<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Frances Kissling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/frances_kissling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 16:08:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>How to think about abortion</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/17/thinking_about_abortion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/17/thinking_about_abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/11/16/thinking_about_abortion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The audacity of hoping for change]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The midterm elections resulted in significant gains in the antiabortion political delegation: In the House, there are 44 more antiabortion votes and six in the Senate. Blue Dog anti-choice Democrats were also replaced by right-wing Republicans who are not only antiabortion but anti-family planning and far more likely to seek hard-line restrictions on access to abortion, rather than join any effort to make abortion less necessary by supporting better access to family planning.</p><p>For choice advocates it raises the question of whether President Obama&#8217;s efforts to bridge the divide on the issue remain worth pursuing. His call two years ago at Notre Dame for "open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words" on abortion wasn&#8217;t much help in negotiating healthcare reform. The major legislative vehicle for expressing common ground on abortion, the pro-life Tim Ryan and pro-choice Rosa DeLauro bill Preventing Unintended Pregnancy, Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act has never garnered a single Republican co-sponsor -- and with Republicans in control of the House, it's effectively dead. Obama's "common ground" allies were defeated by pro-life Democratic members of Congress and the Catholic bishops. Restrictive state bills continued to be introduced, especially in the wake of healthcare reform. At the White House policy office, interest in finding common ground has come to a halt. A promised common ground strategy paper was never issued.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/11/17/thinking_about_abortion/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/17/thinking_about_abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>148</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pass healthcare reform &#8212; then repeal Hyde!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/repeal_hyde_amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/repeal_hyde_amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//2010/03/21/repeal_hyde_amendment</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Dems and pro-choice groups don't restore public funding for abortion, they won't get another dime of my money]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How ironic to find myself and other advocates of choice announcing that we had <em>no choice</em> but to vote for an historic <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/21/live_healthcare/index.html">health insurance reform bill</a> that expanded restrictions on government support for abortion services. "Choice" took on a whole new meaning today.</p><p>Good things will happen for women and men who have no health coverage as a result of this bill. Not as much as Democrats claim, but it will lead to important changes for women's health and sense of security. It would have been difficult to deny women those benefits, when such a denial would not have yielded any advance on funding for abortion.</p><p>And so the question becomes: What next? For me the answer is simple and straightforward. I will not vote for or provide financial support for any candidate for public office until the Hyde Amendment is repealed. I will not contribute to any pro-choice or women's organization that does not make the repeal of the Hyde Amendment its major political priority.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/repeal_hyde_amendment/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/22/repeal_hyde_amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Congress sells out women</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/09/stupak/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/09/stupak/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/11/09/stupak</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democrats' lust to win at any cost stripped abortion from the healthcare bill. Can pro-choicers put it back?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was just a week ago that I sat in Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro&#8217;s office, along with others in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, to strategize about getting pro-choice people of faith out to make sure that health insurance reform would include private and public options for women who choose abortion. It was a painful discussion. DeLauro, a pro-choice Catholic, is deeply committed to abortion choice as a matter of social justice, but she understood how important even a flawed reform bill would be to providing healthcare for low-income working people.</p><p>At one point I looked at DeLauro and both of us welled up with tears over the dilemma we knew she and others would face. About 20 antiabortion Democrats, mostly Catholics, with the full lobbying power of the Catholic bishops behind them, were very likely to force the inclusion of Rep. Bart Stupak's antiabortion amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the inaptly named House bill. I did not envy the choice DeLauro and others would have to make. I knew the likeliest, and probably the right choice, would be to vote for passage of the bill.