Archive for March, 2012


Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”                 -Rick Santorum

So therefore, it’s not possible to love someone of the same sex in a romantic way.  I can’t even dignify his words with a rebuttal.  I can only ask why anyone would support this man unless they admit to being homophobic.  Don’t pretend not to be homophobic just to vote for him because of his “stance on foreign policy” or some other crap.  I can’t believe so many people support this man.

As long as we continue to tolerate discrimination, it will continue .

Advertisements

NOM exposed in Maine

 

As part of an investigation into the funding of National Organization of Marriage (NOM), my home state of Maine has uncovered incriminating evidence against the group. An organization that prides itself on being “for the family” has been exposed of doing what many already knew: maliciously turning people against each other.

In their own words, the group’s goal has been revealed to  “drive a wedge between gays and blacks”, and to use opposition to gay marriage as an “identity marker” in the Latino population.  Looks like they’ve been caught with our pants down, huh? Serves them right. How is exploiting a group of people for the malicious purpose of oppressing an entirely different minority group considered moral, let alone in the interest of “preserving the family”?

NOM: if you insist on discriminating against innocent people, are you incapable of doing it independently? Enlisting others to relay your messages of hatred is not only a cowardly copout, but it shows that you aren’t capable of obtaining the goal yourself.  Pining minority groups against each other is not only heinously wrong, but it is an exploitive way of showing that the opinions of these groups only matter if they exist to serve your agenda.

In his speech at the National Equality March, Julian Bond, Chairman of NAACP, stood up against NOM’s unacceptable behavior:

“NOM’s underhanded attempts to divide will not succeed if Black Americans remember their own history of discrimination. Pitting bigotry’s victims against other victims is reprehensible; the defenders of justice must stand together.”

Recently, NOM has proposed a boycott of Starbucks for the company’s political stance on the acceptance of equal rights for all. The organization claims that its actions are in response to the fact that gay marriage is repressing Christianity.  No, NOM, you are apparently confused. It goes without being said who is repressing whom. Maybe NOM should be banished to their own island so they can live without fear of an equal rights supporter pouring their $9 coffee. If it weren’t for the pink Netbook on which I type these words, I’d honestly assume that I have woken up in 1940.

 

thug?!

The New Orleans police officer who was recently suspended for his “thug” comments in reference to the shooting of young Trayvon Martin should be let go permanently.  If he is unable to grow past the racism he has unfortunately learned somewhere,  it makes no sense no sense for him to be in a position where he serves the public – especially in a city as racially diverse as this.

After reading his own personal description, how can citizens ever be sure of his ability to act objectively, or by the law? He has undoubtedly lost all credibility in the eyes of people of color in the community.  No longer will women, LGBT, and other vulnerable populations feel safe with him on the scene.  To top it off, he posted these racist comments on a public forum, using his real name.

With issues of cruel and unjustified violence in recent media paving the road to racism, we can not afford to let this one go with a simple slap on the wrist. What message would it send for the youth in the community? What message does it send about justice and how the law works?  Children of color learn quickly that they are targeted much more often than their white friends by police. Allowing this officer to stay will be telling these children that this racial profiling is not only ok, but allowed among those who are trained to uphold fairness for all.

This behavior shows he is proud of his ignorant views, thinks of himself as invincible and above the law; all factors that deem him unfit to serve as an officer of the law.  This behavior is certainly not a good representation of a city like New Orleans, that is already struggling to overcome a nationwide reputation of corruption. Perhaps assigning him to an inner city school in the Recovery School District will teach him more about what it truly means to serve those in need, since apparely this job has been a game to him.

This week’s article in Gambit (non-NOLA friends: a local New Orleans publication) ran a spotlight on the recent statewide anti-bullying bill- HB 407- which has been a heated topic of conversation within schools over the past several months.  Despite unrelenting support from the Orleans Parish School Board, the Louisiana School Boards Association, the Louisiana Association of Educators, Louisiana School Counselors Association, NAMI, and many others; Louisiana State Rep. Austin Badon’s anti-bullying bill was defeated in 2011 after immense opposition from religious conservatives.

