politics

368 posts

The Case For and Against a Libyan No Fly Zone

By Lady_E

Two weeks in to the Libyan uprising events continue to unfold at breathtaking speed as opposition and Gaddafi forces engage in heated battles for control of the country.  The initial opposition momentum that resulted in close to half of the country falling to opposition hands and threatening Gaddafi’s control of Tripoli has shown signs of receding as Gaddafi has successfully reinforced his control of Tripoli and now begun counter-attacks to reclaim opposition-held territories.   Though opposition forces have claimed success in repulsing Gaddafi’s most recent counter-offensive, opposition forces are now debating requesting foreign intervention under a UN banner, specifically targeted air strikes against weapons compounds and military installations such as radar stations.  Foreign military intervention of this type would be a major escalation of international involvement (to date limited to non-military measures by the UN Security Council, the European Union and the United States) and appears to have little support from Security Council and NATO nation state members.

Gaddafi’s brutal crackdown and the developing humanitarian crisis has led many to ask what, if anything, the international community could do.  Are there other options available? The most often mentioned proposal is the imposition of a No Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya.  This article is not advocating for or against an NFZ.  An NFZ may sound like a relatively simple solution and most people are probably familiar with the general concept (as it has been used before and during the Gulf Wars and in the Balkan conflicts), but there are serious concerns about a Libyan NFZ, for both the potential enforcing foreign nations and for the opposition movement within Libya.

Many serious international commentators have weighed in on a No Fly Zone, for and against.  Each view deserves careful consideration and the point of this article is to provide readers with links to the varying arguments to spur debate and present a more fleshed out backdrop of the competing concerns and interests.  Before we begin, however, a quick note on the actual mechanics of how an NFZ would come into being.  An NFZ would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council under its Chapter VII Charter Mandate and could be enforced either by UN member states or the NATO military alliance.   An NFZ is a military intervention, not a non-military measure. From a practical standpoint, Russia (a veto-holding Security Council permanent member) is currently ruling out a UN Security Council NFZ and the NATO Alliance members are similarly split on the issue.  For more on this aspect, see here.

Arguments For a No Fly Zone

Britain Prime Minister David Cameron, House of Commons Address:  Prime Minister Cameron has proposed taking the lead on coordinating a military no fly zone, saying “[w]e must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.”

Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute, USA Today: Mr. Rubin argues that American credibility is on the line and that we cannot stand by in the face of civilian “slaughter.”  He suggests that “Obama should take action: First, he should order U.S. fighter jets based in Sicily and on Mediterranean aircraft carriers to enforce a no-fly zone over northern Libya. Not only would this prevent Libyan planes from again strafing civilians, but it would also enable safer evacuation of non-Libyans.  If Gadhafi’s henchmen continue their slaughter, Obama might impose no-drive zones for military vehicles.”

David Cortright, University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, NY Times Room for Debate Forum:  Mr. Cortright argues for a multi-lateral no fly zone authorized by the UN, but endorsed by the Arab League and one that includes Arab governments such as Egypt and Morocco.  He argues “[m]ore than 200 Arab organizations and intellectuals have urged Arab League support for a no-flight zone. Gaining the league’s support in this new era of more responsive politics in the region should be possible and must be a priority. This will make it easier to convince China and other hesitant Security Council members to approve U.N. authorization and will hasten Colonel Qaddafi’s downfall.”

Marc Lynch, Foreign Policy Magazine: Mr. Lynch argues that it is time for concrete actions against Gaddafi’s regime.  “It is time for the United States, NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League to act forcefully to try to prevent the already bloody situation from degenerating into something much worse.  By acting, I mean a response sufficiently forceful and direct to deter or prevent the Libyan regime from using its military resources to butcher its opponents. I have already seen reports that NATO has sternly warned Libya against further violence against its people. Making that credible could mean the declaration and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, presumably by NATO, to prevent the use of military aircraft against the protestors.”

Arguments Against a No Fly Zone

Marc Leon Goldberg, UN Dispatch: Mr. Goldberg responds to Marc Lynch and challenges the effectiveness of an NFZ:

“There has been a sort-of coalescing around the idea that a No Fly Zone is useful way to intervene to stop the killing. I am not so sure. While it is true that some of the slaughter has been perpetrated by Libyan air force, air assets alone are not responsible for the killing. If Qaddafi and his inner circle are intent on violently suppressing this revolt, they will use their superior ground forces as well. A No Fly Zone is a humanitarian half measure. It would let the international community say that it is doing something, but there is very little a No Fly Zone can actually do to stop ongoing slaughter.”

Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Mathis, Pentagon News Conference:  Gen. Mathis points out that an NFZ would first require disabling Libya’s air defense system, a significant military exercise. Sec. Gates stated “there would be multiple consequences to military action, including to United States forces already at war in the region. “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” and that “we also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East.”

Edward Rees, Senior adviser to Peace Dividend Trust, The Atlantic: Mr. Rees argues “enforcing a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Libya is unlikely to do as much good as its backers hope, and could in fact backfire.”  Mr. Rees highlights the practical effectiveness of an NFZ because of the size of Libya, the lack of nearby air bases from which to impose the NFZ (meaning it may have to be enforced from aircraft carriers), the risk of downing the wrong aircrafts and being drawn into a ground conflict.

Kori Schake, Hoover Institution, NY Times Room for Debate Forum: Ms. Schake presents four reasons why the US should not use military force, including the fact that “we have not had an ambassador in Libya for months, and we have evacuated our diplomats; we ought not overestimate how much we understand what is occurring in the country or the shape Libya’s rebellion will take.”

To read more views, see the New York Times Room for Debate Forum: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/01/should-the-us-move-against-qaddafi

 

Scott Walker Hasn’t Forgotten About the Children; He’ll Break Them, Too

Koch brothers’ hype man Scott Walker laid bare the full of his budget proposal yesterday.  In it, he called for nearly $1B in cuts to public school funding, while ensuring that local districts wouldn’t be able to spuriously find a way to close the gap he’s creating. How? By inserting a provision requiring districts to reduce their property tax authority.  It’s assumed that Walker will soon legislate a bully and a pickpocket into each municipal school, in order to extract additional funds directly out of kids’ pockets.

Fear not, though, fair Wisconsin residents!  Walker didn’t just take his chain saw to the expense side of the ledger.  No, no, not at all.  He also looked for ways to trim up the budget from the revenue side, asking for an estimated $82M in tax cuts, much of that coming from capital gains realized on investments in ‘Wisconsin based businesses’.  Wait, you mean cutting more revenue will only further impact the ability of the state to shore up it’s budget issues by forcing even more spending cuts?  Well done, high school accounting students! Your classes just landed on Scott Walker’s chopping block!

Further, let’s assume that power plants, the kind that Walker wants to privatize and sell off (without bids!) as part of his larger plan, would qualify as ‘Wisconsin based businesses.’   But remember, the Koch’s aren’t interested in those power plants.  Nope, never. Ignore the fact that their own website, under ‘Industry Areas’ lists ‘supply energy to communities to heat and cool buildings’ in the first sentence highlighting their offerings.

Walker is also touting cuts to cities and counties in his budget, just so they don”t feel left out as Walker machetes his way through what’s left of the middle class.

In case you happened to catch yourself feeling bad for Walker, don’t worry, he’s still got folks on his side. In spite of the poll numbers indicating that support for him is waning, Americans for Prosperity is putting together a ‘Stand Against Spending. Stand With Walker’ bus tour this very weekend!.

I don’t need to tell you who the primary backers of AFP are.

In short, Scott Walker is Flava Flav, if Flava Flav ever worked for Don King.

Libya on the Brink of Civil War

By Lady_E with assistance from Kenneth Gibson

Despite his bizarre claims in an interview with ABCNews’ Christiane Amanpour, Gaddafi’s crackdown on opposition forces intensified over the weekend with Special Forces, regular Army forces and fighter jets striking opposition targets. Meanwhile, opposition forces announced the formation of the National Libyan Council and selected former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abdel Jalil is to lead the initiative.  The Council will coordinate attempts to liberate Tripoli and other Libyan areas still under Gaddafi’s control. On Sunday, Sens. McCain and Lieberman called on the US government to recognize and arm the provisional opposition government. Over the weekend and through last night, opposition forces fought fierce battles against pro-Gaddafi forces to maintain their hold on ‘liberated’ areas, but neither side appears to have gained a clear military advantage. Opposition forces repelled sustained pro-Gaddafi assaults on the opposition-held towns of Zawiyah and Misrata, but attempts to reach Tripoli did not materialize and it remains under Gaddafi’s control.