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/11/09/stupak/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/09/stupak/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>150</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The pope launches a right-wing affirmative-action program</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/02/catholic_anglican_conversion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/02/catholic_anglican_conversion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/11/01/catholic_anglican_conversion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Benedict wants to beef up the ranks of conservative Catholics. If that means bending the rules, no problem]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pope Benedict XVI has made some Anglicans an offer he thinks they can't refuse. The pope has opened his arms to welcome, en masse, Anglican and Episcopalian priests, bishops and even whole congregations into full communion with the Catholic Church -- so long as they disagree with Anglican decisions to accept women priests and gay bishops. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/europe/21pope.html">The Anglican priests and bishops can even bring their wives and kids with them.</a></p><p>In some ways this is nothing new. The U.S. Roman Catholic Church began reordaining married Episcopal priests in 1981. About 100 married Episcopal priests crossed over into Catholicism. At the time, news reports noted what seemed to be an injustice: Catholic priests who wanted to marry and have children needed to leave the priesthood while these ex-Episcopalians seemed to be getting a pass on the whole celibacy thing because of their conservative theological views. The ex-Episcopalians even had the right to get divorced and remain in the Catholic priesthood; in 1995, Father William Shields became the first married Roman Catholic priest to get divorced. His wife kept the five kids and in the divorce settlement it was agreed that the Roman Catholic Church did not have to pay any support for them.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/11/02/catholic_anglican_conversion/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/02/catholic_anglican_conversion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>64</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Donors should be rewarded for their kidneys</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/organ_trafficking/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/organ_trafficking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/10/25/organ_trafficking</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Millions of people like me need kidneys and there aren't enough. The government should give benefits to live donors]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.N. and the Council of Europe have together issued a new report on the horror of trafficking in human organs. <a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/trafficking/docs/news/OrganTrafficking_%20study.pdf">The report, titled "Trafficking in Organs, Cells and Tissues and Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Removing Organs,"</a> joins a stack of other reports that all repeat the same mantra: The body or its parts cannot be used for financial gain. It echoes the rightful condemnation of the traffickers who use poverty to convince poor people to give kidneys they are not healthy enough to give to some better-off person in exchange for a few thousand dollars. But like the other reports it also infers that the only ethical transplant policy is one exclusively based on altruism, and refuses to so much as explore whether there might be some forms of compensating donors for their generosity that would be ethical and fair.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/organ_trafficking/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/organ_trafficking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is the Vatican, exactly?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/07/vatican_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/07/vatican_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/10/07/vatican</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The pope's UN rep swats away questions about sexual abuse -- and raises questions about the church's special status]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s little doubt that the 2002 sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church brought out the worst in official and some unofficial Catholic circles. Coverups and unconvincing explanations about why pedophile priests were routinely transferred to new parishes where they could continue to abuse children were the order of the day. While the U.S. bishops fairly quickly established a commission and put in place policies to prevent future abuse, they pretty much continued to claim innocence as more and more dioceses faced lawsuits for the coverups.</p><p>The Vatican was even less nimble. Pope John Paul II came in for heavy criticism for his handling of the scandal and for Vatican policies that used diplomatic immunity as well as orders of secrecy to suppress information and limit legal exposure. For John Paul II being pope seemed to mean never having to say you are sorry.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/07/vatican_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/07/vatican_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>81</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contraception fights global warming</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/29/climate_change/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/29/climate_change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birth Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/09/29/climate_change</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Want to combat climate change? Use birth control. Family planning is a green technology]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recent research has demonstrated that among the many strategies that need to be brought to bear to reduce global warming, one of the most humane and cost-effective would be meeting the global need for contraception. Two hundred million women worldwide are without it as they try to prevent becoming pregnant.</p><p>But if President Obama tries to include family planning in any attempts to address climate change, he's likely to face another thorny battle with the religious activists who supported his election. Religious leaders, even evangelicals, have jumped on the climate-control bandwagon but remain at best unwilling to admit the important role that family planning could play in achieving a smaller human footprint on the environment. At worst, they are actively opposed to expanding contraceptive possibilities for women in the developing world.