Among one of the opponents of the bill, Rev. Gene Millis, president of the Louisiana Family Forum (a “family values” group here in the state), nicknamed the bill the “Homosexual Bullying Bill”.  He denounced the bill for its “gay agenda”, saying the bill forces teachings and awareness of “alternative lifestyles”. Not surprisingly, this lobbyist group is quite influential in the capital of a religious state like Louisiana. John Yeats, another opponent of the bill, and member of the Louisiana Southern Baptist Convention, is quoted as saying “Homosexual activists are hijacking the bullying statutes to promote homosexuality”.

This lobbying certainly won over Rep. Alan Seabaugh, who took the same stance to the bill, claiming he felt that the bill “was intended to promote an agenda and force teaching alternative lifestyles to our children.” In an email to a constituent in 2011 who took an opposite position than him regarding the bill, he wrote, “I have studied the teachings of Jesus Christ and I agree with his teachings regarding homosexuality. It is a sin plain and simple and it does not need to be taught in our schools. I was taught long ago to avoid getting into a debate with an idiot”.

This bill adds an additional protection for students based on gender identity and sexual orientation, and will be following the path of at least a dozen states who have taken the same stance on protection from bullying.  With so many suicides in recent media coverage bringing to light issues of bullying, not taking a stand means you’ve stood for the bullies, and for the harsh treatment these children are unfairly receiving in a place where they should undoubtedly feel safe.

With 84% of LGBT students reporting having been verbally harassed, 40% reporting physical harassment, and 18% being physically attacked (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, 2009 survey), the protection for LGBT students has an obvious need in an anti-bullying bill. This bill does not only protect gay and lesbian children, it protects every child that bullies target: overweight children, underweight children, children with glasses or speech impediments, “uncool” kids, as well as children of religious fundamentalists -the aforementioned opponents to this bill.  Protecting our children should be of the utmost importance.  Justifying your opposition to this bill by claiming nonsense about a “gay agenda” is not only pre-19th century stupidity, it affirms quite the opposite: a discrimination agenda.

A recent documentary, Bully, which follows several students during their real-life experiences with bullies, has made the news recently for its ‘R’ rating – which is counterintuitive to the attempted message of the film. If students are unable to see the film, then how will its message be relayed in time to be effective? More importantly, if the issue of bullying is seen as too graphic for young children, doesn’t that send a message about the crucial nature of this social problem?

In Arlington, Texas last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech on this topic, saying “we have an obligation to protect young people who are targeted just because they’re perceived as ‘different’… no one deserves to be bullied, harassed, or victimized because of who they are, how they worship, or who they love”.   Those who pride themselves on promoting the Christian, “Family Values” message, should think about what exactly they are refusing; and in turn, what message they are promoting as a result. Someone should remind them that Jesus did not discriminate.

**Sign the petition at stopbullyinglouisiana.org to keep “idiots” like Seabaugh, along with his “agenda”, from affecting the safety and well-being of our children.**

 

SO FUNNY

Secular Morality

This song deserves a Grammy. No matter what side you take politically I think you will enjoy this!

Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up (feat. Eminem)

View original post

The front page of the today’s paper is a spotlight on the horrible, very avoidable death of Trayvon Martin. The young 17-year-old was on his way back from buying a pack of Skittles for his little brother when he was spotted by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, in their gated Florida community. With no prior knowledge of Martin, Zimmerman called the police to report a black man “acting suspiciously”, before proceeding to attack and murder this innocent boy.

Zimmerman claims he acted in “self-defense”, yet there is no evidence to support that he was even remotely threatened.  Martin is a young kid, and Zimmerman is a grown man. Martin was also on the phone with his girlfriend at the time, who tells a horrifying story of hearing her boyfriend say he was being followed, listening to him running away, and then hearing him helplessly attacked. The 911 call, which has now been released and is all over the news, shows a brutal account of Zimmerman being told to stay away – yet proceeding to attack Martin anyway.  All accounts show that Zimmerman instigated, and brutally murdered, this young boy who was outside his own father’s home.  Recent posts in social media have surfaced, showing the links between Treyvon Martin and Emmett Till, the young black boy who was lynched by two white men in 1950s rural Mississippi.

