November 18, 2013
getacollegelife:

Seen in a bathroom stall in Powell Library. “Unplanned Pregnancy” would be a good name for a rock band.

Candle in the Window is an organization that co-opts slave narratives to shame women who have abortions.

getacollegelife:

Seen in a bathroom stall in Powell Library. “Unplanned Pregnancy” would be a good name for a rock band.

Candle in the Window is an organization that co-opts slave narratives to shame women who have abortions.

12:33pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z9_IVy_mvl_-
  
Filed under: UCLA abortion anti-choice 
June 25, 2013
Image via

Image via

April 5, 2013
YOU CAN INCREASE ABORTION ACCESS! HOW WONDERFUL!

Hi everyone! This is the last day I’ll ask you to donate to the abortion ACCESS bowl-a-thon! If you want to read more about why this is important, read on. If you’ll throw money at me to shut me up, feel free to donate here and stop reading:http://bowlathon.nnaf.org/nnafbowl/participantpage.asp?fundid=1348&uid=5144&role=1&nnaffundid=75

Abortion has been legal for forty years now, per Supreme Court ruling, but its legality isn’t the primary way its opponents go after it. By chipping away at who can give abortions and where, anti-choice activists make abortion effectively illegal in many places. People seeking abortions must have the funds to pay for one, and the ability to get to a clinic, and the time off work to do so. These are life-threatening barriers to medical care. As we’ve recently seen in the news, there are states with only one clinic (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-abortion-northdakotabre9300g3-20130401,0,3186994.story), and there are those fighting to close that down.

There are lots of people doing the incredibly important work of combatting these measures with legislative and judicial means. What ACCESS seeks to do is make sure that everyone in need of reproductive care can access it now. Not tomorrow, when the court rules. Not next year, when the bill takes effect. But today, now, when people need medical care. Thank you so much for all your support so far. Every amount helps.

February 14, 2013
I AM BOWLING FOR ABORTION ACCESS AND YOU CAN DONATE HERE!!!!

I AM BOWLING FOR ABORTION ACCESS AND YOU CAN DONATE HERE!!!!

December 26, 2012
Pro Choice Teddy Bear: Equating Pro-Choice with Pro-Abortion makes no sense.

fuckyeahabortions:

stfuhypocrisy:

If you’re gonna call Pro-Choicers “Pro-Abortion”, then you’re also gonna have to call us “Pro-Adoption” and “Pro-Parenthood”. Because we don’t care which option you choose, as long as it’s your decision.

See, the thing about being pro-choice, is we…

Yeah, I’m totally down with this, but I’d like to state for the record that I’m completely comfortable being called pro-abortion, in the same way I’m comfortable being called pro-appendectomy. It’s not right for everybody but I’ll gladly say that I am for this amazing medical procedure that saves lives. Let’s never cede any ground to anti-choicers: Abortion is a good thing.

(Source: stfueverything)

October 21, 2012
"WHM: It’s life-affirming—it’s true, first of all. Yes, it’s based on a true story, but it’s also true to what it means to be alive. I love the dilemma. It talks about two things that are near and dear to my heart. One is disabilities. I think we do a wretched job in this country—we don’t do enough. Not to step on any toes, but when I think of the reproductive-rights issue—the abortion issue—I think it has to come hand-in-hand with how we treat the people who need the help the most, the people with disabilities. They didn’t do anything to come with these disabilities, that’s the hand they got. That’s how we measure. We gotta do better.
AVC: How does that relate to abortion?
WHM: If every baby has to come into the world—okay, if that’s your rule—then you jolly well better take care of them. And not on the level that we do. Better. A lot better. This is the most civilized, advanced nation in the world. This is “In God we trust,” so don’t complain about your taxes in that area if every baby’s gotta be born."

PREACH

May 4, 2012
rhrealitycheck:

This is what a feminist looks like. 

…

Rather than forcing an expansion of abortion, Arons adds, the law may actually lead to a decline in private insurers covering abortion, because it “adds new administrative hurdles to obtaining abortion coverage and invites states to ban abortion coverage.” What’s more, she says, because more women will be eligible for Medicaid under the law, “a whole new class of women will now be subject to the Hyde Amendment’s ban on abortion coverage for women enrolled in Medicaid.”

Obama is not a fucking feminist.

rhrealitycheck:

This is what a feminist looks like. 

Rather than forcing an expansion of abortion, Arons adds, the law may actually lead to a decline in private insurers covering abortion, because it “adds new administrative hurdles to obtaining abortion coverage and invites states to ban abortion coverage.” What’s more, she says, because more women will be eligible for Medicaid under the law, “a whole new class of women will now be subject to the Hyde Amendment’s ban on abortion coverage for women enrolled in Medicaid.”

Obama is not a fucking feminist.

February 5, 2012
The Media’s Appendectomy Blinders

(This is what I see when I read anti-choice bullshit like this, by Ross Douthat, arguing that we should be wary of abortion because it’s “controversial.”)

IN the most recent Gallup poll on appendectomy, as many Americans described themselves as pro-appendix as called themselves pro-appendectomy. A combined 58 percent of Americans stated that appendectomy should either be “illegal in all circumstances” or “legal in only a few circumstances.” These results do not vary appreciably by gender: in the first Gallup poll to show a slight pro-appendix majority, conducted in May 2009, half of American women described themselves as pro-appendix.