</p><p>A study by Thomas Wire of the London School of Economics, "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost," commissioned by the U.K.'s Optimum Population Trust, demonstrates the impact that improved access to birth control could have on the planet:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/09/29/climate_change/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/29/climate_change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Catholic sex prayer &#8212; but where&#8217;s the sex?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/22/catholic_sex/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/22/catholic_sex/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coupling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2009/09/22/catholic_sex</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Church's booklet for married spouses replaces excitement and intimacy with sack cloth and ashes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A British publishing house has created a stir with a new book. No, not the latest teen vampire saga or bestseller of intellectual derring-do; this hot commodity is the <a href="http://www.cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_D714.html">Prayer Book for Spouses</a>. The 64-page booklet from the Catholic Truth Society (CTS) contains prayers about pregnancy, about caring for children and elderly parents. The prayer getting all the attention, however, is about sex. It is the prayer married couples are advised to say &#8220;before making love.&#8221;</p><p>It's hard not to detect a note of skepticism and confusion in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6125188/Say-a-prayer-before-sex.html">media reports</a>, as though the prayer is something akin to Scientologists using e-meters to uncover childhood secrets. "The Roman Catholic Church encourages couples to pray before sex to remind themselves that intercourse is a selfless act not driven by hedonism," reads a caption in <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210519/Never-mind-pillow-talk-couples-told-Roman-Catholic-church-PRAY-sex.html#ixzz0RpwSHjOb">London's Daily Mail</a>, which illustrates&#160; the story with a cutesy photo of a couple kneeling by a white bed. Those crazy Catholics -- what will they think of next?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/09/22/catholic_sex/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/22/catholic_sex/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>100</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exploiting the healthcare debate to restrict abortion</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/14/abortion_24/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/14/abortion_24/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/09/14/abortion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some religious leaders are pushing Obama for more limits on federal abortion funding]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was discouraging to hear Barack Obama, the man I supported for president, announce so resolutely during his speech to Congress last week that "under our [healthcare] plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion." It was infuriating, however, that before the morning cock could crow following the speech Jim Wallis of the antiabortion organization Sojourners was claiming that the president's remarks on abortion were just what "a broad coalition of the faith community had asked for -- no federal funding for abortions."</p><p>I had been prepared for Obama to close the door on a healthcare reform package that would include funding abortions for women who rely on Medicaid for health coverage. Low-income women already lost that right 30 years ago when the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment. I believe a principled compromise to maintain the status quo on abortion is justified if it gets us better healthcare for millions of men and women and security from the rapaciousness of the insurance industry. And no pro-choice organization wants to bear the responsibility for healthcare reform failing. And so, tacitly, pro-choice leaders have basically accepted that the Hyde Amendment restrictions, as well as those that deny federal workers, women in the military and women who get healthcare on Indian reservations funding for abortion, would be reflected in the healthcare package.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/09/14/abortion_24/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/14/abortion_24/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why don&#8217;t Catholic bishops care about healthcare?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/24/healthcare_29/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/24/healthcare_29/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/08/24/healthcare</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Catholic leaders lobby against abortion and euthanasia, but where's their activism on that other "life" issue?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We Catholics believe in two kinds of sin -- sins of commission and sins of omission. On healthcare, church leadership is committing the sin of omission. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is just not working hard enough on behalf of the most important and desperately needed healthcare reform -- the public option.</p><p>For decades the bishops have advocated for universal healthcare -- in fact, for a single-payer system with a strong emphasis on covering the uninsured, the poor and immigrants. The best shot at reform is now. But the bishops are squandering every ounce of moral capital they have, not on the public option, but on ensuring that in any reform bill not one penny of federal funds is used for abortion.