A couple of weeks ago, the front page of the local paper here featured a strikingly similar story that happened around the same time.  A 20-year-old boy, Wendell Allen, was shot in the chest by police as he was walking down the stairs inside his own home. Police were responding to a tip that Allen allegedly had drugs, and a small amount of marijuana was found inside the home – but that’s not the point.  This man was shot in his own home, with his family around. He was walking down the stairs towards the police, unarmed and shirtless, clearly cooperating appropriately. The officer reacted impulsively out of fear – or blatant discrimination – and fired immediately.  This New Orleans neighborhood was outraged, crying that this was an act of racism and murder. Allen’s grandmother yelled that she wants the officer booked on murder charges, and rightfully so.

These events have sparked awareness that we, as a country, need to take a look at the way racial minorities are viewed by society. It is horrifying that these things are going on in our country, as we continue to falsely pride ourselves on being a free and accepting nation. Because black men are viewed as a danger to our communities and a threat to our citizens, they are automatically assumed to have provoked these attacks. The boy was tested for drugs and alcohol, even after he was pronounced dead. Yet, Zimmerman has never been tested, and has yet to be arrested. If the races had been reversed, authorities would waste little time prosecuting the dangerous black man who attacked the innocent white boy.

“What does it say when we can put a black man in the White House, but we can’t walk a black boy to the store for Skittles?” – Al Sharpton, MSNBC, 3/21/2012

We are training each other to fear, and even resent, an entire group; our fellow neighbors. Each one of us needs to take a stand and refuse to allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that this violence, and utter racism, is tolerable. It starts with you.  If you find yourself making comments along the lines of: “he must’ve done something”, or “clearly he was at fault, the shooter was acting in self-defense”, ask yourself why you are so quick to take the side of the aggressor, when situational events clearly point at their guilt. If you hear others – family members, friends, peers – making similar accusations, open up a dialogue. We need to spread awareness that this can NOT, and will NOT, be acceptable.

A group of republicans (who am I kidding? Of COURSE they’re republicans) are attempting to block the Violence Against Women Act. For those who don’t know, the VAWA was enacted in the mid 1990s, and provides increased funding for services and treatment for victims of domestic violence, as well as increasing penalties for domestic violence.  Even though this bill has been renewed twice since its enactment, republicans figure that the public might not notice its absence, what with all the other attacks on women’s rights taking center stage.

     “Republicans’ biggest qualms are about provisions that make federal grants to domestic violence organizations contingent on nondiscrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender victims; rules extending the authority of tribal courts over domestic violence matters; and a section that would provide more visas for abused undocumented women who agree to cooperate with law enforcement.”

 (FYI: The Tribal Law is in reference to domestic violence on reservations here in the US, where authorities within the reservation do not currently have the authority to prosecute non-tribal members for acts of domestic violence. This is relevant because a large percentage of women on reservations are in relationships with non-members of the reservation, and there is also an increase in domestic violence in reservations. Therefore, the abusers that are not Native American are protected by US Law and are therefore exempt from repercussions in many instances.)

(Mom, turn away now).   WHAT the HELL is WRONG with these ASSHOLES?  This makes me SICK to my stomach.  Heaven FORBID we protect foreigners, gays, or abused Native Americans!   The opposers to this bill claim that, while they agree victims of domestic violence should not be refused services due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, they fail to understand the need for an anti-discrimination amendment to the act.   THAT’S the basis for which you hold an outright opposition? Because of something that is deemed unnecessary.  rightttt. *Doctor Evil voice*.

At an attempt to humor myself, I read further to figure out the reason for opposing the other two amendments to the VAWA.  Apparently, repubs don’t want non-Native American’s to be held accountable for acts of domestic violence on reservations. ie: protection for abusive partners is more important than the dignity and protection of the women abused on the reservation.  Yeah. Nice try at a not-even-attempt to cover up your real motive. Just come out and say that you don’t believe all women deserve protection, especially those damn “foreigners”. Our government is what forced Native Americans into secluded reservations in the first place. The least we could do is attempt to protect them.

Last but not… hell, what’s “least” when we’re discussing gays, women, and foreigners. Aren’t they all “less-than”?  Anyway, opponents to this bill want a cap on the number of visas given to foreign, abused women who come through our borders, with nowhere to go but back to their abusers. That’s the final motivation behind their opposition to this updated bill.

