That's an exaggeration, but not by all that much. Writes Brachear, "At this time last year, doctors say, the absence of government funds combined with the economic downturn stalled most meaningful embryonic science, making donations to research a riskier and more radical option. Some laboratories stopped accepting donations, forcing some fertility centers to hold on to embryos despite parents' preference to devote them to research." So wait, deciding that you'd like your embryos to go to science somehow becomes "risky" and "radical" if there's a chance they might not be used for research? I guess that makes sense if, like Adrianna Potter, you only favor donating embryos to science to promote "the creation of new life" -- she notes that research led to their ability to conceive via IVF, and would like to help other couples. Her husband, Robert, either wants to keep them "to fulfill God's mandate to be fruitful and multiply" or donate them to another infertile couple. So for them, donating embryos to science with no guarantee that they'll be used might indeed seem risky and/or radical. But what about couples who make that choice simply because they'd rather see the embryos go to good use than discard them? Because they believe in the promise of stem cell research -- and at this time last year, were probably hoping that Obama would revoke the ban on federal funding for it, which he did? At this point in the article, there's still been no clear acknowledgment that this particular debate has a faith-specific context -- but any other context is completely ignored.

And that's the subtle part. Later, Brachear writes, "Robert doesn't trust that every embryo [donated to science] fulfills a greater purpose. He can't imagine sentencing two potential children to short lives that would end in a laboratory." I'm sorry, I can get on board with "potential children," emphasis on potential, but short lives? No. The idea that an embryo has a "life" that can be ended, even when it's never seen the inside of a woman's uterus, is a purely religious one; Robert seems to hold that belief as part of his faith, which is fine, but could we please get some quotation marks, or even a non-specific "he said" on that? Because otherwise, you're asking the reader to accept the concept of embryonic personhood as a given. And boy, this reader doesn't.

As Laura said, an article about Christians struggling with a decision that raises serious questions about their own faith versus science is a very interesting idea -- and if the headline or subhead or first nine and a half paragraphs indicated that that is, in fact, the subject here, I would have an entirely different take on the execution. Instead, a peculiarly religious dilemma is universalized -- "Families struggle with science, faith," reads the subhead -- and people who have no faith-based qualms about donating embryos to science (including many religious people, as well as those who don't have faith-basied qualms, period) are simply not acknowledged. Not to mention, "struggling with science" is presented as wondering whether your embryos' "lives" will have meaning in a lab -- which, call me crazy, still sounds more like struggling with faith. At a time when anti-choice groups are sincerely attempting to redefine personhood as "the beginning of biological development" -- raising the possibility of everything from miscarriages being investigated as potential homicides to pregnant women qualifying for the carpool lane -- blurring the line between religious beliefs and observable facts is what I would call "risky" and "radical."

 

As The Frisky's Jessica Wakeman reports, Fiorina's camp is circulating an e-mail that links to the "shocking video" (posted below) of a Senate committee hearing in June during which an Army brigadier general refers to Boxer as "ma'am." She interrupts him to ask that he call her "senator" and explains, "I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it." The Fiorina e-mail blast calls this evidence of Boxer's "arrogance" and "disrespect," and the message concludes with a plea for donations: "Every dollar you generously give today will be used to defeat Barbara Boxer and ensure no member of the United States military is berated by her ever again." The campaign has also launched the Web site CallMeBarbara.com -- as in, elect Fiorina so that Boxer can no longer verbally castrate men by wielding her razor-sharp title of "senator."

It might not be much of a platform to stand on, but that's nothing a strong campaign slogan can't fix -- maybe, "Acts like a senator, answers to 'ma'am.'"

This is the argument made over and over again: If the repro rights activists would just stop agitating about the pro-life Dems, we could get majorities, and things would improve for women and men everywhere. I get that argument. Most days, I believe it. And then I wake up to a Democratic majority that will only pass progressive healthcare legislation if it includes antiabortion provisions. 

