Plan B and the Internet Berserker: Adventures in Uncivil Discourse

Friday morning I posted this meme on the Worley Dervish Tumblr.

From the New York Times Editorial Board, May 3, 2013:
“Putting Politics Ahead of Science” (not to mention decency and common sense)

That post set a guy on Tumblr off on a rampage. (I honestly don't know who he is—I "ignored" him, which is Tumblr speak for "I blocked him," so now I can't see his blog, which is all to the good.) Happily, I am not usually exposed to this kind of hateful ranting, but after my initial shock, I have to confess to feeling kind of honored. I have no idea how this guy found my blog. Maybe he was looking for a lefty feminist to rage at and just happened to pick me. Oh joy.

So I decided that I needed to answer the raging bully, at least theoretically, if for no other reason than to silence the echoes still rattling around in my head. And it just so happens that because I had trouble reading the tiny type on his blog, I'd copied the rant into a Word file so I could read it. So here goes...

Oh…you want to talk decency and common fucking sense?

Yes. And watch your language. Show a little decency.

sit your ass down.

Who do you think you're talking to? I'm not your kid. As a matter of fact, I'm really, really glad I'm not your kid. Seriously.

You want girls of any age to be able to fuck around and have access to 'safe birth control' because its their uterus and they (at any age) have the right to do whatever with their body because its their body.

No one is saying that adolescents should just go out and have as much sex as they want. One hopes that parents would teach them to respect themselves and their own bodies, and to respect others and their bodies. In the real world, however, neither very wise and loving parents, nor the possibility of getting pregnant, nor the fear of a noisy, bullying, swearing, red-in-the-face father has ever been enough to prevent some adolescents from having sex.

And watch your language. Didn't anybody ever teach you not to swear at strangers?

why the fuck do we even have parents anymore? They don't even matter anymore in this society. A girl can get pregnant at 14 (even younger!) and can just buy the morning after pill over the counter and keep on fucking because apparently they are mature enough to know what to do with the pill and do it responsibly. wow! why have parents anymore when society and government can just do it for us?

I notice your focus is entirely on girls, like the only problem with adolescent sex is girls having it. And the availability of contraceptives, emergency or otherwise, would cause them to have sex without any restraint? A little reminder: it takes two to make a baby.

I suppose that because adolescent boys can't get pregnant, it's just fine for them to "fuck around" as much as they want? I suppose too that you figure it's up to girls, and girls alone, to avoid pregnancy, and boys are just too weak-willed to control their adolescent urges?

Quick access to emergency contraceptives can prevent pregnancy. It could easily take a girl weeks to work up the courage to talk to her parents about having been raped. Or about having had sex. Do you really want that girl to get pregnant just because in the few hours afterward she couldn't bear to talk to her parents about it?

No, fuck you people.

Charming. Watch your language.

How about YOU stay the fuck out of other people's daughters vaginas because as long as she is under MY roof, she is MY responsibility, NOT yours. Good parenting is raising your child right and that includes protecting them from the hot-sex society you dumbfucks are creating because you fail as parents yourselves and simply give in to them. Kids need rules and strict guidelines to live by and loving parents who show them right from wrong and actually fucking discipline them when they get outta line.

I think you're confused. It's you who are trying to control what other people's daughters have access to. And of course your daughter is your responsibility. Poor thing. But just because you don't want your daughter to have access to something she may desperately need doesn't mean that you should be able to prevent my daughter from having access to what she may desperately need.

Giving adolescents access to emergency contraception does not mean that your daughter has to take it, any more than it means that she has to have sex. You don't want her to use contraceptives? Fine. Then lay down those good rules and strict guidelines you're so fond of. That ought to do it, don't you think? It sounds, though, like you'd like the government to do it for you, to deny her access, because your rules aren't really as effective as you like to think. Are they?

According to you, if you raised your daughter right, your daughter won't need emergency contraceptives. If they're available to others, so what? What does that even have to do with you and your daughter? What happens between you and your daughter is your own business—God help her.

And watch your language.

This…'let them have sex because we can't stop them so lets promote safe sex and birth control at any age'…is fucking retarded. You are telling immature kids that its OK to have sex as long as you are safe about it but if you are not safe about it, theres Plan B which we want available to girls of all fucking ages.

This "make them have babies because we don't want them to have sex" thing is what makes no sense. Even kids with the best, most conscientious, most loving parents sometimes have sex.

Or are sometimes raped.

And here's a little nugget for you. Listen closely, because I'm sure it's news to you. Even really, really good girls sometimes get raped. That's right. Really, really good girls. That is to say, all girls who are raped are really, really good girls. All girls are good and supremely worthy of love and respect. No girl ever wants to be raped. Or asks for it. Or deserves it. And no girl is responsible for being raped. That's what it means to be raped. It means that your person has been horribly violated. When that happens to an adolescent girl, she should have access to whatever help there is in the universe, including over-the-counter emergency contraceptives. No girl who has been raped should ever be forced to become pregnant as a result of that rape.

