“Alas” reader Glaivester emailed me a link to this item on Clarkstooksbury.

Officials on Tuesday also confirmed what an ABCNEWS 20/20 investigation had found–that pregnant garment workers on Saipan are forced to have abortions to keep their jobs.

“When I told them I was pregnant, they told me to have an abortion,” said Tu Xiao Mei, a woman who lost her job after refusing an abortion.

“With 11,000 Chinese workers here, I have never seen a Chinese garment factory worker have a baby,” said human rights worker Eric Gregoire.

Saipan, by the way, is an American territory. We own it. But a loophole in the law gives Saipan the right to set its own labor laws. The result is a system that’s hard to distinguish from slavery.

Most of the workers are “young women from China who have been promised by recruiters that they are going to good jobs in America,” Ross reported.

“Instead many find themselves kept behind barbed wire, in rat-infested labor camps, and put to work in huge Chinese- and Korean-owned garment factories–often under sweatshop conditions–making clothes for the American market,” he said.

The clothes can legally be labeled “Made in the USA.”

Okay, so let’s consider Tom DeLay. This is a man who can’t stand the idea of “Plan B,” because he thinks it’s abortion. So why does he passionately defend a system in which pregnant women are forced to get abortions against their wills?

Saipan has spent millions on Washington lobbyists and given top Republicans in Congress free trips to the beautiful Pacific island, including one over Christmas for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay.

“You represent everything that is good about what we’re trying to do in America,” he told outgoing Governor Froilan Tenorio, a distant cousin of the current governor, at a dinner in Saipan this past New Year’s eve.

DeLay and other Republicans have vowed to fight to keep the laws the way they are on Saipan.

As far as I - and I suspect all pro-choicers - are concerned, it’s cause for horror for any woman, anywhere, to have reproductive decisions forced on her. That’s true regardless of if it’s a woman being forced to give childbirth because her government has banned abortion, or a woman being forced to abort because she’s been tricked into a job in a US territory with no labor rights.

Do pro-lifers see anything wrong with this situation? I’m sure the pro-lifers who occasionally post on “Alas” (hi, Glaivester! hi, Robert! hi, Emily!) will find it objectionable. Maybe they’ll even send an outraged letter to DeLay’s office.

But will the pro-life leadership care at all? Will the pro-life leadership organize to pressure “pro-life” Republicans to take a stand against forced abortions in a US territory? I’m not holding my breath. They’ve pushed policies that increase abortion in the past, and I’m sure they’ll keep doing so in the future. If they can be judged by their actions, it seems that pro-life leaders are actually comfortable with increased and forced abortions, so long as it’s happening to women who aren’t from the first world.

Bigwigs in the Rhode Island Democratic party backed Jim Langevin, an anti-abortion Democrat, in the primary race to run against pro-choice incumbent Republican Lincoln Chafee. NARAL made it clear that it would strongly support Langevin’s pro-choice opponents in the primary race, and Langevin dropped out. NARAL then endorsed the pro-choice Republican for the general election.

In response, Kos and Ezra, among others, threw a shit-fit. Both of them take the position that NARAL should have supported the pro-life Democrat. Kos:

Nevermind that Langevin would’ve crushed Chafee and gotten us one seat closer to a Democratic-led Senate. And a Democratic-led Senate wouldn’t ever let any abortion legislation see the light of day. But NARAL, myopic fools that they are, think Chafee is a better bet, despite his vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and their allegiance to the James Dobson, American Taliban agenda.

NARAL, and many people here, whined and cried about Langevin, the way they whined and cried about Harry Reid, because of those Democrats’ personal opposition to abortion. Didn’t we know, they demanded, that choice was a core principle of the Democratic Party?

To which I have a simple answer: The hell it is.

So Choice isn’t a core principle for the Democrats, but NARAL - for whom choice is very nearly the only core principle - nonetheless should give the Dems 100% support, regardless of circumstance. Riiiight.

Ezra’s argument is similar to Kos’:

I see where NARAL’s coming from on this, but by cutting pro-life Democrats off at the knees they’re keeping some Republicans in power, by doing that, they’re helping to sustain the Republican majority, and by doing that, they’re striking a grievous blow against their cause.