Opposition organizers in Benghazi

Beyond the military assaults, Libyan civilians trapped by the fighting are facing food and medical supply shortages.  Over the weekend, The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) entered Eastern Libya, including opposition held Benghazi, and is now providing medical assistance.  The ICRC reports 256 killed and 2,000 people wounded in Benghazi.  On Monday, French Prime Minister, François Fillon, announced that France is also sending two planes carrying doctors, nurses, medications and medical equipment to Benghazi.  The planes are scheduled to leave this morning.  However, due to the security situation, aid is not reaching western parts of Libya.  According to Valerie Amos, the UN humanitarian chief, the security situation around Tripoli remains too dangerous for international aid agencies to assess the need for medicine, food and other supplies in the west.  The ICRC has also not been able to access Western Libya and Al Jazeera reports this morning that Gaddafi’s regime may be purposefully blocking food supplies to Western towns as a means of undermining opposition control.

Benghazi, the de facto capital of the opposition, is where much of anti-Gaddafi actions are co-ordinated and executed.

For Libyans and foreign nationals who have been able to flee the country, refugee support remains limited. Sybella Wilkes, spokeswoman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, announced that more than 140,000 refugees have fled into neighboring countries, estimating that up to 75,000 refugees had already crossed into Tunisia from Libya and 69,000 others had crossed from eastern Libya into Egypt.   Over the weekend, witnesses and news reports documented Tunisian guards repeatedly opening fire on refugees attempting to enter and refugees being beaten by guards.  Once through the border, the refugee situation remains precarious.  The Tunisian camp can accommodate about 10,000 people. “The resources are being drawn down as quickly as we can pump them in,” Ms. Wilkes said in a telephone interview.  Relief workers have said they are concerned about sanitation in the camp and supplies of drinking water.  In Geneva, Secretary of State Clinton announced the Obama Administration has set aside $10 million for emergency humanitarian relief through the U.S. Agency for International Development and that two teams of USAID experts are being sent to Libya’s borders to assess the refugee crisis and organize the delivery of aid.

Member of opposition forces outside Benghazi military base

More than two weeks after the uprising began the International community continues to increase pressure on the Gaddafi regime though military intervention but the imposition of a no fly zone remains unlikely at this point. Over the weekend, acting on President Obama’s Executive Order, the US Treasury Department froze $30 billion in Libyan government assets.  The European Union imposed new sanctions, including an arms and police equipment sales embargo and a visa ban for Libyan officials.  On Saturday the Security Council met for a second time and adopted Resolution 1970 under its Chapter VII, Article 41 authority which includes 1) an ICC referral, 2) an arms embargo, 3) an asset freeze and 4) a travel ban (Note: the Resolution link provides summaries of the Security Council member statements on the Resolution.  Importantly, Ibrahim Dabbashi, the Deputy Permanent Delegate, represented the Libyan delegation).

Despite repeated pleas from the Libyan UN delegation, human rights groups and some US elected officials, the UN Security Council did not include imposing a no fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from bombing civilians by air.  Today, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ruled out Russian support for a no fly zone.  Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has veto authority.  NATO could impose and enforce a no fly zone but has stated that any military interventions would have to be UN authorized.

For additional information and ongoing updates:

ICRC Resource Page: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/index.jsp

For up to the minute updates, links to on the ground reporting and a twitter live feed from the Region, visit the The New York Time’s Lede Blog (twitter feed on the right): http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/latest-updates-on-libyas-revolt-and-mideast-protests-4/?hp

Al Jazeera English live stream: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

For those having problems with the Al Jazeera live stream (maybe it’s just me), sign up for LiveStation (it’s free!) and you can watch any Al Jazeera channel: http://www.livestation.com/

UN News Centre: http://www.un.org/news/

Images via BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera and Newsday

Have a favorite news source we are missing?  Put a link in the comments!

Chris Dodd Will Now Censor Your Movies

After deciding not to run again because of being on the receiving end of some shady mortgage deals from Countrywide, Chris Dodd (D-CT) has a cushy new job as the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). He will replace Bob Pisano who is the acting CEO.  Pisano is a Hollywood insider who spent time at SAG, MGM and Paramount, whereas Dodd is certain that he’s seen movies but is outraged by the price of popcorn and the lack of wide parking spots.