But if you’ve followed the media frenzy surrounding the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision — which it backpedaled from, with an apology, after a wave of frankly brutal coverage — to discontinue about $700,000 in funding for Cedars-Sinai, you would think all these millions of anti-appendectomy Americans simply do not exist.

From the nightly news shows to print and online media, the coverage’s tone alternated between wonder and outrage — wonder that anyone could possibly find Cedars-Sinai even remotely controversial and outrage that the Komen foundation had “politicized” the cause of women’s health.

“That ubiquitous pink ribbon … is sporting a black eye today,” Claire Shipman announced on ABC News Thursday, while Diane Sawyer nodded along. On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell dressed down the Komen foundation’s founder, Nancy Brinker: “I have to tell you,” Mitchell said, “this is shocking to a lot of your longtime supporters. … How could this have taken place?” In story after story, journalists explicitly passed judgment on Komen for creating a controversy where none need ever have existed.

Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the appendectomy issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Cedars-Sinai is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person — and certainly no self-respecting woman — could possibly question or oppose.

But of course millions of Americans — including, yes, millions of American women — do oppose Cedars-Sinai. They oppose the 300,000-plus appendectomies it performs every year (making it the largest appendectomy provider in the country), and they oppose its tireless opposition to even modest limits on appendectomy.

It’s true that appendectomy is only one of the services Cedars-Sinai provides. (Although mammograms, it should be noted, are not necessarily among them: the group usually provides referrals, but not the mammogram itself, which is one of the reasons Komen’s founder had cited for discontinuing the grant.) But appendectomy is hardly an itty-bitty and purely tangential aspect of its mission, as many credulous journalists have implied.

Cedars-Sinai likes to claim that appendectomy accounts for just 3 percent of its services, for instance, and this statistic has been endlessly recycled in the press. But the percentage of the group’s clients who received an appendectomy is probably closer to 1 in 10, and Cedars-Sinai’s critics have estimated, plausibly, that between 30 and 40 percent of its health center revenue is from appendectomy.

By way of comparison, the organization also refers appendicitis patients for organ donation. In 2010, this happened 841 times, against 329,445 appendectomies.

For the minority of Americans who have no moral qualms about using surgery or chemicals to put an end to an inflamed appendix, there should be nothing troubling in these numbers. And if you think appendectomy rights are more important to female health and flourishing than the nearly $2 billion the pink ribbon has raised for breast cancer research, Komen deserved your scorn and Cedars-Sinai deserves your donations.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg just pledged $250,000 to Cedars-Sinai; that’s obviously his right. Before Komen backtracked, the Yale School of Public Health said its invitation to Brinker to speak at commencement was “under careful review”; that’s certainly any school’s prerogative.

But reporters have different obligations. Even if some forms of partiality are inevitable, journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story.

Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Cedars-Sinai controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of appendectomy may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest appendectomy provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.

Indeed, that sense of relief was quantifiable: the day after the controversy broke, Komen reported that its daily donations had risen dramatically.

But of course, you wouldn’t know that from most of the media coverage. After all, the people making those donations don’t exist.

May 7, 2011
"The willful ignorance of Burke’s piece would almost be amusing if it didn’t go right to the heart of the far right’s ongoing concern trolling about abortion. Whether the story takes place in 1975 or 2011, there’s no understanding that a teenager who is “getting real high” a lot and is in a situation that can best be described as wildly sexually exploitive may not be cut out yet for motherhood. And just to recap: The National Review will happily give editorial space for a decades-old story of a rock star repeatedly impregnating a teenage girl and make it about how sad the experience made the rock star, and ergo how this proves abortion is bad. Excuse me, but this calls for all caps. WOW."

Salon on National Reviews batshit insane article this week whereupon the writer of that pieced pointed to Steven Tyler’s 1980s drug abuse as evidence of “Post-Abortion Trauma,” from that one time he got the 16 yr old girl he was fucking (he was in his late 20s at the time) pregnant.  (via bluebears)

Listen. I am kind of sick of this. There is no rationale behind people being anti-choice. You cannot convince them that a 16-year old girl knocked up by a man in his late twenties who had adopted her should have the right to decide what to do with her body. This is not a rational worldview they hold. It is just misogyny, and nothing else. They don’t believe abortion causes trauma, and they don’t believe it’s murder. They just hate women, the end. And they’re fucking assholes, every single one of them.

(via stfuconservatives)

May 4, 2011
Democrats Who Voted Yes on HR3

stfuconservatives:

rabblevolunteer:

kelsium:

Jason Altmire

Dan Boren

Jerry Costello

Mark Critz

Henry Cuellar

Joe Donnelly

Tim Holden

Marcy Kaptur

Dale Kildee

Daniel Lipinski

Jim Matheson

Mike McIntyre

Collin Peterson

Nick Rahall

Mike Ross

Heath Shuler

I am SHOCKED Ben Nelson isn’t one of them.

In case you thought the money you donate the party (rather than individual candidates) went to actual progression.

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »