Say Hi to Sweden!

However doubtful I find it to be, if the U.S. Supreme Court justices ever really do lose their minds entirely and opt to overturn Roe v. Wade, rest-assured it seems that we will be welcome with open arms in Sweden.

Naturally, I find it very disheartening that other developed countries do seem much more open to women's rights than we do.

They even provide services to foreign women, which is actually sort of ironic as well, considering how poorly foreigners have been treated in our own country, especially in the last few years.

Oh, Sweden! It seems you could teach us a few things.

George Carlin and His Pro-Choice Spin

George Carlin is probably one of the most controversial and successful comedians in America. He is an unapologetic, outspoken leftist, and just for that he has a great deal of my respect. He's also funny as hell to boot.

In this clip, he expresses his beef with the Pro-Life movement and the many hyper-conservative Christians who are behind it. While some may find much of his humor offensive and lacking any political correctness, I believe the points he makes, despite the fact that they are in the form of jokes, are worth noting. He raises a lot of good points.

Pro-Choice is Not Pro-Abortion

It's clear that in this blog, I've taken an interest in former Mayor of New York, Rudy Guiliani and his run for the Republican presidential primaries. This is mainly because he is the only Republican who has described himself as "Pro-choice."

Unfortunately taking such a stance has limited his chance to gain voters in more conservative and fundamentalist Christian communities. However, if he were to win the primaries and run for office, some of his more socially "liberal" views would be appealing across partisan lines.

What I find disconcerting, though, is that Guiliani seems to almost negate this stance at times. While he doesn't do this blatantly, he beats around the bush,

as if he's saying he's not quite "Pro-Choice", he just happens to believe that a woman has a right to choose an abortion and that he really does want to limit them.

Wait a minute. Isn't this what Pro-Choicers have said all along?

There tends to be this annoying yet pervasive myth that just because one is Pro-Choice, it automatically makes them Pro-Abortion as well. This just isn't true.

Especially in this blog. I, along with most Pro-Choice people would love to live in a world with fewer or no abortions. This is why many Pro-Choice organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, are exactly the same ones that push the use of contraception. It is safe to say that the vast majority of us believe that abortion is a last resort and that other options, such as adoption, should be considered.

I also believe that it would be ideal if there was no abortion at all, but that tends to go alongside with believing that people should wait to have sex till marriage. It doesn't usually happen.

And as long as people screw around, even if they are using contraceptives, there will always be that slight chance. And when it happens, a woman should have the right to decide what to do by her own terms. It's no one else's business, especially not the government.

In effect, Guiliani and I do have something in common: we both believe in a woman's right to choose her own destiny and, by definition, are "Pro-Choice."

So, Guiliani, for the sake of your campaign, just be honest and admit your position openly. Quit confusing the public, and quit trying to kiss conservative ass.

Apparently "Many" Americans Are Pro-Life...

I find this unlikely, but it seems that Republican Senator David Vitter disagrees, stating that "many" Americans do not support abortion rights.

I may be from a "blue state", but I think it's safe to say that what Senator Vitter asserts just isn't true. According to Gallup Polls, most Americans actually do support a woman's right to choose, despite what some conservative politicians would have us believe.

While the majority of Americans do support greater restrictions on abortions, to say that Americans do not support it at all should be seen as nothing less than a flat-out lie. And if it's not the case? Maybe one can say the Senator is just 'misinformed', and if that's true, should really be holding that office?

Really, Vitter. If you're so ignorant on the matter of public opinion, do us all a big favor and quit your day job. We'd be better off.

A Powerful Film with Broad Implications

Having just been released October 3rd, Tony Kaye's documentary, 'Lake of Fire', has been called a "groundbreaking" and "powerful" film on the issue of abortion, what the procedure actually entails, and the extreme positions that many adherers of the religious right seem to take to stop it.

According to reviews it is an intense depiction of a cultural war that is very real and starkly present in our culture.