The MPAA is the organization that determines what rating a film will receive based on how many instances of boobs, butts, peens, dirty words, violence, sex and Mel Gibson are in the film.  They don’t tell you what you can’t have in your film, but if you want it to get a R or below you know what you have to do.

Photo here.  Source: The Hill.

“UB2”: The Legal and Ethical Questions Surrounding the Fringes of Gay Sex

(Note: This is an article about some sexually explicit topics, so both this post and any sites to which I link may be considered textually NSFW.)

In the midst of the latest round of congressional attempts to criminalize abortion, the “right to choose” question has once again interjected itself into the national conversation. Does a woman have the right to choose what to do with her own pregnancy in her own body?

I’d wager that most of us here on Crosstalk would argue for a woman’s right to choose. As with the gay marriage debate, it would seem that many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of legislating morality, especially as it relates to sexuality (ironically, a classically Republican mindset ). But the “right to choose” question extends beyond the issue of abortion; for those in the poz (HIV-positive) community, a debate is raging over the ways they have sex and the necessity of “safe sex” measures.*

See, barebacking has made a comeback in the gay porn industry. Barebacking refers to sexual penetration–usually anal–without the use of a condom.” Barebacking was long a staple of gay sex, but when the AIDS crisis his America, the practice lost its glamor. Only recently has it come back into vogue, the latest thrill to seek for the most sexually adventurous (some would say careless) people. The gay community is split over whether this is a good or bad thing for the LGBT community at large. Many activists wish to require porn studios to include condom use in their feature films; after all, the best way to encourage safe sex and minimize the risk of STI transmission is by using a condom, and it’s irresponsible of some porn studios to continue to promote and profit off of bareback sex. On the other hand, proponents and producers of bareback pornography argue that porn is fantasy, not reality, and viewers understand the difference between the fantastical world that porn depicts and the realities of gay sex.

Along with the most recent rise in barebacking’s popularity has been the increasing prevalence of serosorting–sex between partners with the same STD status. A (relatively) high-profile example of this is Atlanta’s monthly Poz4Play parties, in which HIV-positive men congregate and have unregulated sex with each other. Condoms are offered, but not required; while patrons have to keep their clothes on in the space’s lobby and hallways, several private rooms are available for private, unmonitored sexual activity.

Serosorting isn’t just limited to those in the poz community, however; dating websites for people with specific STIs (such as herpes, HPV, and chlamydia) are growing increasingly popular with gay and straight singles looking to avoid the awkwardness and embarrassment that often comes with admitting one’s STD status to a disease-free partner. As you might imagine, some–but not all–of the couples matched up by these disease-specific sites eschew condom use. And for those who feel stigmatized by their STIs, it’s nice to meet people who share these problems and experiences; the burden of shame, at least between partners matched through these disease-specific websites, is lifted, and that fact alone makes the sex all the better. (A common acronym in poz personal ads is “UB2,” which stands for “you be too”–as in, “respondents must share my STI status.”)

The justification for bareback serosorting is that since both partners are already infected with a given disease, the supposed “risk” of infecting each other is rendered moot. And if people are going to bareback anyway–it’s common wisdom in the gay community that condom-free sex simply feels better, and it’s assumed that many sexually active members of the community actively search out opportunities for barebacking–then they might as well do it with those who share their disease status, so as to minimize risk to the broader (disease-free) gay community. Many “poz party” promoters emphasize this health-conscious aspect of their decision to promote serosorting:

For decades, the issue of HIV Status Disclosure was one of silence, confusion and doubt mainly created on the fear of hate, rejection and in some cases DEATH (murder or suicide) – that was in the 20th Century. Today, the 21st Century has opened the doors of opportunity, acceptance, communication, awareness and HOPE as HIV+ people (gay, straight, man, women, young or old) openly and willfully disclose their HIV Status to family, friends, loved ones, co workers and sex partners. Since the mid 1990’s, HIV Status Disclosure for both HIV+ and HIV-negative people continues to be an acceptable behavioral change that  global society has understood to be vital in stopping the spread of HIV in it’s tracks. Without HIV testing and HIV Status Disclosure mankind can NOT physically break the cycle of new HIV transmissions – Serosort (HIV+ only) or Safe Sex Serosort ;(HIV+ 4 HIV+ or HIV- 4 HIV-).