</p><p>This strategy has put them in the extremist camp among those opposed to abortion. Moderate evangelicals and antiabortion Catholics bit the bullet on abortion four years ago and decided that other issues like ending wars, reducing global warming, and fighting poverty meant it was time to move on from attempting to outlaw abortion. While one can quibble with their strategy, working to prevent the need for abortion was a step forward from working to make it illegal.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/08/24/healthcare_29/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/24/healthcare_29/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>89</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuns on the run from the truth</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/17/nuns_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/17/nuns_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual abuse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/08/17/nuns</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why won't the leadership of America's nuns meet with the survivors of sexual abuse by nuns, and hear their stories?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"This past week, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents 95 percent of the orders of Catholic sisters in the U.S., held its annual meeting in New Orleans. The main topic on the agenda was the Vatican's current investigation of the doctrinal deviations they believe may be rampant among the sisters who were freed of strict control in dress and living arrangements following the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm">Second Vatican Council</a> in the early 1960s.</p><p>Nuns, it seems, are no longer as obedient as the Vatican would like. One sister I know is a clinic escort at her local reproductive health clinic; others are active in gay and lesbian ministries and one, close to 90, has been a leader in the movement for sex worker rights. They fasted for the Equal Rights Amendment, spoke out in favor of women priests and choice, marched with Martin Luther King, and thought John Paul II was a disaster.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/08/17/nuns_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/17/nuns_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>83</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Men behaving badly aren&#8217;t funny anymore</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/10/washington_post_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/10/washington_post_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/08/10/washington_post</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The quick demise of the Washington Post's silly "Mouthpiece Theater" shows there's less tolerance for media sexism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The curtain went down this past week on "Mouthpiece Theater," a tacky experiment in political parody that made its video debut on the Washington Post Web site early this summer. The immediate lesson was perhaps, as one colleague put it, that it is not easy to turn grey ladies into colorful and funny young men.&#160;</p><p>In an attempt to out trope the "Saturday Night Live" send-up of Masterpiece Theatre, the Post turned loose two popular political reporters, Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza. The two sat side by side in sleazy smoking jackets and had at us. As you might expect, about half the material focused on schoolboy preoccupations with sex. A White House luau provided the opportunity to put Nancy Pelosi in a coconut shell bikini top; it was suggested that Harry Reid needs to have an affair; Arlen Specter&#8217;s sex appeal was dissected and Mark Sanford and John Ensign were pilloried. It was all too stupid for words.&#160;</p><p>The fact that neither man nor the Washington Post were embarrassed by such silliness is a sign of the desperation newspapers feel as they fail to compete with or understand new media and the "Hardball" or "Morning Joe" mentality of cable TV.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/08/10/washington_post_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/10/washington_post_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sometimes abortion is the better choice</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/03/abortion_23/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/03/abortion_23/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birth Control]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/08/03/abortion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should the U.S. government really be in the business of encouraging women to have babies?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#160;The Chinese coerce abortions, bulldozing houses when the family violates the one-child policy and arresting lawyers who defend women. The Romanians used to coerce pregnancy and ended up with lots of developmentally challenged children in orphanages. Iran has swung both ways, forbidding abortion when it needed soldiers and legalizing it when the economy got tough. Such heavy-handed policies are unlikely in the U.S. Almost all of us probably agree that women should not be forced to have children or forced to have abortions, whether the goal is meeting military quotas or saving the planet or obeying someone else's moral code. It tramples human rights. But should we be applying any pressure at all in one direction or the other? Is a nudge too much? And if we should nudge, is nudging them toward pregnancy a good idea?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/08/03/abortion_23/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/08/03/abortion_23/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>111</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The feds should fund abortion</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/27/healthcare_23/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/27/healthcare_23/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/07/27/healthcare</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Signs point to a healthcare plan that would continue to deny federal money for abortions. That would be a mistake]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was Oct. 3, 1977, when the first reported death from the cutoff of federal funds for abortion known as the Hyde Amendment occurred. Rosie Jimenez, a single mother and college student in the border town of McAllen, Texas, had sought an abortion from her gynecologist. The gynecologist turned her down because Medicaid would no longer pay for abortions. Rosie went to an unlicensed midwife instead, who for $120 inserted a catheter in her uterus and sent her home.