Va. lawmaker proposes medical hurdle for men in debate on ultrasounds for abortion

A Virginia state senator is looking for some “gender equity” when it comes to reproductive health.

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

“We need some gender equity here,” she told HuffPost. “The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we’re going to do that to women, why not do that to men?”

Of course, the amendment was rejected by the Republican-controlled Virginia State Senate, but did pass the ultrasound requirement bill on a voice vote.

The senator noted it was “only fair, that if we’re going to subject women to unnecessary procedures, and we’re going to subject doctors to having to do things that they don’t think is medically advisory.”

I just want to commend this politician for actually standing up and speaking out about the clear double standard and medical hypocrisy anti-abortion rights politicians continue to engage in. I hope to see other pro-choice politicians and activists alike begin publicly addressing this sexist attack on women’s rights.

 

Posted in abortion rights, Virginia | Leave a comment

Interracial ad draws controversy

Courtesy DA Youth

Many of us in the U.S. wouldn’t get riled up when we see advertisements such as this. However, in South Africa, some folks are outraged at the ad, according to the Washington Post. The poster, created by South African’s  Democratic Alliance Youth, was for the organization’s 2012 membership campaign.

The poster has dominated conversation among politicians and the media in South Africa, the Globe and Mail reports. While many have been supportive of its message, some have taken issue with the poster’s supposed promotion of sex.

Others have traded racist remarks on the Democratic Alliance Youth’s Facebook page, with one commenter posting a photo of an all-white, blonde family with the remark “Now that’s how it should be!” People who do not support the poster have also made parody versions of the image that some might consider to be more offensive.

Some black South Africans have objected to the fact that the man is white and the woman is black, because it implies a certain dominance among traditional cultures. “Who is the head of a house? Yes, a man, and the man makes the choices and the women listens,” wrote one commenter on the Facebook page. “So to some it has been offensive that the man is white and the woman is black, because it places the black nation under the head of the house, so to speak.”

On its Facebook page, DA Youth Federal Chairperson Mbali Ntuli defended the group’s poster:

If there is anything that this poster has brought to the attention of us all it is that we need to decide as young people; do we want our generation to continue to be unable to shake race as our defining narrative? I think that this is one of those questions which our generation was going to have to answer one way or another eventually.

No matter how uncomfortable this conversation may be for some we must fight to have it as young South Africans, we fight because we appreciate that young South Africans before us had no voice and we fight because we represent so many young South Africans that STILL have no voice.

This poster was intended to start that conversation. The conversation is about race, but more than that this poster speaks to the principle of tolerance. This image could be replaced, as you may have all already seen from the parodies, by numerous others that all speak to the same principle. I have seen two young men or women, I have seen one of a Muslim and a Jewish person embracing, one of a Tamil and Hindi person and numerous others. The point is that we live in a country full of people that have forgotten how to tolerate people that seemingly don’t see the world as they do. On the other spectrum, and this is evident from the parodies and people’s responses, we are living in a country full of people that already do tolerate others views. This is the voice we should be encouraging to speak, that we should be giving a platform, that we should be reassuring that it is ok to not want to confine yourself to a socially constructed box, that it is ok because there are many of us who don’t fit neatly in those boxes either, many of us right here in the DA. That is who we need to be getting to believe in OUR vision for SA.

Part of addressing the issue of intolerance is about bringing people’s prejudices to the fore. This is done not with the intention of being belligerent and attacking people but about maturely acknowledging that people have them and getting them to talk about it. We need to ask them why exactly it causes them so much discomfort? We must facilitate, and more importantly, lead this discussion.

Part of me wants to stick up for the organization and defend its use of an interracial couple in the ad campaign. As someone who is in an interracial relationship with a white man, I can’t comprehend the reasoning of those who oppose the poster, particularly those who believe replacing the black woman with a white woman would somehow make it more appealing. However, part of me understands that apartheid ended only 20 years go and there are still great inequalities among whites and blacks in South Africa, thus maximizing the racial tensions already present. It would also be unfair for me to use my American influence and give an opinion on why South Africans should embrace the poster.

What do you think of the poster and the controversy surrounding it?

Posted in interracial dating, race relations, South Africa, whiteness | 2 Comments

Tenn. GOP Rep: “virtually impossible” to catch HIV from heterosexual sex

I wish I was making this up, but I’m not. The skinny via Rawstory, which quotes Tennessee Republican State Senator Stacy Campfield making these outrageous false claims:

“Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community,” he told Michelangelo Signorile, who hosts a radio program on SiriusXM OutQ. “It was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.”

“My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex.”

It is generally accepted that at some point HIVcrossed species from chimps to humans, but there is no evidence that this was caused by bestiality. Rick Sowadsky of the Nevada State Health Division AIDS program noted in 1998 that it highly unlikely that HIV was transmitted through inter-species sexual contact, given the behavior of chimps and the differences between the sexual anatomy of humans and other primates.

According to the the Center for Disease Control, male-to-male sexual contact has been the most common way to transmit AIDS, followed by injection drug use and heterosexual sex.

Campfield briefly gained national attention in 2011 when he introduced legislation that critics derided as “the don’t say gay bill.”

