Clinton Fights On

No doubt Clinton’s relatively new vocalization in favor of reproductive health rights has something to do with her massive campaign debt*, but I don’t care. I’ll take it.

Today Clinton made two gutsy press releases via blog in order to take a stand against the Bush administration’s latest attempt** to put common forms of contraception like birth control pills and IUDs in the same category as abortion.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them “abortion.” These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can’t let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women’s health and that’s why I am sounding the alarm.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They’ll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California’s laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of “the problem.” These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

The only thing abortive about birth control is that it messes with God’s will, God’s will to permanently relieve me from cat litter duty. Because God has nothing better to do.

On the other hand, you, dear reader, with a few flicks of your delicate wrist, can join Sen. Clinton’s call to action here.

And in related reading, Marcella wrote about another offense by the Bush administration earlier this week in which they want special protection for anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive medical providers who refuse treatment to patients. Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray jointly released a statement in protest on this proposal as well.

____________
* To be fair, Clinton’s record on reproductive rights is as good as, if not better than, Obama’s, but I can’t recall her being this outspoken on the issues in recent history.
** Some of Bush’s recent attempts of wrestling media glory away from Obama and McCain appear to be pretty transparent attempts at reclaiming his legacy. It’s way better for the future of his vainglorious presidential library if he can be remembered as an evangelical, lady-killing rock star by his base, instead of being remembered as the man who wiped his ass on the Constitution, abandoned thousands of citizens in crisis, abused the good faith and young bodies of his troops, and waged an unnecessary war to avenge the name of his father.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Lauren

Lauren founded this blog in 2001.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics, Reproductive Rights, Vanity and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Clinton Fights On

  1. RKMK says:

    No doubt Clinton’s relatively new vocalization in favor of reproductive health rights has something to do with her massive campaign debt*, but I don’t care. I’ll take it.

    Low blow.


    * To be fair, Clinton’s record on reproductive rights is as good as, if not better than, Obama’s, but I can’t recall her being this outspoken on the issues.

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome has really and truly infected the so-called progressive blogosphere. “As good as, if not better than”? Her record trounces his. FFS, I can’t believe what this place has degenerated to.

    To think I used to consider this my primary blog hangout. Disgusting.

  2. Lauren says:

    RKMK, I voted for Clinton and I’m not thrilled about Obama. Quell the outrage.

  3. RKMK says:

    “We need to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential.

    We also must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.

    Our goals for this Conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments – here and around the world – accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights.

    The international community has long acknowledged – and recently affirmed at Vienna – that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.

    No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.

    Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated.

    Even in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world’s refugees. When women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse.

    I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.

    These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

    The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear: It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

    It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.

    It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

    It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

    It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.

    It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

    It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

    If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women’s rights – and women’s rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely – and the right to be heard.”

    Hillary Clinton, 1995

  4. megan kay says:

    I’m with RKMK. Why include that first sentence? For the record, I’ve received a few emails from her on this and have been to her website, and nothing about this issue is linked with any of her fundraising buttons. I’m also on her fundraising email list, and haven’t received anything from her in over a week.

    Did you have a reason for including that first sentence? Does it even matter one bit? What has BO said about this? Oh, yes — no, no, and nothing.

  5. Lauren says:

    Why include that first sentence?

    Because I think it’s true. Clinton’s campaign debt is no secret, and as a smart politician, but a politican nonetheless, she’s wise to attempt to pry some additional funds to cover herself, potentially for future campaigns I hope. I’m not saying that she’s only taking this tack for fundraising purposes — it’s obvious she purports these beliefs because they’re her sincere beliefs — I’m saying part of it is PR for an alternate purpose. There’s no judgement in that.

  6. megan kay says:

    It seems judgmental when the first sentence seems to accuse her of only doing this for financial gain, and then mention that you think these are her sincerely held beliefs only after being called out, and in comments. I wonder why you’re choosing to emphasize one as the lede to the story, and minimize the other.