</p><p>Fever, nausea, cramps and bleeding resulted and 12 hours later Rosie was admitted to the hospital in septic shock. She denied having an abortion, but the evidence was clear. Seven days later she died -- bleeding from every orifice in her body and green from gas gangrene, according to her friends.</p><p>I thought about Rosie as I read a letter sent in late June to Speaker Nancy Pelosi by 19 "pro-life" House Democrats affiliated with the organization <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/01/conservative-democrat%20s-warn-against-funding-abortion-in-healthcare-reform.html">Democrats for Life in America</a>. Led by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., the representatives laid down the first major antiabortion challenge to healthcare reform, saying that "Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly, are unacceptable." They warned Pelosi "we cannot support any healthcare reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/27/healthcare_23/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/27/healthcare_23/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How&#8217;s that &#8220;common ground&#8221; going?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/23/delauro_ryan_bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/23/delauro_ryan_bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bolivia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valentines Day]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//feature/2009/07/23/delauro_ryan_bill</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new bill on abortion reduction shows serious strain -- but also progress]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After four years of behind-the-scenes negotiating, pro-choice groups turned out in full force for the introduction of the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, the odd-couple legislation whose lead sponsors are pro-choice Rosa DeLauro and pro-life Tim Ryan. At a Capitol Hill press conference this morning, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Religious Coalition stood in close proximity to mega-church pastor Joel Hunter. The bill is bound to get good media coverage, as it fits nicely with the president&#8217;s &#8220;can&#8217;t we all get along&#8221; plea for common ground on abortion.</p><p>Apparently everyone could not get along, and the task of lining up supporters for the bill, which was led by the pro-choice Third Way Democratic think tank&#8217;s culture program director Rachel Laser, was a bruising experience. Pro-lifers were disappointed that contraception was included. Pro-choicers were concerned the language of the bill sent an &#8220;abortion is bad" message. It was a bitter pill for both sides to swallow, though, so far, no one has choked.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/23/delauro_ryan_bill/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/23/delauro_ryan_bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s wrong with the new pro-lifers</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/20/abortion_20/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/20/abortion_20/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/07/20/abortion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The progressive anti-abortion movement still doesn't truly value the life and identity of the mother]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Each side in the abortion debate has its Achilles' heel. For advocates of choice it's the fetus; those opposed to abortion suffer from a cavalier attitude toward the woman who carries the fetus.</p><p>Amid proclamations that common ground has been reached on abortion, a new set of anti-abortion actors has claimed leadership of the movement. They are no longer ultra-fundamentalist Catholics and Evangelicals but anti-war, anti-capital punishment, pro-environment "pro-lifers." Single-issue anti-abortionists thought they diluted the message by claiming abortion and war were equal horrors and other progressives and Democrats thought they were, well, anti-abortionists. But some of them are also opposed to discrimination against women and call themselves feminists.</p><p>Before Obama they were voices crying in the wilderness. Now they have emerged as the face of a new and improved anti-abortion movement. And it <em>is</em> improved -- there are few in this crowd who rate abortion issue as the most important moral issue of our time, and they are not single-issue voters. If they were, they would not have supported Obama.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/20/abortion_20/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/20/abortion_20/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>220</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jimmy Carter: How religion subjugates women</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/16/jimmy_carter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/16/jimmy_carter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//feature/2009/07/16/jimmy_carter</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The former president speaks out against doctrine used to promote misogyny and abuse. Are you listening, Obama?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/12/jimmy-carter-womens-rights-equality">The Words of God Do Not Justify Cruelty to Women</a>": That's the title of an Op-Ed that ran in the U.K. Observer earlier this week. It wasn't written by a feminist theologian like Karen Armstrong or one of the women on President Obama's faith-based council -- but by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.