· · · · · 

A Federal Employee Expresses Outrage on Stupak

A federal employee–barred by the Hyde Amendment from insurance coverage for abortion–incurs costs of $9000.00 to end a pregnancy in which the fetus is missing major portions of its brain, skull, and scalp.

· · · · · 

The Legacy of George Tiller

Dr. George Tiller was asked repeatedly by friends how he could continue his work in the face of the unending violence and legal harassment that he endured in the years leading up to his murder. His answer was always the same: “Where else can these women go?”

· · · · · 

The Economic Crisis: A Generation of Reproductive Health “Horror Stories”

From surrogacy and egg donation to inducing labor, the economic crisis is driving women to do things with their bodies that they otherwise would not do.

· · · · · 

Averting Their Eyes from Assault on Women’s Health

A new Oklahoma law permits women seeking abortion to avert their eyes while an ultrasound is performed — but requires them to hear a description of what the ultrasound is displaying.

· · · · · 

The Bush Administration’s Tortured Logic

An administration that has done everything in its power to oppose abortion is now going after the very thing that can best prevent unintended pregnancies.

· · · · · 

The Maverick Steps Back in Line

If John McCain insists on placating the anti-choice fanatics in his party, let him start paying a price.

· · · · · 

Yale Performance Art: Where Are the Grown-Ups?

All that has been accomplished by a Yale senior’s art project on pregnancy and abortion is a highly visible trivialization of the issue of abortion and a phenomenal insensitivity to women who suffer repeat miscarriages.

· · · · · 

A Community in This War

Those who provide abortions, either as clinicians or administrators, can be relentlessly pursued in their communities by their opponents. But there are millions of supportive “civilians” aiding the community of abortion providers in this war.

· · · · · 

Huckabee Rising — to a VP Pick?

"Yes, I think he'd make a great vice-president," Senator Mel Martinez of Florida told one of the MSNBC talking heads, speaking of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has done extremely well thus far, especially in the South-as of this writing, he is ahead of both McCain and Romney in Georgia, the winner in the W. Virginia and has done well enough in other states to cost Romney victories the latter would have otherwise had. All this has led to increasing speculation, by politicians and non-politicians alike, that McCain owes Huckabee bigtime, and will make him his vice-presidential candidate. For progressives, in the reproductive justice movement and elsewhere, this is a terrifying prospect.

Huckabee of course would help McCain where he is weakest–among Republicans who identify as evangelicals, about one third of the Republican electorate. Unlike McCain and Romney, who have changed their positions to one degree or another on abortion, Huckabee has been consistently and fervently anti-abortion. He has also a long record of opposition to gay marriage. Most pertinently, he will not avoid speaking about these issues that still have considerable power to mobilize an important bloc of voters.

Is there a downside to McCain choosing Huckabee as his running mate? After all, Huckabee is on record as not believing in evolution, as wanting to abolish the IRS, as wanting the Constitution to more accurately reflect "God's law," — not positions held by most Americans. So yes, there are some negatives.

But recall that the vice-presidential candidate doesn't usually play a very high profile role in national elections. There will be likely only one vice-presidential debate, i.e. only one time where Huckabee would have to spin for voters his disbelief in evolution and various of his other controversial statements. Bottom line, McCain would probably gain more than he would lose by such a choice. And if the Republicans are victorious, we would have a 71 year old president and a vice-president–the proverbial one heart beat away from the presidency–who might well make Bush's policies on reproductive and sexual health look reasonable.

· · · · · 

Agony and Ecstasy in Berkeley

In some ways the Democratic primary in this hyperpolitical city feels like an Introduction to Women and Gender Studies classroom (fittingly enough for a city whose University helped pioneer this field in the 1970s and which continues to have a lively department). Namely, how does one balance/prioritize issues of gender, race and class, especially when these issues compete in a literal sense–embodied by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and while he was in the race, John Edwards?

The problem–and there are, to be sure, worse problems in politics–is that Berkeley is full of people who have passionate lifelong commitments to all three of the social movements represented by the candidates. Though the contest might now be constructed, at the simplest level, as between the feminist movement and the civil rights movement, John Edwards' support of the labor movement resonated deeply in this community. So though on one level, many are ecstatic at the history-making nature of this race–whoever is ultimately the Democratic nominee will be precedent-making, and a tribute to the staying power of the social movements of the 1970s–many are also agonizing over for whom to vote.

Endless discussions, similar to those already reported on RH Reality Check, are held among friends and acquaintances. "She's more experienced and ‘ready' ." "Yes, but he's more electable. He'll bring in the youth vote." "Yeah, but you can't count on the youth vote. She can better take the dirt the Right will throw at whoever is nominated," and so on.

The reality is that there are very slight differences between these candidates on matters of domestic policy. They are very close on most issues Californians hold dear–environmentalism, reproductive rights, support for labor, and education. Perhaps the one non-trivial difference is their respective health care plans (hers calls for a mandate for all who can to purchase coverage, his doesn't).

The main difference of course is their historic position on Iraq. And this seems to be pushing many Berkeleyites to Obama's corner. Obama signs outnumber Clinton signs in all the neighborhoods I've walked in the last week. If Obama indeed carries the city on the basis of foreign policy, it will hardly be surprising. Berkeley is a city noted for the intense involvement of its city government in national and even international issues, periodically voting, for example, against nuclear weapons. Most recently the City Council voted 8-1 to declare Marine recruiters were "unwelcome" in Berkeley (a move some Council members are now rethinking).

In such a thoroughly Democratic environment as Berkeley, and the surrounding Bay Area, one presumes that whoever wins the nomination will ultimately get the support of most voters. But some have concerns that Obama supporters have been more deeply critical of Clinton than vice versa. For example, Robert Scheer, a long time progressive journalist in California, in an article promoting Obama on the basis of his anti-Iraq stance, was devastating on Clinton's record, and finished his article by reluctantly admitting that "Hillary would probably be better than the Republicans." "Probably"?! No difference between her and McCain who wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely? Not to mention their differences on tax cuts and reproductive rights? This statement is frighteningly reminiscent of the Ralph Nader pronouncement that Gore and Bush were essentially the same. One hopes that political purity among some on the Left will not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.

· · · · ·