Quit focusing exclusively on girls' behavior and start teaching boys to respect girls and not to rape them. Teach girls that they and other girls are worthy of respect and don't ever, ever deserve to be raped.

And watch your language.

As a parent, you people make me fucking sick. stay the fuck out of my kids uteruses.

It's rape and the rape culture we live in that make me sick. It's shaming girls who have been raped and then forcing them to bear children they're not ready for that makes me sick. It's foul-mouthed, bullying misogynists that make me sick.

Now go wash your mouth out with soap and think for a while about your deplorable behavior. What kind of example are you setting for your kids?

Wisconsin Recall: Vinehout's the Real Deal

I spent most of Wednesday afternoon reading up on Kathleen Vinehout, in part because she’s the Democratic gubernatorial challenger I find most compelling, in part because a blogger I very much respect has come out solidly in her favor, and in part because that evening I would have the opportunity to ask her any questions that arose in the course of my reading.

I find Vinehout compelling because I believe she’s the candidate who has demonstrated the most support for the Wisconsin movement and has most strongly stood up to the Fitzwalkers. And she has a lot of respect and enthusiasm for what she calls the renaissance of democracy that is transforming the political landscape of the state. She has broad appeal because of her strong connections with rural and small-town Wisconsin. No one can call her a Madison or a Milwaukee Democrat.

Vinehout's credibility is enhanced by her having been one of the Fighting Fourteen who left the state last year to slow Walker’s railroading of the Wisconsin people. If the senators hadn't responded so quickly, the Wisconsin movement might not have been able to gain the momentum that it did. Their leaving was pivotal in galvanizing the people to stand up and make themselves heard. The senators' bold action bolstered us, because we knew we had strong advocates in the legislature.

Vinehout spoke at the Fighting Bob Fest in Baraboo in 2009, and I remember that she was stirring and articulate and really got my progressive blood pumping. So I went to hear her speak at Wednesday night’s Drinking Liberally meeting at the Brink Lounge in Madison knowing I was going to hear a dynamic and persuasive speaker, and she did not disappoint. She exuded energy and optimism and was friendly and approachable.

She began with the story of how the fourteen senators were able to leave the state. Senate minority leader Mark Miller called the senate clerk at 11pm on Feb. 16 to verify the number of votes needed for a quorum on a budget bill. After confirming that twenty senators were needed, the clerk told Miller that on the following day a state trooper would be assigned to each one of the Democratic state senators, presumably to make sure they didn’t attempt to leave the building before the vote. Talk about heavy handed! Miller called Vinehout and the other senators first thing the next morning, thus enabling them to get away before Papa Fitzgerald's state troopers had them hemmed in.

Vinehout affirmed her support for public education and public school teachers, her determination to see collective bargaining reinstated for public employees, and her belief in the critical importance of affordable health care for all. When asked why we should support her candidacy, she cited the breadth of her experience as a public health nurse, college professor, and organic dairy farmer as well as her six years as a state senator.

She emphasized that "we must be the change we want to see in the world," that "we are the ones we've been waiting for," and that it's up to us to fix this horrible mess we're in. She said that if you don't like politics as usual, vote for the unusual candidate. And if you don't like money in politics, vote for the candidate with the least money.

Questions have been raised about Vinehout’s bona fides in relation to safeguarding women’s reproductive freedom, and my reading suggested that perhaps those questions will be the ones that will dog her most during this short, intense primary season.

One woman asked Vinehout Wednesday night why she is against abortion. Vinehout confirmed, though, that she believes abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and that her legislative record confirms that belief. When asked later what she meant by "rare," she said that providing good health care for all women, access to birth control, and good sex education would have the effect of making abortion rare. I asked about her amendment to a 2008 bill (that didn't pass) that would have permitted a pharmacist, on the basis of conscience, to refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives “if the pharmacist ensures that the patient will have access to the contraceptive elsewhere.” I asked why a pharmacist’s conscience should trump my ability to procure my contraceptives without costing extra money (for transportation), delay, and inconvenience.

She responded that the Wisconsin constitution has a stronger conscience clause than the U.S. Constitution has, and she wanted to ensure that the bill did not violate the state constitution, which as a senator she is sworn to uphold. She also said that a year later a bill was passed that requires pharmacies to dispense contraceptives without delay, while allowing an individual pharmacist to decline to dispense contraceptives for reasons of conscience provided that another pharmacist at that location can fill the prescription immediately.



A few minutes after she was done with the question-and-answer portion of her presentation, Vinehout came over to our table to talk to me and another woman. I asked her then, "but what about that amendment?" Even though it ultimately didn't become law, the wording still concerned me. She conceded that the amendment was problematic and that in fact she had borrowed the language from Illinois legislation that had been supported by Planned Parenthood of Illinois. (I haven't verified this.) She added that she was involved in writing the legislation that did pass the following year and that she prefers its language. So the 2008 amendment was probably not her finest legislative moment, but I was satisfied that it didn't indicate a desire to restrict women's reproductive freedom or a lack of support for women's right to control their own reproductive choices.