Though Kaye devotes the film to covering both sides of issue and while I have not had the chance of seeing it myself ( not yet, but believe me, you'll know when I do), one can detect that he does have a slight leaning in his sympathies even from seeing the trailer.

I think it's worth a mention for those of you would like to check it out and discuss the film's implications.

Does it seem biased, despite the director's efforts not to be?

Does he perhaps rely on too much "shock value"?

And first and foremost, has it changed how you view the whole topic in general?

Having been released only recently the film has already created a cultural stir and has the potential to influence us to think long and hard about how we actually feel about the issue and where we stand.

Fair or biased, either way, it's worth a look.

Rudy's Stance on The Right to Choose

As I mentioned in my last post,
Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican presidential candidate who supports a woman's right to choose.

Although he is critisized by many of his other fellow GOP runners, including John McCain, Guiliani asserts that although he claims himself to be morally opposed to abortion, he does not believe that the government has the right to infringe upon what path that a woman and her doctor decide to take.



Some of Guiliani's political stances have caused controversy among Republicans and seem to be too "leftist" for many ardent conservatives, not only in his support of abortion rights, but also for gay rights and gun control.

Despite all of this, Rudy Giulani has been the leading Republican candidate in the primary race since January, according to the Gallup polls.

And it seems that if all continues to go well for him, he may just have a fighting chance at winning.

Who and What You Need to Know in 2008

I'm sure we're all aware that the 2008 presidential elections are right around the corner. So it's especially important for pro-choicers to know who they're candidates are and where they stand when it comes to a woman's right to her own body.

It seems that for the most part, a candidate's stance on the issue is dictated by which party they belong to. Democrats (and Rudy Giuliani) support a woman's right to abort, while the GOP does not.

I want to note that, I, myself, do not represent a particular party. If anything, I am an "independent", although, a leftist on many issues. In part, I am not one to suggest a party over another.

I simply want to draw attention to how sharply the partisan line is drawn, and suggest to you that, especially if you're a Republican, you really do consider the reasons why the candidate takes a particular stance. When it comes to these candidates who oppose the right to abort, consider their ideas more specifically:

For example, do they believe that there are exceptions in some cases, especially if the woman is a surviver of rape or incest?

Or if she is either mentally or physically ill and would be not able get through a full term of pregnancy?

Or if she is simply too young to give birth?

Also, be weary of candidates who are so far right that their intention may be to topple Roe vs. Wade altogether.

Because the truth is that even if you're "pro-life", there must always be exceptions to the rule, especially in regards to a woman's safety.

Statistics show that almost half of all American women have had or will get an abortion at some point in their lives. Most of these actually plan to have children in the future. There are also many who even claim to be religiously devout, such as Catholics and Evangelical Christians.

Think about that. Let those facts sink in.

That is a huge population!

It is unfortunate that there are so many abortions and while I do not support abortion as form of birth control (that is what the pill and other contraceptives are for), remember, that it is your right.

Do you really want to risk voting for someone who might try to take that right away from you? Especially at a time when you may need it the most.

Just remember there is a 1 out of 2 chance that you probably will.

Why Make Your Own Choices, When Verizon Can Make Them For You?

It's funny when you find ideological leanings in the most unlikely of places (or services).

Take, for instance, Verizon Wireless. According to an article in the New York Times, the company has decided to block messages from Naral Pro-Choice America due to the concern that some of its members may find such messages "unsavory".

Though the wireless carrier is legally considered to be a "private" company and can make any such decisions freely, how fair is it for Verizon to decide what is "unsavory" for their customers?

Shouldn't the customers have a say in this decision? Afterall, the only members who would be recieving the messages are those who signed up for the service.

It's really very simple: if you don't want Naral Pro-Choice updates, don't sign up.

Even if Verizon's spokesperson, Jeffrey Nelson, asserts that "it is the topic itself" (not the group or their particular stance) that the company is trying to keep off the radar,

I still cannot help but wonder if the situation would've been different had it been a Pro-Life group.