These trade-offs build on each other. Stupak did not happen in a vacuum. It's part of a larger cycle. Is this the moment to stand up and say "no"? How could I say it is, especially when I am all too aware that if pro-choice Democrats were to revolt over this issue, they would be vilified and further alienated from a party that already allows the erosion of reproductive rights? We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure. It's not exactly a bright set of options for anyone who has gotten into this quandary simply because they fervently believe that the rights of half the population to control its own reproduction are fundamental to full and equal participation in our democracy.

The problem is, there is never a good time to stand up and say "no," because the fear is always that we'll lose whatever ground we've gained. As I wrote recently (shortly before Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23 race), "That's what's really at the heart of this dust-up: Whether it's more important to stand for something and lose or compromise and win -- when 'winning' means installing someone who [as Kos put it] 'would strengthen the part of the Democratic caucus that is actually the problem, rather than the solution.'" In that case, the candidate with a 100 percent pro-choice voting record dropped out, and the Democrat with a much weaker record of supporting reproductive rights won. I'm supposed to see this as a victory, because a Democrat now holds the seat -- just as I'm supposed to see it as a victory that the healthcare reform bill passed the house, and never mind that little part that restricts access to abortion in unprecedented ways.

If feminists are upset that such "victories" keep coming at the expense of reproductive rights, well, that's because we just don't understand politics beyond our silly single issue! We need to listen to the reasonable, objective pragmatists who don't get all hysterical and fluttery over negotiable details like healthcare for half the population. Jill at Feministe, Ann at Feministing, and Pilgrim Soul at The Pursuit of Harpyness, among others, all reported in their respective Stupak rants that they've been harangued by men about how this isn't such a big deal, it won't screw women over any differently than the Hyde Amendment has been screwing us over since 1976, it will be stripped out before the final bill anyway, and even if it's not, the stakes are just too high to risk taking a stand for women's rights! Don't you want poor people to have insurance, you selfish bitches? Such men assume that somehow, we just don't get it, because if we did, we'd shut our big mouths already. As Jill put it on Sunday, "What's really chapping my hide today -- almost as much as the amendment itself -- is the number of 'progressive' dudes who have lectured me in the past 24 hours on How This All Works, and the number of progressive dudes who have just stayed silent."

One who hasn't, bless him, is Meteor Blades, writing at Daily Kos.

"Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Overreacting." "Hysterical."

Women recognize these words all too well. They're put-downs many of them have had thrown at them all their lives anytime they raise issues about their treatment in relationships, school, the workplace or society at large.

These words and others of similar ilk have found their way into diaries and comments here at Daily Kos yesterday and today around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Calm down, little lady, is the tone. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works?

Pffffffft.

Pffffffft, indeed. Because there is another side to How This All Works, which the "Just get a Democratic majority, and everything automatically improves!" camp tends to ignore: Eventually, after we've elected enough Democrats willing to trade away women's rights -- like the 64 who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment -- women will get pissed off and draw the line. And that might just be happening as we speak.

Representatives Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter, co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, have already secured over 40 signatures on a letter to Nancy Pelosi, promising, "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law." That's enough to block it, if it gets that far. But it might not (even though, like Ann, I'm not yet holding my breath). California Sen.  Barbara Boxer is already saying, yeah, good luck getting that through the Senate -- which "is much more pro-choice than the House" -- and as Sam Stein at the Huffington Post says, "Boxer's reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a far less pro-choice lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)" Baucus admits, "I doubt it could pass." 

Meanwhile, as Dana Goldstein reports at the Daily Beast, "Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women said Monday they would oppose any final health package that includes the abortion ban, which would apply both to private and public insurance plans. And some pro-choice leaders said they expect other influential women's groups to follow suit, potentially driving a wedge through the coalition that elected President Barack Obama and brought the Democratic Party to majorities in both the House and Senate." Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, told Goldstein, "I believe, frankly, that the women's movement as a whole will go there ... I think everybody is extremely serious about this. It's been a very strong and very quick reaction. It's the feeling that you've been rolled."