So I was—and am—satisfied with Vinehout's answers to my questions. I believe that as governor she will be a strong advocate for women's reproductive health and freedom and, most important, will be responsive to the will of the people. I arrived Wednesday night leaning in Vinehout's favor, and I left feeling real enthusiasm for her candidacy. She's not riding in on a white horse to save us, which is a good thing. She'd be the first to assert that it's we the people who will save our state. But I think she can help us do that, and I believe she's the real deal.

Reading Up on Vinehout

Here’s some of what I read yesterday in my effort to learn more about Kathleen Vinehout, who is one of four primary candidates challenging Scott Walker:

Biography from Vinehout’s website.

Giles Goat Boy, "Wisconsin Recall: For Me, It's K.V.," April 3, 2012.

vacilando, "I went to see Kathleen Vinehout Candidate for WI Gov," April 4, 2012.

Judith Davidoff, "Vinehout’s progressive stripes questioned over birth control bill." The Daily Page, February 9, 2012. I was especially struck by the first comment (from Andy Olsen), and asked Vinehout directly last night about the wording of that amendment and what “elsewhere” meant.

Ruth Conniff, "Sen. Vinehout would be a strong contender for governor in the Wisconsin recall election." The Daily Page, February 9, 2012.

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin’s press release, March 12, 2008: "Sen. Vinehout Breaks Campaign Promise to Women: Vinehout Leads Effort to Allow Pharmacists to Deny Women Birth Control."

Vinehout writes a weekly column and has them available on her website dating back to December 2007. I skimmed some of these and found them engaging and enlightening. The one I got the biggest kick out of is titled "Smaller government equals one-man-rule?" which is dated Feb. 16, 2011, the day before Vinehout and the 13 other Democratic state senators left the state to allow time for the people’s voice to be heard in response to Walker’s draconian "budget repair bill."

Thanks to Karen V. for directing me to some of the above links.

Unconscionable

The Obama administration announced this month that the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated institutions must cover the cost of contraceptives without co-pay for their employees, and possibly for students as well.

From Laura Bassett at HuffPo:

Under the new rule, set forth by the Affordable Care Act, most women employed in the U.S. will have the cost of their birth control covered with no co-pay. Churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, but all other organizations will have a year to comply with the new requirement, regardless of whether or not they are religiously affiliated” (emphasis added).

Of course, that wasn't enough for Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the extremely powerful U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who called the decision "unconscionable." I sympathize. Sorta kinda.

I don't believe the Catholic Church should have to pay for something it believes is wrong. (Of course, I don't think I should have to pay for unjust wars and corporate welfare either, but go figure.) At the same time, I don't believe that women who are employed by church-affiliated institutions should have to pay for contraception out of their own pockets. Neither should women employed by churches for that matter.

In fact, the Catholic Church shouldn't be in the business of providing health insurance for any U.S. citizens. Ever. Rather, I believe that health care is a human right and that Medicare should be available to all of us, regardless of age, religious affiliation, or employment status. And I believe that women should be able to make their own choices about their reproductive health. Those who believe abortion is wrong shouldn't have one, and those who believe that contraception is wrong shouldn't use it. Everyone should have the freedom to choose according to their own conscience. Simple, right? It should be.

Universal single-payer health care would solve the bishops’ problem, would it not? Religious institutions wouldn’t have to pay for their employees’ contraceptives. So why the hell aren't the good bishops lobbying for Medicare for all? Because that's not what the bishops really want. The bishops don't want to have to settle for just telling women what to do with their bodies; they want to control what women do with their bodies. And there's the real rub, isn't it?

Of course, the bishops are entitled to their opinion. They're just not entitled to set U.S. health care policy. But that would be news to them. More from Laura Bassett:

The bishops were not only influential in swaying votes during the health care reform debate; [Richard] Doerflinger said they actually helped Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) write the controversial anti-abortion amendment, which the House approved by a vote of 290 to 194.

"Those bishops were literally sitting in Bart Stupak's office and, from what we could tell, instructing him all about the laws he should be supporting, and the text of the laws, and the strategy of getting them through," said Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women. "It was absolutely appalling."

The National Organization for Women has called for the bishops conference to lose its tax-exempt status over its lobbying activities.

Thanks to Political Loudmouth for the great poster.
Please, for God’s sake, get this straight: the United States is not a Catholic country. It’s not a Christian country. It’s a freedom-of-religion country. That doesn't mean that we’re an anti-religion country (God forbid!). It means that all of us have the right to practice our beliefs and religion—or our nonbeliefs and nonreligion—as we choose. It means that practitioners of one religion cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us. That includes the good bishops.

Most lobbyists on Capitol Hill have to pay for the privilege and power the bishops wield. Government by and for the monied interests is plenty bad enough and absolutely must be eradicated. But government by and for the Catholic Church, while it pays not a dime in taxes, so that it can control what women can and can't do with their own bodies—that's what I call unconscionable.

I stand corrected: Pope is no tea partier: Benedict backs guaranteed health care for all