  7. Lauren says:

    Called out? Please. You asked for clarification and you got it. Take it, leave it, or argue against it, but as a Clinton supporter I’m not going to take a ton of flack for not towing an appropriate amount of Clinton-love.

    Two things happen at once: 1) Clinton attempts to regain the money she lost from a failed campaign, as 2) Clinton maintains a history of support for reproductive rights. Where’s the conflict?

  8. megan kay says:

    But these two things are not happening at once. She isn’t saying this at a fundraiser or mentioning her debt in the press release. These two things are only happening “at once,” if you include a host of other things that are happening this summer: gas price explosion, campaigning for BO, returning to her Senate career, recovering from a long and difficult campaign, etc.

    I simply do not understand why you are choosing to link these two events together and not any other events, and why you are not merely linking, but emphasizing, her financial situation.

  9. Redstar says:

    I feel like Sen. Clinton may believe she has a lot less to lose now as a failed Pres. candidate in taking a more vocal stance on progressive and feminist issues, and what we’re seeing is a new, improved Sen. Clinton.

    Tacky opener.

  10. Lauren says:

    Redstar, I can agree with both sentiments.

  11. lady-killing

    Well I’m sure he’s succeeded in that part of his “legacy” with the Global Gag Rule and his war in Iraq. Mission accomplished.

  12. RKMK says:

    Because she had to have ulterior motives, right?

    I guess I’m confused as to how this is such a great money-making scheme, yet both Barack Obama and the DNC are largely silent on the matter – and Lord knows they could use some cash, let alone the feminist PR.

  13. Lauren says:

    Clinton has nothing to lose by openly supporting reproductive rights, whereas the Kossack left is famously uncomfortable with women as agents. Obama and the DNC would be cast as radical, pinko leftists if they made the same statements as Clinton did today, and would lose funds from the kinds of Dems that want their guy elected on fiscal and ideological policies that just so happen to exclude actual rights for women and minorities. It’s their mistake, in my opinion, to keep unapologetic calls for abortion rights in the dark corners of the Democrat party, but that’s something feminists have rightly been saying for years. I think we agree on this point.

  14. Astraea says:

    She specifically mentions her fight to get approval for Plan B, and that’s in the past couple years. I don’t know how this can be called “new.”

  15. Peter says:

    I’m not sure if this is what Lauren was referring to, but I seem to recall that early on in the election cycle, Clinton was doing some triangulation, some would say pandering, to the right wing (or “centrists; whatever) on abortion.

    That’s politics I guess.

    The point is, its good to see her take a strong stand on Bush’s theocratic bullshit on contraception. Jesus christ, I shudder to think what another eight years of republican hegemony in the white house would do to women’s reproductive rights.

  16. RKMK says:

    Y’know, Lauren, I’m just getting a little punchy about this sort of crap. Like with FISA – she said along she wasn’t going to vote for it, and when she didn’t, and it was, you know, both the right thing to do and the thing she said she was going to do, the story was all “Tee hee, Hillary, that vicious opportunistic harpy, just did it to spite Barack and make him look bad!” And now she comes out fighting about something incredibly important, and reproductive justice has been her cause for – quite literally – decades, and the first sentence makes the disclaimer that her leadership on this is motivated by the bottom line. It grates.

  17. RKMK says:

    The point is, its good to see her take a strong stand on Bush’s theocratic bullshit on contraception. Jesus christ, I shudder to think what another eight years of republican hegemony in the white house would do to women’s reproductive rights.

    As opposed to Obama, who started triangulating after the primary, and makes comments about women having “some” control over their bodies, in consultation with their husbands and pastors, and even then, he doesn’t agree with silly women having late-term abortions just because they’re feeling a little blue…

    … Yeah, I know I’ll sleep better at night.

  18. megan kay says:

    “Clinton was doing some triangulation, some would say pandering, to the right wing (or “centrists; whatever) on abortion.”

    I think you’re thinking of the wrong candidate.

    Again, I just don’t know why if you agree that this issue is important to her, if you understand that she is consistently on the right side of this issue, that she has taken a stand for it in the past, why you only mentioned and emphasized that she’s doing this for cash. That Clinton, such a whore for reproductive justice.