Still waiting for the justification for blocking a bill that would protect women; that would protect victims; that would protect FELLOW HUMANS.  I’m utterly sickened.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/republicans-violence-against-women-act

I have succeeded in removing all traces of girl scout cookies from my apartment.  So long, suckas!

… they are now all in my stomach.

… this is the second post about cookies in two days. Clearly, I have a problem.

Don’t hate.

Women aren’t taken seriously. And I don’t mean in the they’re-too-emotional-to-make-decisions mentality. We are not even being taken seriously right now, when we are fighting for our rights – rights that we have been continuously fighting for since our mothers were small.

When we express a concern for our rights, we are referred to as “feminazis” or other derogatory terms reserves for those who dare to publicly identify with the feminist movement. Even people who aren’t necessarily opposed to the issues have sometimes expressed the belief that it’s “not worth fighting over”. To those people, let me remind you that human and civil rights have never been attained from people who didn’t feel like fighting.

It appears there’s an assumption that Christians/men/whites/etc will eventually get bored with the idea of having power, giving minorities more rights by default or sheer laziness. Maybe after 10 or 15 years they’ll say to each other “ya know, I just don’t see why we don’t extend the vote to women. They haven’t had that right yet, and they’ve been so patient and quiet about it!”

Perhaps, after too many Gin and tonics, a group of older white men will lead the conversation down the road of gay marriage: “Ah, marriage. I’ve had 5, or was it 6? I don’t even have to repeat after the priest anymore, since I know the vows by heart. Think we should let those homosexuals have a swing at it? Maybe they’ll have better luck than I have.”

No, people. As much as these scenarios would make for hilarious commentary, (South Park writers, feel free to discuss possible submission opportunities below), change doesn’t happen while were cowering behind lampposts.

Found this over the weekend and I feel like it sums up my (and many other feminists’) feelings pretty well:

 

“This week the Georgia State Legislature debated a bill in the House, that would make it necessary  for some women to carry  stillborn or dying fetuses until they ‘naturally’ go into labor. In arguing for this bill  Representative Terry England described his empathy for  pregnant cows and pigs in the same situation.

I have a question for Terry England, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and too many others: I have three daughters, two of them twins. If one of my twins had been stillborn would you have made me carry her to term, thereby endangering both the other twin and me? Or, would you have insisted that the state order a mandatory fetal extraction of the living twin fetus from my womb so that I could continue to carry the stillborn one to term and possibly die myself?  My family is curious and since you believe my uterus is your public property, I am, too.

Mr. England, unlike the calves and pigs for which you expressed so much empathy,  I am not a beast of burden. I am a woman and I have these human rights:

The right to life. The right to privacy. The right to freedom. The right to bodily integrity. The right to decide when and how I reproduce.

Mr. England, you and your friends do not get to trade these rights,  while “dog and hog hunting,” in return for a young man’s chickens.

My human rights outweigh any you or the state corruptly and cynically seek to assign to a mass of dividing cells that will eventually turn into a ‘natural’ person. Personhood-for-zygote based bills and related legislation, like Georgia’s and hundreds of others, bills and laws that criminalize pregnancy and abortion and penalize women for being women, violate my human rights.

Just because you cannot get pregnant does not mean I cannot think clearly, ethically, morally, rationally about my body, human life or the consequences of my actions. Just because you cannot get pregnant does not mean that I do not have rights when I am pregnant.  I have responsibility but am powerless. You have power but are irresponsible with my rights.

By not trusting me, you force me to trust you. And YOU are not trustworthy.

I gestate humans, you do not. I know how it feels to be pregnant. You do not. I know what happens to a fetus in a womb. You do not. I have carried three fetuses to term. You have not.  What I experience when I am pregnant is not empathy.  It is permeability. The fetus is me. And the state is you, apparently. But, no matter what you say or do I have fundamental human rights.  What makes you think that you,  who cannot have this fully human experience, can tell me anything about gestation or how I experience it? Especially when you compare my existence and experience to that of brutish animals.