</p><p>In the article, Carter explains his painful decision to split with the Southern Baptist Church "when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be 'subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/16/jimmy_carter/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/16/jimmy_carter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>58</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Regina Benjamin too fat to be surgeon general?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/15/regina_benjamin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/15/regina_benjamin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//feature/2009/07/15/regina_benjamin</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, having a woman who is above-average weight as America's family doctor is a good thing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By all accounts <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_Benjamin">Surgeon General nominee Dr. Regina Benjamin</a> is an extraordinary woman. She is an African-American family doctor who has spent most of her professional life serving the people of Bayou La Batre, a poor rural Alabama coastal community. She makes house calls, pays for patients' medicines, works for free when there is no money. She's had heaps of honors poured on her head , including a MacArthur genius award. She rebuilt her clinic twice, once following Hurricane Katrina and then a year later when it was destroyed by a fire.</p><p>She is an active Catholic and, if her office nurse is to be believed, she is one of the more than 90 percent of Catholics who have no problem with birth control. (I have rarely met a devout Catholic working with poor people who is not an advocate of safe and effective contraception -- from nuns in Chile to priests in the Philippines. They get that having children you cannot afford degrades the soul perhaps even more than the body.) This, then, is a near-perfect public face for a president embarking on a controversial last-ditch effort to fix our health care system and serve the poor.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/15/regina_benjamin/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/07/15/regina_benjamin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>118</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should women get money for donating eggs?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/26/egg_payment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/26/egg_payment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//feature/2009/06/26/egg_payment</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The debate rages on, as New York becomes the first state to pay for the procedure in stem-cell research]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Empire State Stem Cell Board has announced it will <a href="http://%20http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/nyregion/26stemcell.html?ref=nyregion">allow researchers to pay women up to $10,000 for providing eggs</a> for use in stem-cell research. The fee is similar to the amount paid to women who provide eggs for use in infertility treatment. New York is the first state to authorize such payments, a policy discouraged by the National Academy of Sciences. The board was motivated to go against prevailing political opinion by a simple fact: women are not stepping forward to give their eggs without compensation. Researcher Kevin Eggan at Harvard spent two years and $100,000 on advertising and received only one egg donation.</p><p>Why should women give their eggs to Harvard for free? Men have been getting paid for giving sperm for years, and egg donation is far more involved and carries greater risk. Egg retrieval usually involves three weeks of hormone treatment and frequent visits to the doctor for blood and ultrasound. The procedure itself involves using an ultrasound-guided needle to remove the mature eggs. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine estimates the whole process will require about 56 hours of a woman&#8217;s time. While researchers agree that not enough is known about its risks, what is known shows low complication rates.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/06/26/egg_payment/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/26/egg_payment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can we ever say a woman can&#8217;t choose?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/21/choice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/21/choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/06/21/choice</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's hard for pro-choicers to admit sometimes a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose abortion -- but we have to ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About 15 years ago I was on an ethics panel at a Planned Parenthood annual meeting. The format was the old Fred Friendly case study discussion: The moderator lays out a tough ethics case and then asks members of the panel what they would do if they were -- in Planned Parenthood's case -- the doctor, nurse, patient, clinic director, lawyer, whoever.</p><p>In one scenario I was the doctor and was asked if I would perform an abortion for a couple -- perfectly ordinary middle-class people -- who had a son and wanted a daughter to round out the family. The woman was pregnant with another boy. I said I wouldn't do it and I thought Planned Parenthood policy should preclude such abortions but be open to referring women to providers whose values may be more in sync with the patient's. I also suggested that institutions as well as individuals have values, and that those of us in leadership positions on reproductive rights had an obligation to let the public know what our values were &#8211; in all their complexity.</p><p>&#160;Just because something is legal -- and should be legal -- does not mean it is always ethical. And sometimes the right thing to say to a woman is "I am so sorry, I cannot do what you ask."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/06/21/choice/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/21/choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>394</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