  19. Lauren says:

    I hear you. I was admittedly detached from this primary cycle for these reasons. I made a few posts on the topic on my own blog. I do think both campaigns took advantage of the stereotypes levied against the opposing candidate, but I don’t want to get into a shit-flinging war about that.

    Really, when I say “I’ll take it” I mean it. Women’s rights need a high-profile person to take the helm and provide a voice for those of us who just don’t have one in the public sphere. I’m in full support of Clinton for reclaiming this position. Obama, meanwhile, waffles in a way I’m really uncomfortable with.

    But yeah. I agree it’s probably tacky for me to put it so plainly, but I also think the statement is true. I’ll stand by it. I think Clinton is emphasizing a point that she put aside during her presidential candidacy for campaign reasons, and is reemphasizing it now to, in part, take advantage of the platform she has gained on two fronts: financial and ideological. IMO, there’s no harm in either. There’s only gain: financial and ideological, not only for her personal debt but also the potential for raising money for the orgs that have a direct hand in fighting the policies she’s drawing attention to.

    makes the disclaimer that her leadership on this is motivated by the bottom line

    And then there’s NARAL, whose endorsement of Obama was for me a clear motivation of the bottom line, and a poor one at that.

  20. J.Goff says:

    I can’t recall her being this outspoken on the issues in recent history.

    As RKMK has stated, there are numerous instances of efforts by Senator Clinton both before she was elected Senator and after to quash various bills that sought to diminish reproductive freedom. I’m not sure when it was, but as a New York resident at the time, I based my vote for her on her stance on reproductive rights.

    There are very few such statements by Senator Obama, and many people who have been following both Senators’ careers will object to your assertion that both are at similar levels on their support for reproductive rights.

  21. RKMK says:

    I apologize for coming out swinging like that Lauren – my nerves are getting a little raw – but I’m going to let my objection stand. I’d say her debt is maybe 5% of her motivation here, and lede seems unfair.

    But I do appreciate you dialoguing it all out.

    And Peter? No dude has ever gotten anywhere with me by lecturing me about the importance of reproductive rights. Fer serious.

  22. Peter says:

    @ Megan, #18: I could be wrong about clinton triangulating on abortion early in the election cycle. Its only a vague recollection I have.

    I think she’s pretty strong on women’s rights, on principle. I don’t doubt that.

  23. Charity says:

    “Jesus christ, I shudder to think what another eight years of republican hegemony in the white house would do to women’s reproductive rights.”

    No offense Peter, but those women you’re talking *about*? Are right here, discussing their reproductive rights, and are (and have been) doing the shuddering, weighing the candidates as they shudder, and are dreading decades more shuddering regardless of WHICH candidate wins this election, and all in a way you will only ever know in the abstract, so please remember that. I’m all for men on feminist blogs, but there is a sad trend I am noticing of men pontificating on women’s experience and talking past women in the process. Or hell, sharing that their feminism *isn’t “woman-centered”*. Guess I can identify with RKMK on some stuff really GRATING.

  24. Lauren says:

    RKMK: Oh please, don’t even apologize. :) I knew I was being snarky and expected some pushback. But to repeat my stance, I proudly voted for Clinton in my state primary and still think she had some advantages that the DNC ignored in favor of Obama. And moreover, I took a lot of shit from friends and family from supporting her over Obama because I was supporting the perceived old school over the perceived new school.

    But I still think that a politician is a politician, no matter my support for her. Follow the money and all that. I’m just not an idealist.

  25. Peter says:

    No offense Peter, but those women you’re talking *about*? Are right here, discussing their reproductive rights, and are (and have been) doing the shuddering, weighing the candidates as they shudder, and are dreading decades more shuddering regardless of WHICH candidate wins this election, and all in a way you will only ever know in the abstract, so please remember that.