“[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce,” he told Signorile. “It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality. That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school.”

Yes, blame it on the gheis for unleashing their repulsive, multi-sex partner lifestyle onto the rest of us so-called “normal” heterosexual folks…

This reminds me of a situation in which I was in college. We were working on a public relations project in which we would promote a local nonprofit organizations. One of my classmates admitted she was taught that only members of the GLBTQ community got HIV/AIDS and it was because they were sinners, disobeying God’s law. More recently, I even had a former co-worker, who admitted that when she found out her brother was gay, he was going to catch AIDS and die.

Fortunately, the classmate and former co-worker came full circle and recognized the errors in their discriminatory beliefs, but we can’t say the same for the Sen. Campfield. He is apparently sticking by his story:

10News sat down with the senator where he confirmed his statements, but said it was taken out of context. He said that he acknowledges that heterosexuals can contract the virus. He meant that certain groups are at much higher risk for AIDS.

A lot of people trying to gloss over and say it’s an every person disease but really it’s just those high risk people that are most likely to contract or spread that disease The odds of a regular man getting it from a regular woman are very low,” he said.

We asked, “What do you mean by ‘regular?’”

He said, “someone who is not from Africa, someone who is not a homosexual, someone who is not an IV drug user, someone who is not sleeping with someone who is one of those things.”

Senator Campfield sees nothing wrong with his answers.

“I didn’t say I was a gay/AIDS historian. I didn’t say I know the facts backwards and forwards I just said what I’ve heard and the facts back me up,” he said.

I should note the Senator is the chief sponsor of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would bar teachers from talking about homosexuality with students. The bill is currently being considered in the Tennessee state house.

Wait…GLBTQ folks, Africans and IV drug users aren’t “regular” people?!

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in don't say gay, HIV/AIDS, homophobia, Republicans, Stacy Campfield | 2 Comments

Ron Paul’s associates confirm what we already know

The Washington Post is reporting something many of Ron Paul’s critics–mainly POCs–already knew: that he “pursued a marketing strategy” to promote his racist newsletters. Of course, the libertarian running as a GOP presidential candidate has denied he gave the nod to publish the newsletters.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.

More from the article:

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’ The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

The entire article in length is really worth the read and paints Paul as a businessman who was actively involved in promoting his racist product.

I find it hard to believe that a shrewd businessman and politician like Ron Paul would blindly allow this deplorable content to be published without his knowledge. It’s also troubling that he would stand by this content, but a year later as the Washington Post article notes, would denounce any sort of affiliation with this offensive content.

In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written,’’ Paul said.

Bull. Shit.

Ron Paul wrote these racist, homophobic, bigoted newsletters which claimed, “the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities“.”

Ron Paul wrote those newsletters because he also believed 95 percent of black men in the District of Columbia were “semi-criminal” or “entirely criminal” and black teens were “unbelievably fleet of foot.” Ron Paul wrote those newsletters because he subscribes to each of the viewpoints above and did what other frustrated white male conservative pundits and activists did during the 1980s: use their power and privilege to express dismay at what the American underclass was doing to the America they know and grew to love and capitalized on the latent racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia of those like them to promote their warped ideology.

It will be interesting to see what lie Ron Paul conjures up to try and wiggle his way out of this latest contradiction.

Posted in homophobia, presidential politics, racism, Ron Paul | Leave a comment

Jan Brewer: “I felt a bit threatened” by Obama

Credit: Associated Press

 

Unless you live under a rock, you’ve probably seen this photo. It’s of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Barack Obama, who appears to be taking a verbal lashing from the governor. Brewer, according to CNN, said the president took issue with her characterization of him and his White House in her new book, Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Border.

Brewer told reporters on Wednesday night that Obama was “disenchanted” with the way he was portrayed in the book.

“Bottom line is that I wanted to be there to welcome him, to come and see first hand what Arizona has done in regards to our economic recovery,” said Brewer. “He wanted to talk about the book and I thought that he was pretty thin-skinned…”

Brewer, who said she felt “a little bit threatened” during the encounter, also said that Obama walked away from her in mid-sentence.

Brewer, a Republican who became governor at the beginning of Obama’s term, told reporters the president took offense with her portrayal of him not being cordial in the past.

I have all the respect in the world for the office of the President, but the book is what the book is,” she said. (SOURCE)

Sigh…really, Jan Brewer, threatened by a super, skinny intellectual black man serving as president of the United States? Nothing like the convenience of using the big, scary black man stereotype to excuse one’s racism and lack of deference to the person holding the highest office in the land…

Considering Brewer has repeated false claims about headless bodies appearing in Arizona’s desert, I can’t blame the president taking issue with some of the governor’s claims in her book, including calling the president patronizing and condescending. Brewer’s finger wagging and appearance of lecturing the president, reminiscent of the Jim Crow Era’s allowance of white folks to talk down to adult black men, is nothing short of political grandstanding and a play to her anti-Obama, anti-immigration ultra conservative base that subconsciously has issues when it comes to race.

Posted in Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, politics, President Obama, race, racism | 3 Comments