The rest of the civilized world thinks this country has lost its mind.  It’s no wonder. Look at this list of frenzied misogyny:

1. Making women carry still-born fetuses to full term because cows and pigs do. This week, Mr England, you supported a bill, the net effect of which, taken tandem with other restrictions, will result in doctors and women being unable to make private, medically-based, critical care decisions and some women being effectively forced to carry their dead or dying fetuses.    Women are different from farm animals, Mr. England, and this bill, requiring a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus, with no possibility of abortion, even when the she is in danger of dying, is inhumane and unethical. By forcing a woman to do this, you are violating her right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment and tortured. And, yes, involuntarily carrying a dead fetus to term, although not torture to you or to a pig, is torture for a woman. It is also a violation of her bodily integrity and a threat to her life and as such violates her right to life.

2. Consigning women to death to save a fetus. Abortions save women’s lives. “Let women die” bills are happening all over the country. There is no simple or pretty way to put this. Every day, all over the world, women die because they do not have access to safe abortions. Yet, here we are, returning to the dark ages of maternal sacrifice. Do really have to type this sentence: this is a violation of women’s fundamental right to life.

3. Criminalizing pregnancy and miscarriages and arresting, imprisoning and charging women who miscarry with murder, like Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi or at least 40 other similar cases in Alabama or like Bei Bei Shuai, a woman who is now  imprisoned, is charged with murder after trying to commit suicide while pregnant. Pregnant women are becoming a special class subject to “special” laws that infringe on their fundamental rights.

4. Forcing women to undergo involuntary vaginal penetration (otherwise called rape) with a condom-covered, six- to eight-inch ultrasound probe. Pennsylvania is currently considering that option along with eleven other states. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds undertaken with out a woman’s consent are rape according the legal definition of the word. This violates a woman’s bodily integrity and also constitutes torture when used, as states are suggesting, as a form of control and oppression. Women have the right not to be raped by the state.

5. Disabling women or sacrificing their lives by either withholding medical treatment or forcing women to undergo involuntary medical procedures. We impose an unequal obligation on women to sacrifice their bodily integrity for another.  For example, as in Tysiac v. Poland, in which a mother of two, became blind after her doctor refused to perform an abortion that she wanted that would have halted the course of a degenerative eye disease. If my newborn baby is in need of a kidney and you have a spare matching one, can I enact legislation that says the state can take yours and give it to her? No. We do not force people to donate their organs to benefit others, even those who have already been born. One of the most fundamental of all human rights is that humans be treated equally before the law. Denying a woman this right is a violation of her equal right to this protection.

6. Giving zygotes “personhood” rights while systematically stripping women of their fundamental rights. There is too much to say about the danger of personhood ideas creeping into health policy to do it here. But, consider what happens to a woman whose womb is not considered the “best” environment for a gestating fetus in a world of personhood-for-zygote legislation: who decides the best environment — the state, her insurance company, her employer, her rapist who decides he really, really wants to be a father? Anyone but a woman.

7. Inhibiting, humiliating and punishing women for their choices to have an abortion for any reason by levying taxes specifically on abortion, including abortions sought by rape victims to end their involuntary insemination, imposing restrictive requirements like 24 hour wait periods and  empowering doctors to lie to female patients about their fetuses in order to avoid prosecution. In Arizona, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Arkansas and other states around the country bills that make women “pay” for their choices are abounding.

8. Allowing employers to delve into women’s private lives and only pay for insurance when they agree, for religious reasons, with how she choses to use birth control.  In Arizona, which introduced such a bill this week, this means covering payment for birth control as a benefit only when a woman has proven that she will not use it to control her own reproduction (ie. as birth control).  As much as I am worried about women and families in Arizona though, I am more worried about those in Alabama. You see, as recently revealed in a public policy poll in Alabama, conservative, evangelicals who support “personhood” related “pro-life” legislation and are fighting for their “religious liberty” — 21 percent think interracial marriage should be illegal. So, what if they decide that an employee involved in an interracial marriage should not, by divine mandate, reproduce? Do they switch and provide birth control for this employee?  Do they make contraception a necessary term of employment for people in interracial marriages? This violates a woman’s right to privacy.  My womb is one million times more private than your bedrooms, gentlemen.

9. Sacrificing women’s overall health and the well-being of their families in order to stop them from exercising their fundamental human right to control their own bodies and reproduction. Texas just did that when it turned down $35million dollars in federal funds thereby ensuring that 300,000 low-income and uninsured Texas women will have no or greatly-reduced access to basic preventive and reproductive health care.