True, it’s in NARAL’s interest to have Democratic majority in the Senate. It’s also in NARAL’s interest for Bill Frist to suddenly become a pregnant single mother. Unfortunately, neither of these things will happen soon. Until Democrats demonstrate an ability to win elections,, NARAL would be reckless to put all its eggs in the Dem-majority basket.

Against NARAL’s interest in helping to secure an unlikely Democratic majority in the short term, NARAL has to balance:

• NARAL’s interest in showing the Democratic party that NARAL’s support is conditional on the Democrats supporting choice, rather than automatic.
• NARAL’s interest in showing pro-choice Republican politicians - and pro-choice Republican donors - that NARAL is serious about supporting pro-choice candidates, and not just a front for the Democratic party. (Apparently in return for NARAL’s endorsement, Chafee is turning up the volume of his pro-choice advocacy; he’ll be a featured speaker at a NARAL convention later this year).
• NARAL’s interest in supporting pro-choice incumbents, who as a general rule are more useful allies than pro-choice newbies.
• NARAL’s interest in maintaining credibility among pro-choice activists. If NARAL starts endorsing pro-life candidates, it will lose support from its base - which is not people like Kos, but people like the folks who read “Alas.”

If only 1 or 2 votes separated the Democrats from a Senate majority, then on balance it might have made sense for NARAL to stab Chafee in the back, ignoring its other interests. But since it’s very unlikely the Dems can win a majority in the short term, it made sense for NARAL to decide as it did. Certainly, the arrogant and condescending comments from Ezra and Kos (”stupid, stupid, stupid”), implying that no one intelligent could have decided as NARAL did, are unwarranted.

Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money has written a more reasonable critique of NARAL. Unlike Kos and Ezra, he doesn’t demand that NARAL lick the Democratic Party’s boots even when the Dems favor pro-life candidates. But Scott ignores NARAL’s interest in maintaining their credibility with pro-choice Republicans, and in having incumbent allies.

Scott also argues that the Democrats will decide from this that there’s no point in courting NARAL’s support, since Langevin dropping out didn’t cause NARAL to endorse the pro-choice Democrats who can now win the primary. This is a more credible argument than Kos’ or Ezra’s, but I’m not sure it’s correct. First of all, it’s not clear that either of the Democrats now running are really pro-choice (as Acbonin at Kos points out, one has an anti-choice record, the other has remained silent), and certainly neither one is a proven pro-choicer like Chafee is.

Secondly, Scott’s argument implicitly assumes that NARAL wants to create an incentive for Democrats to run any old candidate who claims to be pro-choice, regardless of record or credible chance of winning. However, what I think NARAL really wants to do is create an incentive for Democrats to run strong candidates with strong commitments to choice; if that’s NARAL’s goal, then they were correct to not endorse any of the Democrats running in this race, because none of them met this standard.

In other words, had the Democrats put forward a candidate with a credible chance of winning and a pro-choice record as impressive as Chafee’s, it’s quite possible that NARAL would have stayed out of this race rather than endorse Chafee.

(Will Baude makes an argument similar to what I’ve written here. Also, Matt Singer - here and here - and, in a particularly excellent post, David Sirota. Unfortunately, this debate so far seems to be dominated by male voices on both sides, at least as of yesterday when I searched Technocrati.)

This post was removed by request of the author.

I need to renew my ownership of “amptoons.com” very soon. Does anyone out there know of a company they’d recommend for domain renewal? Please let me know.

A Pennsylvania school district is being taken to court for allegedly violating the free-speech rights of a parent who came to her sons kindergarten class to participate in Storytime during “me week” which gives the parents a chance to come to the classroom and read stories to the children from their own childs favorite book. Principal Thomas Cook of Rutherford Institute, a conservative christian oriented non-profit, has taken up her cause.

The school board has defended Principal Cook, stating that the law prevents advocacy or teaching of religion.

Here is the passage that she wished to read to the children (Psalm 118):

Well, great, because I’ve come across a truly bizarre case of judicial activism. It would seem that Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion County Superior Courts has decided he needed to prohibit exposure to the Wicca faith to a nine year old boy, whose parents are divorcing. After learning that Thomas Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie Bristol were Wiccans that sent their child to a Catholic school - according to the judge:

There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages.