    Lame. I didn’t realize that one had to be personally invested in a civil rights issue, to express an opinion on it. I can’t personally relate to the torture Gitmo detainees go through, or the illegal detainment arab americans went through after 9/11, and neither can you. Does that stop you or me from expressing opinons on it? I think not.

  26. RKMK says:

    And moreover, I took a lot of shit from friends and family from supporting her over Obama because I was supporting the perceived old school over the perceived new school.

    I’m 27. So did I. I’ve always been old school, what can I say? ;)

    And I’m not all that idealistic, really. It’s just that I imagine her motivation breaks down to something like:
    – 5% debt relief;
    – 40% it’s the right thing to do;
    – 40% groundswell of popular support carries her into the Convention stronger, and (assuming a fair nomination process) if she doesn’t swing the nomination, she brings her health care plan and women’s rights to the platform
    – 5% given Bush a nice black eye on his way out of the Oval. :)

  27. megan kay says:

    “Lame. I didn’t realize that one had to be personally invested in a civil rights issue, to express an opinion on it.”

    Did you realize that “lame” is an ableist slur?

  28. RKMK says:

    Lame.I didn’t realize that one had to be personally invested in a civil rights issue, to express an opinion on it

    You don’t. But lecturing people who have far more invested in reproductive justice about OMG HOW IMPORTANT THIS ELECTION IS and ROEEEE!!!! and OMG YOU CAN’T VOTE REPUBLICAN! is fucking old, and stick that doesn’t work as well as it used to.

    For more, see Melissa McEwan’s essay here.

  29. Charity says:

    megan kay, I think that’s the best possible response, so I’ll happily defer to your comment, although the NOT LISTENING, it BURNS.

  30. Peter says:

    I wasn’t lecturing anyone RKMK.

    Seriously, what exactly is pissing you off? I post in numerous forums on issues of civil rights pertaining to women, to arab americans, blacks, gays. And I’ve never been scolded for having an opinion on a civil right issue. Is there a problem here?

  31. RKMK says:

    The point is, its good to see her take a strong stand on Bush’s theocratic bullshit on contraception.

    “She’s a triangulating, opportunistic wench, but I’ll throw her a bone here.”

    Jesus christ, I shudder to think what another eight years of republican hegemony in the white house would do to women’s reproductive rights.

    “But don’t forget, vote for Barack! Oooga booga REPUBLICANS! Oooga booga ROE!”

  32. Peter says:

    RKMK, I think you really need to calm down. First, you’re reading too much into what I wrote. You’re really stretching it, to fit some preconcieved notion you have of me.

    Second, I admitted I might have been wrong on Clinton’s triangulation on abortion.

    Please tell me what the rules of this board are, as you see them. Are men not allowed on abortion threads? Are heterosexuals not allowed on thread pertaining to lesbians and homosexuality?

    I’m new here, so pardon me if I don’t know the rules. I’ve never been scolded by the islamic community for having an opinion on Gitmo or torture of detainees.

  33. megan kay says:

    Peter, I don’t want to speak for RKMK, or for Feministe, but I think generally the first rule of commenting in feminist spaces that you don’t tell a woman that she is overreacting or needs to calm down.

  34. octogalore says:

    Lauren, you’re the best. Way to give some ground with class and humor but stick with where you were going substantively. As another commenter who’s long been an HRC fan, I agree about the opener, but I’m sure there’s some percentage of truth (I like RKMK’s percentages myself). It’s awesome that you stuck with your guns despite pressure to be cresting the hip wave (for anyone who made that choice for substantive reasons, this isn’t directed to you).

    Two thumbs way up!

  35. J.Goff says:

    Lame.

    First off, never use this word as a synonym for worthless, which you obviously just did. Want to be considered a progressive? Don’t use bullshit insults that imply certain people are inhuman.

    Secondly, quit trying to act like other people reacting to your bullshit is their fault. Progressive, my ass. You’re merely a misogynist/ableist who hasn’t been called out on his own bullshit enough.

  36. Ronda says:

    J. Goff u are one really annoying troll and I am just waiting for u to start flinging your favorite insult around which is “ass hat” I believe. Please quit chewing up the threads.

