Aren’t New York and California as “sex-positive” as any other state? Or do you just think the U.S. isn’t “sex-positive” enough in general?

Isn’t New York City fairly “sex-positive?” The abortion ratio for the residents of New York is quite high

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vital_statistics/2003/table23.htm

Higher than the abortion ratios the the abortion ratios for all the other counties in New York by residence

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vital_statistics/2003/table22.htm

According to the CDC, New Jersey’s abortion rate for residents (19 per 1,000 women 15-44) is higher than the U.S. average of 16 (without California) but nowhere near the abortion rate for the residents of New York state which was 30 per 1,000 women ….

Kristen,
The ultrasounds weren’t legally mandated. If the abortionist performs one (which is standard practice) then the women is given the option of viewing that ultrasound. So much for pro-’choice.’

Also, something that people often forget when bringing disability into discussions of abortion is that women with disabilities also have/want to have children as well, and there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination that either prevents us from having kids (many women with developmental disabilities have been unwillingly sterilised) and puts us at great risk of having children taken from us for no other reason than society’s assumption of our incompetence due to our disability.

People often forget that many women with disabilities are also caregivers, of children and of their own parents, and instead insist on seeing us only as recipients of care and `drains on the public purse’ (not quoting anyone here of course, that’s just an example of one of the reasons some people want us aborted or euthanised).

It’d be interesting to look at some of the intersections between the medicalization of pregnancy and the idea of mothers as patients with pathological conditions, and the treatment of people living with disabilities as you described in the first paragraph. And the potential enforcement of a pre and peri natal standard of care against “special” needs for mothers living with disabilities. And then there are alternative parenting routes like adoption.

And, to riff off of what Dobkin said, I’d bet there are problems with access to “natural” childbirth and assorted other options; disabled mothers probably face a lot of assumptions as to how they can give birth even when they are recognized as prospective parents.

Also, something that people often forget when bringing disability into discussions of abortion is that women with disabilities also have/want to have children as well, and there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination that either prevents us from having kids (many women with developmental disabilities have been unwillingly sterilised) and puts us at great risk of having children taken from us for no other reason than society’s assumption of our incompetence due to our disability.

People often forget that many women with disabilities are also caregivers, of children and of their own parents, and instead insist on seeing us only as recipients of care and `drains on the public purse’ (not quoting anyone here of course, that’s just an example of one of the reasons some people want us aborted or euthanised).

All of what I’ve said also applies to men with disabilities, I just focus on women with disabilities because I am one and I work in that area and so it’s what I know most about personally.

I imagine that pretty much everyone has someone in their family who is disabled. Some may not realize it, because they think of them as “old,” not “disabled.” But yeah, these are issues that affect almost everyone in one way or another. And if they don’t now, they will.

I’m sure. And most people have been disabled at some point or another, however temporarily. In my family, we have ailments that tend to manifest in middle age or later–although there are other problems that crop up earlier. I grew up associating aging with disability, but I wasn’t able to pretend that my relatives were “just” getting older.

But I do totally understand about time constraints and about not wanting to speak out of turn.

Meh. If I’ve got time for Law and Order, I’ve got time to be a responsible blogger. And like your comments indicate, it’s not like silence isn’t a statement of its own. Plus, like you pointed out, we haven’t been completely silent on the subject of disability.

I’m hoping to a bunch of really elaborate, really confusing posts about transition, surgery, body image, identity, etc. So I’m _trying_ to untangle all of those knots, but I somehow end up allowing myself to divert attention into posts that are not terribly interesting or difficult, while using this project as an excuse to put off other types of challenging stuff.

Anyway. I have an idea. It’s contrary and passive aggressive, just like me.

Why don’t we trade?

Say for the next week, we’ll assign blog topics to each other: one topic per day. The point is to choose articles, topics, and ideas we think we should be blogging about or haven’t gotten around to blogging about. This way, we’ll be able to shove all our anxiety and work onto someone else, and get some fresh material in return. And we’ll have tasks, not just vague intentions. Then, after we read our fellow blogger’s take on the topic, we can go off in comments, where I think we might feel less blogger-blocked anyway.

If it works, we can make it a regular feature.

Do I have a good justification for why I don’t? No. Sure, I’m busy, but I managed to post at least five different items today. I think what happens, at least with me, is that I tend to scan the same sources (the NY Times, the LA Times, Salon, Slate, etc), notice anything having to do with feminism, and write about it. Disability issues don’t get covered nearly as often as they should in mainstream news sources. Bloggers like me are often not very good about digging around for news/information outside of their narrow field of interest (not trying to argue that disability issues are “outside” of feminist issues; I just tend to focus more on reproductive rights and law more than anything else, and seek out stories on those topics). And like Zuzu said, we often hesitate to write about things that we feel less-than-expert on, since everything we put up is fairly widely read and immediately picked apart.

But let me be clear that these are not excuses. I’m not trying to justify the lack of focus, I’m just trying to explain it, and further state that I’ve been remiss in not writing about it more. I will be better in the future, and I’m glad you all have pointed this out.

The indifference itself doesn’t bug you? I don’t understand why not.

Yeah, I guess it does. But it doesn’t bug me quite as much as being told that I’m harping or a secret anti-choicer or (bizarrely) fat-phobic (since I refused to admit that discrimination against disabled people is really just a front for discrimination against fat people and because I objected when someone said that a discriminatory measure “wouldn’t work”, even though it would “work” against me.) I prefer indifference to hostility, so I try to be careful not to imply that people should be paying attention to disability.

That sounds like whining, and it’s really not about this blog. But I’m still smarting a bit from past battles.

I imagine that pretty much everyone has someone in their family who is disabled. Some may not realize it, because they think of them as “old,” not “disabled.” But yeah, these are issues that affect almost everyone in one way or another. And if they don’t now, they will.

But I do totally understand about time constraints and about not wanting to speak out of turn.

The big thing I’m always a bit worried about is pontificating on issues that I am not all that informed about, only to have those who are mock me. Which can happen when you just kind of riff off a news article that seems to someone unschooled in the issue to be comprehensive, but apparently isn’t.