Both parents protested the decision heavily, but the court has kept the provision regardless. Now the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is helping out with an appeal, that as the reporter of the article states is a ’slam dunk’ of a case. Lets hope so - I’m personally stunned that it got this far.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

In the comments of an earlier post, also about fat, Decnavda totally cracked me up by writing:

I am having a really hard time grasping the political alliances here. In this corner we have amp, a social democrat explaining why we can not trust anything the government researchers tell us about our health. In that corner, we have Young, a libertarian fighting the the PC fat acceptance activists, which presumably means she believes that we are facing a deadly epidemic that the government shouldn’t do anything about. This confuses me so much I can barely eat my Pop Tarts while I sit here in front of the computer.

For me, it’s enjoyable to have at least one issue that doesn’t fit on any simple left/right axis. Makes me feel less like a hack.

Speaking of which, this transcript of a conversation between Larry Elder, a right-wing radio host, and one of his listeners, is really something - the nakedness of the disgust is dazzling. One of those real “Toto pulling back the curtain” moments. (Curtsy: Big Fat Blog).

This post was removed by request of the author.

After weeks of controversy, it seems the filibuster issue has reached an end at the hands of supposed ‘centerists’ of the Republican and Democratic parties. Citing what he felt could be damage to the institution of the senate, CNN reported that Senator John McCain had this to say:

“We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution,” McCain said. “Under the deal, judicial nominees would only be filibustered “under extraordinary circumstances,” McCain said.

McCain said the group of 14 pledged to vote for cloture — an end to debate — for three judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.

Here’s a bit more information on each of the three judges to gain cloture:

Judge Janice Rogers Brown:

An outspoken Christian conservative from the segregated South, she supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.

Brown’s views are also why Democrats have used a filibuster since 2003 to block her confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She’s questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, “No one with these views should be confirmed to a federal court and certainly not to the federal court most responsible for cases affecting government action.”

Brown is said to formulate her opinions “in prayer and quiet study of the Bible.” She’s also been outspokenly critical of philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society “as if God did not exist.” According to Brown, “these are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”

Judge Priscilla Owen:

Priscilla Owen is, in the president’s words, “a woman of integrity … known to be a fair and impartial judge who strives to interpret the law fairly.”

To her opponents, the 50-year-old Texas Supreme Court justice is a “judicial activist … (whose) record shows a bias in favor of government secrecy and business interests, and against the environment, victims of discrimination and medical malpractice,” in the words of Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Like Brown, Owen is devoutly religious and unapologetically ‘faith based’ in her approach to the law. Some see a kindly sunday school teacher, while others see a vocal threat to women’s rights. It’s speculated that while not specifically targetted at Owen, she was among the judges referred to by Supreme Court Justice Gonzales in his critique of attempted obstructions with regards to the Parental Notification Act:

“To construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism,” Gonzales wrote in the 2000 opinion.

And finally, Judge William Pryor. Pryor has been criticized for being outspokenly ideological and often times naive about the court system, so much as to testify before the Senate an assurance and asserting that innocent people ‘just aren’t executed in the United States’. In a press release by the Congressional Black Caucus and letter written by CBC Chair and Congressman Elijah Cummings, Pryor’s is condemned for a consistently poor record in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, anti-discrimination laws (noteably against gays) and fairness in the criminal justice system.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, Pryor had argued that a state’s criminalization of certain private consensual sex was constitutional. […]

As Attorney General of a State where most death-row prisoners are African American, Mr. Pryor has consistently challenged efforts to ensure fair administration of the death penalty. He supported the constitutionality of executing mentally retarded persons, defended barriers to legal visits for death row prisoners, argued against the State Bar’s possible support of a moratorium on the death penalty, and criticized Congressional proposals to improve the quality of capital representation as unnecessary and likely to lead to “perverse” outcomes. Pryor has been critical of efforts to address racial bias in the administration of the death penalty. […]

Pryor has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” (Id.)

After weeks of worrying about the ‘nuclear option’ initiated by Senate Majority Leader Frist, it seems that a moderate win can be declared by the Republican bulls, at the expense of the long valued belief in a seperation of church and state, and hard earned forward momentum within the women’s rights movement. It remains to be seen whether the revised Supreme Court will mirror the incompetence and backward mobility that has been consistent in the Bush Administration, but it seems we can rest assured that danger lies ahead.