So we can see how the issues of serosorting and barebacking are fraught with tension and disagreement over the limits of sexual freedom; should barebacking and HIV-positive pornography be legal? Who would be responsible for policing, say, mandatory condom use on gay porn sets? How could such requirements even be enforced in the first place? Would the policing of these kinds of sexual activities only push them underground, into dangerously unregulated situations? And is it right that, say, “bareback porn is given away as prizes at benefits for AIDS and other organizations”?

Add one more question to that unnerving list: what to do about “bug chasers“?

Bugchasing is a slang term for the practice of pursuing sex with HIV infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Bugchasers may seek HIV infection for a variety of reasons Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV positive; giftgivers are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser’s efforts to become infected with HIV.

It’s difficult to avoid condemning the practice of bugchasing as reckless, dangerous, and just plain stupid. But should it be banned? Defenders of the practice argue that sexual activity between consenting adults should not and cannot be legislated. Moreover, some argue, it’s hypocritical to on the one hand protect gay men’s right to engage in sodomy and a woman’s right to choose whether or not she undergoes an abortion, and on the other hand seek to criminalize other consensual sexual behavior–namely, bugchasing and barebacking.

It’s a tricky question, and I’m not going to editorialize; in truth, I myself am still trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. But even though practices like serosorting and bugchasing may only affect a small percentage of the population, the questions they raise about sexual freedom and the legislation of sexual health seem more pertinent to the national conversation than ever.

Image via.

*Okay, so it seems as though some readers have taken issue with my comparing the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with the choice to bareback or “bug chase.” I’m not attempting to equate the two at all. For one thing, I don’t think anyone ever “wants” to get an abortion; it’s an incredibly difficult and painful decision that many people (myself included) believe is up to the pregnant woman, as opposed to a bunch of politicians in Congress. But while some young gay men feel the need to “bug chase” in order to find shelter and/or community, many testimonies from “bug chasers” I’ve found online imply that the decision to do so is voluntary and in the pursuit of what they view as erotic pleasure.

Rather, I think both abortions and activities like “bug chasing”–and the legal debates that surround them–center around the same question: “Who is in charge of <i>my</i> body?” In other words, the question as to whether it’s justified for the government to intervene in people’s personal and/or sexual decisions is common to both of these “issues.” Now, you might make the argument that whereas an abortion is a solely personal decision, activities like “bug chasing” pose a potential social health hazard. I don’t think this viewpoint is invalid. Just because I think these two things both center around the same question doesn’t mean they must have the same answer.

In any rate, if you disagree with the analogy, then you can ignore it. It’s not central to my post; I suppose I simply felt the need to “justify” the inclusion of this topic on Crasstalk, as ridiculous as that might sound, and was therefore attempting to tie serosorting and “bug chasing” to other things that have been discussed on this blog. The rather “anything-goes” nature of Crasstalk where most any topic is welcome without attempting to justify its relevancy to the blog’s audience is still a bit new to me.

I can’t believe we still have to protest this crap

You thought I was done yammering about abortion laws? HA. You are so naïve.

Welcome to Part Two of Chipping Away At Roe, or I Can’t Believe We Still Have To Protest This Crap. Today we’re going to look at a (very) small sampling of state laws and bills relating to abortion and reproductive rights.

We’ll start with my home state, Iowa. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Iowa had 11 abortion providers in 2008 in 9% of Iowa counties. They also have like a million crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). NOTE: Crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion, and in general will try their damnedest to keep you from getting one. A lot of them will also try to give you information that is either debatable or that they’ve just plain made up, like that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer (yes! no! yes! no!), or that Post-Abortion Syndrome exists and is common (Nope. It’s not recognized by the APA or American Psychiatric Association, though emotions after abortion vary widely), or that abortion providers will lie to you to get your money (highly illogical, Captain; they’d make more money off prenatal care). So don’t visit them unless you’re just looking to score some free baby clothes and cookies. If you want information, go to your doctor or Planned Parenthood. You can get free condoms for more baby-free sex, too!

