary way, 'traditional' roles for women, but they also embrace theocratic views on US foreign policy ( ie holy wars against Islam) which gloss over how our military (and the lives and health of our service men and women) are used to further the corporate abuse of power.
Further still, some of them embrace moralistic explanations for social inequality, over-emphasizing the character flaws of individual poor folk, while overlooking the structural causes.
I'm not attacking religion, per se, but the use of religion to weaken governmental and corporate accountability. I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that if fascism takes hold in the U.S. it is likely to be theocratic. As such, it might involve an attack on the ongoing project of achieving social equality between male and female human beings.
Posted 1 year ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
The general principle, if it is to be believed, was that it was to criminalize the presence of children in a meth lab.And I'm fine with that, even if I'm not exactly the strongest supporter of the war on drugs generally. I note that it was only a Class A felony (10-to-life) because the child actually died, so I can see why a law criminalizing bringing children into a meth lab might rise to that level if the child actually dies. That still doesn't mean that 10-to-life is appropriate in this circumstance--and I say this as probably this board's most outspoken pro-lifer.
Of the three primary functions of criminal punishment (justice, deterrence, and incapacitation), I'm not sure what this accomplishes that a significantly lesser sentence would not. "Justice" is hard to pin down, of course, but one factor in measuring it is relative to the sentences society imposes for other crimes (society's sense of justice should be reflected in the relative severity of sentences as between crimes). As was already noted, some pretty heinous acts get lesser punishments than this.
I think the more disturbing trend that this induces, according to the examples of the article, is that women then hide or avoid seeking medical attention for their pregnancy in order to avoid being found afoul of the law. It won't take long before that activity becomes ingrained as a social behavior which doesn't bode well for life's supposed proponents, and turns the medical community into a perceived bunch of snitches.
Also a valid concern.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
The general principle, if it is to be believed, was that it was to criminalize the presence of children in a meth lab.I think the more disturbing trend that this induces, according to the examples of the article, is that women then hide or avoid seeking medical attention for their pregnancy in order to avoid being found afoul of the law. It won't take long before that activity becomes ingrained as a social behavior which doesn't bode well for life's supposed proponents, and turns the medical community into a perceived bunch of snitches.
The problem is multifold. It's creating criminalization for the act of being an addict - BUT - only if you are a woman. Addiction is an actual, classified disease - a medical issue. But, because of the way it's classified within Medicaid and various state programs (at least, from what I know of Ohio's programs - and I can't believe Alabama would be any more progressive or well funded), these programs have been cut to the bone or wiped out completely in budget cuts. So, unless you are rich enough to be able to buy your way into private care, you're screwed. You can't get into a program, can't get help, and now the state says your disease is worth life in prison if you happen to get pregnant. It would cost the state SO MUCH LESS MONEY to help these people - addiction services, decent medical care, education, etc - it might keep the kid out of the system, it might keep the parent out of the system - win, win, win.
The problem is that a fetus is not a child until the moment it breathes air. It isn't a person until it can get a social security number and be counted on tax rolls. The state has defunded family planning programs, making it much more difficult for low income (and these are all low income women) women to get birth control; they've all but wiped abortion clinics out of the state, leaving women zero options. It's ridiculous and cruel and so one sided. So fucking one sided.
Posted 1 year ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
The general principle, if it is to be believed, was that it was to criminalize the presence of children in a meth lab.I think the more disturbing trend that this induces, according to the examples of the article, is that women then hide or avoid seeking medical attention for their pregnancy in order to avoid being found afoul of the law. It won't take long before that activity becomes ingrained as a social behavior which doesn't bode well for life's supposed proponents, and turns the medical community into a perceived bunch of snitches.
I'm OK with a War Against this Particular Woman.
Posted 1 year ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Twixlen said:
The problem is that a fetus is not a child until the moment it breathes air. It isn't a person until it can get a social security number and be counted on tax rolls.This is begging the question. This is, after all, the fundamental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice worldviews.
Of what legal or moral significance is breathing air? And what of people who, as a legal matter, do not have social security numbers or file tax returns? Are they not legally human? Not morally human? Or for other arbitrary markers, before they're raised by someone else: Of what legal or moral significance is passage through the birth canal and/or severance of the umbilical cord? The child is every bit as helpless at that point as it was 24 hours earlier. Biologically, it has changed very little, and certainly not in any ways that have any particularly obvious moral salience. Somehow we all agree that the law is free to impose responsibilities of care upon the parents when the child is born, but a significant part of the American public argues that there's some basis for making a sharp distinction between that moment and 24 hours earlier?
I would have more sympathy for the Alabama prosecutors if they were attempting to use ordinary child neglect or child abuse laws in this circumstance. The child in the womb is still a child (and yes, that's what it sounds like when I beg the same question you did), and I could understand the impulse of the law to protect that child from being forced to take addictive drugs into its bloodstream. It's the coopting and twisting of an unrelated law (with a potential murder sentence) that I have a more serious issue with.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM
gramarye said:
This is begging the question. This is, after all, the fundamental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice worldviews.Of what legal or moral significance is breathing air? And what of people who, as a legal matter, do not have social security numbers or file tax returns? Are they not legally human? Not morally human? Or for other arbitrary markers, before they're raised by someone else: Of what legal or moral significance is passage through the birth canal and/or severance of the umbilical cord? The child is every bit as helpless at that point as it was 24 hours earlier. Biologically, it has changed very little, and certainly not in any ways that have any particularly obvious moral salience. Somehow we all agree that the law is free to impose responsibilities of care upon the parents when the child is born, but a significant part of the American public argues that there's some basis for making a sharp distinction between that moment and 24 hours earlier?
I would have more sympathy for the Alabama prosecutors if they were attempting to use ordinary child neglect or child abuse laws in this circumstance. The child in the womb is still a child (and yes, that's what it sounds like when I beg the same question you did), and I could understand the impulse of the law to protect that child from being forced to take addictive drugs into its bloodstream. It's the coopting and twisting of an unrelated law (with a potential murder sentence) that I have a more serious issue with.
Obviously the point isn't that every child/person has a social security number - the point is that you can't get one without a birth certificate. Which you can't get without breathing air, and being a separate human being. Perhaps the actual breathing of air isn't the distinction, but the ability to do so should be.
The problem with prosecuting a woman for the quality of her childbearing is that you can't do it without circumventing her own constitutional rights - that is, by placing her in the position of number 2, to the fetus's number one legal position. And that is completely crazy, for a number of reasons. Women miscarry - often. Should that be prosecutable, because someone judges the actions of that woman (she DID get really excited during that football game!) as somehow harmful?
Where is the man's responsibility? If a man gets a woman HE KNOWS IS AN ADDICT pregnant - isn't he complicit in the impacts that addiciton has on that child?
Where is the line drawn? The article points out some really excellent facts - alcohol is the absolute most harmful "drug" that impacts a fetus's development - but that isn't illegal. Or a woman who's given bed rest, but has to work in order to be able to care for the rest of her children/keep her job? Where is the prosecution for a someone who smokes around a pregnant woman? Or who drives too fast in the car? Where, exactly, does the action become harmful?
Seriously - there are men that have killed their whole families who haven't been given a $500,000 bond. The law and the way it's being used is outrageous.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.