Anyone want to start a betting pool to see what progressive ideas are attacked first - women’s, environmental, wages, gays or privacy?

In closing, perhaps a change in the lyrics of Onwards Christian Soldiers could be done to mark the uncertain days ahead:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
At the sign of triumph civil rights doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your condemnations raise.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

My TIVO-like device somehow missed recording the last minute or two of this week’s Gilmore Girls. Did Luke propose at the end?

I guess it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Roman Catholic activists are plunging ahead with the anti-female messages that have been consistent in the papal infrastructure of the new Pope Benedict XVI. At the same time, I couldn’t help but be incredulous at the story I came across earlier today about the courageous message of one young woman to the St. Jude Educational Institute, of Montgomery, Alabama.

It seems that in the message of ‘Choose Life,’ some fine print reads ‘but be ashamed that you’re a harlot’ somewhere in the handbook. Senior Alysha Cosby became pregnant by a fellow student and was suspended in March, reasons cited being that she was a ’safety concern’. Were they worried someone would slip in a puddle of amniotic fluid if her water broke? I just don’t get it.

Here’s where the story gets fun, and a young woman quickly becomes a hero in my eyes. The school administration also excluded her from her commencement ceremony and left her name out of the commencement bulletin, while letting the young man who impregnated her attend. Naturally, Alysha was offended and made the decision that she wasn’t going to take the insult quietly, and her mother supported this decision. With her mother and aunt as companions, Alysha attended her graduation and at the end of the program boldly went to the front, announced her own name and took her commencement walk across the stage. Despite being met by rounds of applause and cheers from the audience, when she returned to her seat the police escorted her, her mother and her aunt from the hall.

It’s not often that I feel a tremendous amount of pride in the actions of a complete stranger, but this incident definitely was inspiring. The question remains, however, how a group so adamant about sending a message to women to not have abortions can behave so shamefully towards a young woman who did exactly that, and add insult onto injury by welcoming the father of the child to participate in commencement with impunity.

You should really go read this comments thread on Pharyngula. It’s the Eighth “Skeptic’ Circle” - an ongoing collection of high-quality blog posts which “praise science and reason, and smirk and mock the gullible and credulous.”

Dean of Dean’s World decided to submit this post (written by Trudy Schuett, a men’s rights activist) from his blog. Trudy’s post is a response to a post of mine, which criticized men’s rights activists for using outdated statistics to discuss intimate homicide. (Not coincidently, my post was included in the seventh Skeptic’s Circle).

Here’s where it begins to amuse. Trudy’s rebuttal of my post was not only rejected, the editor, P.Z. Meyers, found it so ridiculous that he openly mocked it when he posted the Skeptic’s Circus:

This article from Dean’s World on Men’s Issues and Stats has but one virtue: irony. Look at these opening lines in disbelief.

It seems the ignorance of feminists is not only alive and well, but growing at an astonishing rate. Or maybe it’s deliberate, this dissemination of obvious untruth. I vote for the deliberate, as I’ve never met a feminist or women’s shelter advocate yet who could hold an entire conversation without resorting to at least one fabrication.

If you must read further, watch the phony strawman go up in the second paragraph, too. Ouch.

Ouch, indeed.

This rejection infuriated Dean so much that he posted a sour grapes attack on the entire Skeptics Circle tradition.

The angry link from Dean’s world caused a few anti-feminists to swarm on the thread. And here’s where it’s very entertaining: a long debate ensues between the anti-feminists and the Skeptics, and the anti-feminists make total idiots of themselves. If you enjoy the “Alas” posts debunking anti-feminists, you’re pretty much guaranteed to enjoy this thread, too.

Also, note that in the comments on Dean’s World, Richard Bennett calls me “the Josef Goebbels of the women’s movement.” Lovely fellow, that Richard.

Unfortunately, P.Z. Meyer’s spam-prevention program has gone haywire, so people who haven’t already “joined” the site might not be able to post. So you can read the thread, but you might not be able to post to it. What follows “below the fold” are two responses I wrote intending to post on in P.Z.’s comments, but which I’m instead posting here. (UPDATE: I’ve just discovered that I can join P.Z.’s site, as long as I used IE rather than Firefox to do so.)

Read the rest of this entry »

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.