Iowa requires parental/relative consent if a minor wants an abortion, except in a medical emergency or cases of abuse, incest and neglect. Some people may think that it’s only fair to let parents know what their child is up to, especially when it concerns something as serious as abortion. However, forcing children to notify their parents is harmful. It’s my firm belief that parents need to foster an environment where their kids will feel comfortable telling them they are pregnant and what they plan to do about it. If your daughter isn’t coming to you about this, she probably feels she has a good reason, whether she’s afraid you’ll be angry or disappointed or knows she might be kicked out of the house or even killed. Luckily, some states’ Planned Parenthoods offer volunteer attorneys to help with judicial bypass, which allows minors to get an abortion without telling their parents.

Here’s something cool about Iowa, though: we have the first telemedicine program for abortion. That’s right: abortion on demand (in a clinic with a nurse who does all the usual examinations, tests, counseling and ultrasound). This makes it much easier for those harlots to frivolously abort their precious pre-borns whenever they want, as they are wont to do. No, wait, sorry. It makes it easier for women hours away from the nearest abortion provider (quite common in Iowa; shocking, for a state that’s 86% farmland!) to get abortion pills, which induce abortions within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. This means they don’t have to take time off work, arrange transportation, find someone to take care of their kids, explain their absence, and deal with protestors outside the clinic. It’s also much less invasive than surgical abortion and allows women to exert more control over the prodecure. Go Hawks!

Oh, by the way: if you insist on calling fetuses pre-borns so they can have all the rights that born babies have, I’m going to go ahead and call myself a “pre-senior” so I can start getting all those sweet discounts.

I'm looking forward to it

Some current legislation that sucks:

HJR 3, or House Joint Resolution 3: Man, this right-to-life thing is a pain in the ass. Thanks a lot, Thomas Jefferson! This bill states that personhood begins from the moment of conception. They can’t even wait until the damn thing attaches to the uterine wall. Defining an embryo/fetus as a person is the beginning of giving them rights accorded to people, including the right to life.

But you know, I don’t really care about the whole is-a-fetus-a-human-life or is-a-fetus-a-person argument. Totally played out. Besides, two sets of rights can’t logically exist in one body. Eventually one set of rights will have to trump the other, as in the case of the previously mentioned Angela Carder. Even then, the woman’s rights will need to be prioritized over the fetus’. After all, she’s carrying the damn thing, and has all those pesky responsibilities to her family and career and school and whatnot. The fetus isn’t even autonomous, the lazy bastard. Look at it, just twiddling its little webby thumbs in the amniotic sac, mooching off Mom’s blood.

GET A JOB

HF 153: Here’s where the trouble starts with that whole “personhood” thing. This would propose that life and personhood begin at conception, which means NO ABORTIONS, EVER. Well, it doesn’t really say that, in so many words. It says “life is valued and protected from the moment of conception and each life is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons.” This is a bit sticky. Obviously, it would ban all abortions, something the state can’t legally do because of Roe v. Wade (though the purpose of the bill is probably to challenge Roe v. Wade anyways).

If someone takes my birth control pill from me, I will cut a bitch

However, some are concerned that it would also ban certain forms of birth control that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. This means contraception that contains progesterone, which prevents the endometrium from thickening enough to support an embryo, could be banned. This includes birth control pills, some IUDs, Implanon (implanted birth control), the patch, Depo-Provera….you get the picture. No hormonal birth control.

Moving on!

I know a lot of you are from New York, so next stop: Big Apple.

New York’s basically the best place to live if you need an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute says there were 249 abortion providers in 61% of counties in 2008. Remember kids: don’t go to crisis pregnancy centers! New York also doesn’t have any of the usual abortion restrictions like waiting periods, parental notification and required ultrasounds (the clinics do ultrasounds in the first place to discover how far along a pregnancy is, so this would be yet another cost added to the bill), and allows Medicaid to pay for abortions.

They have a few bills chilling out in the state assembly (largely pro-choice) right now. They don’t seem to be going anywhere, but here they are. I’m going to go ahead and apologize now for not having many details on the bills I mention here. It’s really f’ing hard to get information unless someone’s kicking up a fuss about them. A couple I found were A02128, which would require parental notice, and we’ve got A02244, or a right to know bill, which looks like it might require clinics to provide women with “full information and reflection time.” (24 hours)

Giving women alternatives to abortion, as well as full information on how the procedure works, what to expect, and how to take care of themselves afterward is important, and most clinics, especially Planned Parenthood, do a pretty good job with it on their own. Regulating abortion, making sure it’s safe, is also crucial. You’ll just have to understand that I’m a bit wary of bills like these when they come from anti-abortion legislators. The issue, then, is that they’re often biased against abortion, which increases the risk of false information being given and puts more pressure on women not to get abortions. Dudes. That decision is hard enough without making her feel like shit about it. And adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy, and is therefore not always a valid argument.