  37. AndersH says:

    Well, I’m a bit late to comment on that first paragraph, but I do want to say that it fits perfectly into what in some ways is the most telling reading of Sen. Clinton’s behaviour during and after the primary. That being the “Clinton is a self-serving bitch, thus everything she does is for self-serving reasons”. It seems completely unfounded, since, you know, all presidential candidates want to be elected, you could apply that to everyone, if you’re uncomfortable with that candidacy.
    Sorry for commenting on something that’s been hashed out so much in the comments already, but can we not do the “well, it’s Hillary, and we all know how SHE is”-thing any more?

    Oh, and for the record, I am thrilled about Obama, just as I’d be for Sen. Clinton (though slightly more in the latter case).

  38. No need for snarky comments about Hillary. She is my senator and already she is being extremely proactive in my state and local area. The main thing is she has been very effective and should be President. The general election has turned into a real yawn fest with her out of the race.

    By the way, why does this issue warrant no serious discussion by Obama? Is he not the democratic presumptive nominee? Oh, I forgot when there are men in the election women’s issues are put by the side in favor of war discussion. My bad, I forgot how how boys play.

  39. Peter says:

    Peter, I don’t want to speak for RKMK, or for Feministe, but I think generally the first rule of commenting in feminist spaces that you don’t tell a woman that she is overreacting or needs to calm down.

    I have no idea what gender RKMK is, so that’s another assumption. RKMK made a lot of assumptions about my posts. I don’t even know how this thread became about me. My comments prior to the dogpile were pretty benign and non-inflammatory.

    Look, if there’s some unwritten rule that men can’t make a comment about abortion or women’s rights, let me know. I can totally dig it and respect that women might need their space free from the influence or comments of men. I’m pretty new here. Can heterosexuals comment on lesbian threads? Can white people comment on threads that pertain to african-americans? I wasnt lecturing anyone, or trying to dominate the conversation. The only comment I made prior to getting dogpiled was pretty benign. I only come here because Jill is an awesome writer, as are some of the other bloggers here. And the articles they post are interesting. I don’t come here to be a kiss ass, or to get high fives or platitudes for being a “liberal” male. I’m come here because I’m broadly interested in civil rights, whether it be women’s rights, or the civil rights of other disenfranchised communities. And I gotta admit, this is the only website where I’ve been scolded for posting a comment in support of civil rights. The islamic community, the black community, the hispanic community has never scolded me for my opinions on issues pertaining to Gitmo, racial profiling, or islamophobia, So this is admittedly virgin territory for me.

  40. Butch Fatale says:

    As long as we’re discussing the discussion of the candidates & language use, I’d like to suggest that “boy” is a pretty poor choice of words when discussing Sen. Obama.

  41. April says:

    A good essay, Paul, on how men can participate in feminism, if you’re interested.

  42. April says:

    Actually, I linked to that web page because of an excerpt by Sinister Girl, so I’ll just link that post here:

    http://msjared.blogspot.com/2007/01/where-unicorns-are.html

    It offers perspective on the question of deferring to women’s (rather than to a man’s) authority on issues that pertain to women’s lives and experiences.

  43. Raging Moderate says:

    Peter, quit being a whiny crybaby.

  44. Pingback: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Bush administration threatens contraceptive availability for low income women

  45. Pingback: Sign the petition. Join Clinton (and everyone else’s) fight for reproductive rights « The Eclectic Hedonist

  46. sorry if my use of boy came out bad, but I was also talking about McCain, which nicely contrasts his age – that some men don’t grow up. They just transfer from xbox to commander in chief.

    I am just so sick and tired of the negative attitude towards Clinton even when the attempt is congratulatory. It seems some liberals will continually try to tear her down even if she will never run for president again. Is this the penalty for uppity women?

    I find the tone a little hostile as if someone resents promoting Clinton. But as this focuses on a women’s issue some feminist just have to deal.

  47. j_hoo says:

    Peter,

    Charity (who may be a man or a woman) was a bit off kilter right off the bat on your comments. I see nothing in this thread that you need apologize for.