10. Depriving women of their ability to earn a living and support themselves and their families. Bills, like this one in Arizona, allow employers to fire women for using contraception.  Women like these are being fired for not.

You presume to consign my daughters and yours to function as reproductive animals.

This is about sex and property, not life and morality.  Sex because when women have sex and want to control their reproduction that threatens powerful social structures that rely on patriarchal access to and control over women as reproductive engines. Which brings us to property: control of reproduction was vital when the agricultural revolution took place and we, as a species, stopped meandering around plains in search of food. Reproduction and control of it ensured that a man could possess and consolidate wealth-building and food-producing land and then make sure it wasn’t disaggregated by passing it on to one son he knew was his — largely by claiming a woman and her gestation capability as property, too.

This is not about freedom of religion. If it were, we would, for example, allow Christian Scientists to refuse to pay for coverage of life-saving blood transfusions for employees.  Religious freedom means I get to chose whether or not to be religious and if so, how. It does not mean that I get to impose my religion on others. Paying for insurance is part of the way we compensate employees, even when they use their insurance in ways we don’t agree with and are in contravention of our own personal beliefs. I think that it is stupid, dangerous and immoral to chain smoke, especially around children whose lungs it irreparably harms. But, I still have to pay for an employee to have access to lung scans, nicotine patches and oxygen tanks. I do not get to say that my religious beliefs, which include keeping bodies as healthy as possible, make it possible for me to withhold payment of this employee’s insurance.  Guaranteed coverage of contraception and reproductive health care has overwhelming benefits for society, including reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  By inserting your religious beliefs so egregiously into government legislation and my life, you are imposing your religious beliefs on me.  You don’t like mandated insurance coverage for basic reproductive health humans with two X chromosomes? I don’t like being bred by state compulsion like Mr. England’s farm animals. I have a MORAL OBJECTION to being treated like an animal and not a human. You do not have to use contraception, you do not have to use birth control. But, that does not mean you have any right to tell me that I cannot if I chose. That is my right.

Property, control, sex, reproduction, morality, defining what is human. Sounds a lot like issues surrounding slavery 170 years ago.  It is no surprise that of the 16 states that never repealed their anti-miscegenation laws, but rather had them overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 more than half have introduced personhood bills.  Like anti-miscegentation laws, anti-choice laws and bills that humiliate women, that treat them like beasts, that violate their bodily autonomy, are based on ignorance, entitlement and arrogance. These laws are not about “personhood” but “humanity.” That women of color are massively, disproportionately affected by these assaults on their bodies and rights should also come as no surprise – their rights and their bodies have always been the most vulnerable assault.

This is about keeping women’s wombs public and in other people’s control — the exact opposite of private and in their own control.

And, yes, I do know how complicated the ethics, bioethics and legal arguments related to these decisions are. You, apparently, do not. If you were truly concerned with sustaining life and improving its quality  or in protecting innocent children, you would begin by having compassion and empathy for living, born people that require and deserve your attention. You feed them, educate them, lift them from poverty and misery. You do not compound these problems as you are with twisted interpretations of divine will. Only after that do you have the moral legitimacy to entertain the notion of talking to me about my uterus and what I do with it.  By then, fully functional artificial wombs should be available and you can implant your own, since you are so fond of animal analogies, as was completed with this male mouse.  What you are doing is disgraceful, hypocritical and morally corrupt.

And, no, I am not crazy. I am angry.

Mr. Santorum, Mr. England and Mr. Brownback and Mr. Perry you should consider not clinging so dangerously and perversely to the Agrarian Revolution ideas.  Birth control and safe abortions are life-saving technologies. These archaic bills and laws, wasteful of time, money and lives, obscure an enduring and unchangeable truth: safe and effective family planning is the transformative social justice accomplishment of the 20th century.  They will not go away. This is a revolution, too.

In a 1851 speech in which she argued for equal rights for women, Sojourner Truth said the following: “The poor men seems to be all in confusion, and don’t know what to do. Why children, if you have woman’s rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they won’t be so much trouble.”

Do you, Terry England, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and friends even know who Sojourner Truth is?”

 

taken from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html