The rest of the bills I found were all good stuff, like requiring CPCs to disclose they don’t perform abortions, aren’t medically licensed or a medical facility, and that pregnancy tests can be purchased over the counter and self-administered. Four for you, New York.

Let’s stop briefly in California, home of the courageous Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), who spoke of her own 2nd-trimester abortion during the debate on HR 217 to strip Planned Parenthood of funding. The Guttmacher Institute puts the number of abortion providers at 522 in 78% of counties in 2008. They, like New York, don’t have any of the usual restrictions, and 2nd-trimester abortions are legal. I couldn’t find any current bills pertaining to abortion, so we’ll move on.

I imagine it's something like Mexico's Island of the Dolls, but less creepy

I hear a few of you are from Illinois, mostly hailing from The Only Part of Illinois That Matters. Illinois is also known as “an island of abortion in the Midwest.” Abortion Island has 37 abortion providers that practice in only 8% of Abortion Island counties, which seems a bit sparse, considering its nickname. It’s also got some anti-choice language in the state code that declares Illinois’ commitment to protecting the unborn and that, should Roe v. Wade be reversed, they will reinstate the abortion ban, with exceptions for the health of the woman. Illinois also doesn’t have most of the common restrictions, though the fight for parental notice has been going on since the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 was enacted, then put under permanent injunction, which is now being appealed. Whoof.

So, you’ve made it this far, have you? Good on you. The last state I’ll go into detail about is Arizona. Arizona legislature is pretty much completely anti-choice; the House, Senate and Governor Jan Brewer all support anti-abortion laws. In 2008, there were 19 abortion providers in 13% of Arizona counties. Restrictions include parental consent, not just notification, as well as counseling designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and a 24-hour wait. There are a couple of bills getting some press right now. HB 2443 (sorry about the blinding text color) would charge those who perform abortions knowing they are based on sex- or race-selection with a Class 3 felony. Oh, Arizona! It’s a little late to convince people you care about racism. There hasn’t really been any evidence that race-selection is the cause of some abortions, and most abortions happen before the sex is able to be most accurately determined, which is around the end of the first trimester. These bills aren’t about protecting disenfranchised fetuses, but creating more obstacles to abortion.

The other bill (it really needs to be easier to find bill names) would require that clinics that provide medication abortions be under the same state regulations regarding staffing and facilities of clinics that provide surgical abortions. This would also apply to satellite clinics that provide telemed abortions, which would be banned. Since only 13% of Arizona counties have abortion providers, this makes it much harder for women outside of those counties to get an abortion.

To wrap up, a quick word on trigger laws. Trigger laws are laws that, while currently unenforceable, would be automatically enforceable should other legislation change. Many states have trigger laws pertaining to abortion in case Roe v. Wade was someday overturned. Louisiana’s former governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco signed a trigger law in 2006 permitting abortion only when a woman’s life was threatened by pregnancy, and Mississippi’s governor Haley Barbour signed a similar one in 2007.

I wish I could go into greater detail, but we’d be here all week. I’m linking to some helpful sites at the end of this post. The Guttmacher Institute is a great resource for information on state laws and abortion in general. I got a lot of my information from the Media Center and State Center on their website.

Guttmacher Institute

FindLaw State Abortion Laws

Planned Parenthood (in case you don’t like the Googles)

Back to the federal level: Here are the ten Democrats who sponsored HR 3, which codifies the Hyde Amendment. They are, uh, not favorable reviews.

I didn’t add this at the end of my last post, but I should have. Guys, the reason I’m writing about this stuff isn’t just to work up some righteous outrage on your end. There’s enough of that out there already. I’m writing about this as a call to action. Look up your state’s legislation. They should have bills listed on their website, as well as your representatives’ information. Find out what’s going on in your state, and start calling people. Email, if you can’t call. Organize protests. Do something to remind your representatives who they work for.

If you do, there's a sugar glider bee in it for ya.

Open Thread: Morning Edition

194 comments

Top o’ the morning, Crasstalkers. Here’s some reading for you:

Question of the morning:

What should Crasstalk’s first Photo Phriday theme be? Continue reading →