  48. Lalaroo says:

    Peter, I’ll bite.
    I don’t know if you’re completely unaware of this (and if you are, you’re probably a hermit who just now got internet access), but there’s been a pretty big movement to try and bully Clinton’s supporters into line by threatening them with the repeal of Roe. Some of Obama’s more fanatical supporters are really making pains of themselves by shouting about how those bitter, nasty hags who can’t just grow up and recognize that Clinton lost (because she’s worse, and absolutely not because of any sexism – in fact, there was no sexism during the primary!) should shut up and start supporting Obama wholeheartedly because even though he’s not as staunchly pro-choice as they’d like, McCain is SO MUCH WORSE!!!!
    So, viewed in that context, can you see why your last sentence would rub some of the commenters here the wrong way?

  49. Gayle says:

    “* To be fair, Clinton’s record on reproductive rights is as good as, if not better than, Obama’s, but I can’t recall her being this outspoken on the issues in recent history.”

    Clinton led the fight (with Murray) on EC a few years back. At that time, she was quite outspoken.

  50. Charity says:

    Yes, j-hoo (who may be a man or a woman), go ahead and point to me, since I was not even the first to have a certain perception of Peter’s comments, and was certainly not the last. Fascinating. I wasn’t asking for an apology, if you’ll notice. I find it striking that when a woman says something to a man about the way he’s speaking about reproductive rights and the trend that grates on her, it becomes all about injustice toward the man, and somehow it’s completely inconceivable for him to say, “I didn’t think of how that sounds” or “I agree there is a difference in our lived experience on this issue”. No, that’s too much to ask for. It’s all about your rights, all of a sudden.

  51. Charity says:

    I know I am abrasive…and that has a lot of costs as far as how I’m understood. I guess though, I am frustrated that feminist blogs often get treated like just another liberal news blog, or something, and women’s voices are just some among many. Maybe it’s unfair to ask, but I do desperately want women’s voices to be privileged, for a change. There are simply so many areas of life where they are not, and that includes areas where our voices are not privileged in *speaking about our own experience*. That’s a hard thing for a lot of men to get their heads around, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask, on a feminist blog, that you try. And this is just the gender binary – I am aware this dynamic plays out in every other domain of culture, identity, and oppression, and is equally important to address on those grounds too.

  52. Sam says:

    I’m a bit late here, but…

    Peter: Stop asking about “the rules” as if Feministe censors legitimate discussion. You know there are no rules about who can post where. Trying to paint the commenters who are railing on you as authoritarian jerks isn’t going to get you anywhere.

    Also, if you want to comment under a masculine handle, be prepared to catch some flak. You can have the best intentions in the world when you write a post and someone might still take offense at it. That’s life. It’s worth it to take a step back and think about what others are taking offense at.

    RKMK, Charity, others: Women do not own reproductive rights. Just because women bear the brunt of policy decisions regarding reproductive rights does not mean men can only understand the issue at hand “in abstract.” Family planning doesn’t not end with the woman. All children have fathers, and though not all fathers share the responsibility of a child, some *do*. I’d say those men have more then an abstract appreciation of reproductive rights.

  53. charlotte says:

    That cat litter thing? So not true. See http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/pregnancy_and_toxoplasmosis.html

    And yeah, I voted for Clinton after I voted for Edwards and before I’m going to vote for Obama. Why did I pick Clinton before Obama? Because I liked her better on women’s rights and gay rights.

  54. Aura KitKatting says:

    Damn WHY is everyone so snarky at Feministe these days ~ ???

    I’m glad that Clinton is taking a stand on this, but I would expect her to. The obvious question comes to mind, is Obama? And if not WHY NOT?

  55. Pingback: I Met Hillary Clinton : The Curvature

  56. Pingback: Feministe » I Met Hillary Clinton

  57. Charity says:

    OK, just have to say…reproductive rights =/ “family planning.”

    “Women do not own reproductive rights.”

    Exactly the problem! ba-dum-dum.

Comments are closed.