Some, including me, would argue that we were rolled with like 35 years of advance warning, but still, like the proverbial frogs in a pot of increasingly hot water, we couldn't muster the motivation to jump. Or not enough of us could, anyway. Writes Meteor Blades:

About five minutes after the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion forces began a war on the rights confirmed by that decision. But their molester-enabling, coathanger-selling, health-shattering, woman-hating, forced-pregnancy campaign was two-pronged, a direct assault but also an asymmetrical war, a nibble here, a nibble there.

And at every step of the way, some people who claimed they were pro-choice said that this little nibble or that little nibble wasn't such a big deal. It only affected a small group of people or it was only the case rarely, we were told. The activists who challenged these nibbles were characterized as "hypersensitive," "irrational," and "over-reacting." Not by their enemies. But by their supposed allies.

Our supposed allies who still keep trying to convince us that one more nibble won't amount to anything much. Only this time, we're not buying it. We are ready to go there. As Smeal told Goldstein, "We didn't want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, 'That's it, it's enough.'" And it's not just the women -- or just the staunchest pro-choicers -- who are fed up with Democrats who act exactly like Republicans did before their party moved so far right it landed on a different planet. Kos himself (who's taken plenty of criticism over the years, including some from me quite recently, for exhorting women to ignore the nibbles for the greater good), is reminding people today that donations to the DCCC will support Democrats who "voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment," as well as anti-healthcare reform ones. Moveon.org is also going after Democrats who voted against the bill. And gay rights activists have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign, encouraging progressives "to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends." Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It's an exciting moment, and there's a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn't lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our "single issues" and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words "Democratic majority" sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

So the wise, objective, pragmatic mansplainers can go ahead and tell us little ladies How This All Works one more time, but now we're telling you: We've not only heard it, we've tried it. We've tried electing "moderate" Democrats who would be obvious conservatives in any era marked less by far-right lunacy. We've tried compromising our values in hopes of taking baby steps forward. We've tried sacrificing the rights of women and every minority group under the sun, so as not to look unreasonable or oversensitive to those who resent having to share this country at all with people they find undesirable. And we've seen where it leads: "We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure."

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us? 

As of Wednesday, the album will be restricted to under-the-counter sale to those over 18 (presumably this was already the case for the special edition box set, which comes with six hot-pink dildos modeled after each of the band members' members). The band recently sparked controversy with a NSFW music video for the single "Pussy" (sample lyrics: "you have a pussy, I have a dick-ah"), which climaxes with a montage of the band members, or body doubles, having explicit porno sex. But government officials reportedly made the decision to censor the album based on the cover artwork and the sadomasochistic single "Ich tue Dir Weh" ("I Want to Hurt You"), which features the lyrics "bites, kicks, heavy blows, nails, pincers, blunt saws -- tell me what you want." (Kudos for the hint of female consent there; it's an improvement, at least, upon the cannibalistic album cover.)

Experiencing déjà vu? Just yesterday, Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote about Marilyn Manson's torture porn music video, which depicts the singer beating to death a woman who is a (literal) dead-ringer for his real-life ex-girlfriend (whom he says he fantasizes about murdering on a daily basis). Aside from a fascination with the idea of killing women, Rammstein has another thing in common with Manson: Both were linked, however dubiously, to the Columbine massacre because the shooters were believed to be fans of their music (although that turned out to not be the case with Manson). In the genre of puerile, unimaginative, attention-seeking rock music, the dead woman motif seems to be experiencing a revival, so to speak. It yanked Manson out of cultural irrelevancy for a fleeting moment of media attention, and last month it helped Rammstein's album hit No. 2  in Europe and No. 13 in the U.S., a groundbreaking success for the band. Apparently dead women don't hurt record sales.

All that said, these are performers whose fame depends on their being believable social outcasts -- we'll have serious reason to worry when violence against women loses that edge.