The Automatik

I was just tipped off by a friend on the Internet to this article from Cristina Page on an alleged proposal by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define contraception as abortion.

(Note: For some background on why contraception might be considered abortion, please see my May 7 piece called “Women Are Soldiers In The Misogyny Army.” )

I worked with HHS for eight years and spent a lot of time reading and interpreting regulations, so I wanted to see the source data for this article. It was not linked in Ms. Page’s post, so I did some digging.

A Google search for “HHS Contraception Abortion” yielded several pages of results, most of which were boilerplated from Ms. Page’s article.

However, this one, from Reproductive Health Reality Check, provides a link to a PDF of the leaked HHS document. Here is the linked PDF.

Please note that this document doesn’t have a title or a designated section in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). It also bears the text “Draft” and “This is a confidential, deliberative, pre-decisional document and does not necessarily affect current policy efforts or plans. For official use only.”

So what is the Code of Federal Regulations anyway?

From the United States Laws and Legislation Guide:

What’s the difference between the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)?

As you’ve discovered, a few words are used in several different publications. However, with respect to legal issues, “code” refers to a set of currently valid law or regulations arranged by subject. The U.S. Code contains laws - what you’re supposed to do - and the CFR contains regulations - how you’re supposed to do it.

Every regulation in the CFR has to have an “enabling statute” or “statutory authority”. Despite the way it might seem sometimes, agencies cannot just create regulations because they feel like it - there must be a law in force that requires the regulation. That law is the enabling statute. Only after an enabling statute has been created can a regulation be developed.

Therefore, the U.S. Code and the CFR represent different kinds of law and different stages in the legislative process, with the U.S. Code preceeding the CFR.

Please note that because this proposal document does not have any USC or CFR sections listed in it, it means it is in its infancy (pardon the pun) and may not even ever come to light.

According to this article in the New York Times, this proposal circulated in HHS on Monday July 15.

Christina Pearson, a spokeswoman for the department, declined to discuss the draft. “We don’t normally comment on whether we are considering changes in regulations,” she said.

Despite the fact that this is NOT official legislation at this time, I feel that it is very important to keep an eye on this. Unfortunately, without a designated section in the USC or CFR, there isn’t a way to find it.

However, if you ever want to look things up on the CFR, you can go here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/INDEX.HTML

Title 45 CFR, Public Welfare can be found here:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200745 It covers the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) General Administration, as you can see.

The “Church Amendments” referred to in the PDF of the proposal are at 42 USC (United States Code) 300a - 7. The USC page is here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/

I found this Cornell Law Site by Googling “42 USC 300a.”

Here you can see that it’s actually Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter VII, which can be found on the USC page here:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter6a_subchapterviii_.html

Hopefully this will be helpful in looking up this data when monitoring this proposed document.

In the meantime, please contact your insurance providers and health care providers to let them know how you feel about this.

Planned Parenthood is also on the case. If you go to their site, you can see more about this proposal and how to express your feelings on it.

Today’s Yahoo! Canada headline:

Dos and Don’ts of Summer Office Wardrobe

If your boss gazes at your cleavage, it’s a problem with your boss, NOT your cleavage. Once again, it’s OUR fault for having breasts which tempt men into sin.

And lest you think I’m overreacting, the opening paragraph of this article is directed solely at women and their clothing.
Read more

I moved into a new place about a week ago so things around here have been a bit of a mess.

That is the excuse I am giving as to why I didn’t find out about this amazing event until today.

The ignorance in this would be laughable if it weren’t so staggering.

Let’s be clear: these people aren’t protesting against RU-486, also known as “the morning after pill” or chemically-induced abortions.

They are protesting against birth control pills because they kill babies. So what is it that birth control pills do exactly?
Read more

From This Pop Life:

“The Oppression Olympics” refers to the idea that somehow, you can deny someone their suffering in order to posit your own. People who play the Oppression Olympics get so hung up on their own entitlement to being the Chosen Ones of Fucked Up History that they’re defensive that anyone else would try to lay claim to that legacy, even in what is clearly a show of solidarity.

Or as someone on the LiveJournal community Debunking White put it: “the I’m-oppressed-so-you-can’t-be game.”

Graphic by Bint Alshamsa from her blog
Click on the graphic for a larger version.

Forget the Beijing Olympics and tune in instead to this year’s Democratic Presidential Nomination Badwill Games.

Gloria Steinem, in a recent debate with Melissa Harris-Lacewell, said the following:

“I think one learns a lot from parallels, and so it would be interesting to try to project what would have happened to Barack Obama in his life if he had been a female human being.”

But in her now-infamous New York Times Op-Ed piece she said that, “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.” She went on to ask why “the sex barrier [is] not taken as seriously as the racial one.” Steinem claims that she is “trying not to choose between race and gender.”

Here’s the thing, Ms. Steinem: you don’t have to.
Read more

Geraldine Ferraro’s recent racist remarks are actually nothing new for her. In 1998, she made similar comments about Jesse Jackson:

“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

And sadly, but again, unsurprisingly, these types of comments are not limited to Ferraro. John Edwards’ wife Elizabeth was quoted in the August 2007 issue of Esquire saying:

“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”

Only someone in complete denial of their own white privilege or the existence of racism would make such preposterous remarks. What is it that white people are not getting? Why is it that we refuse to see, to hear, to believe?

Photo courtesy Jakob Holdt

As a white person, I do not presume to speak for those who have experienced racism. So here are some words from people of color I’ve read recently, although to get the full effect you should read the entirety of each posting:

Jill Tubman, at Jack And Jill Politics writes:

“Being a black woman, I feel I have a perspective that I’d love to share with Geraldine. I’ve gotten few breaks BECAUSE of my race or gender. Instead, I have often received opportunities DESPITE my race (in particular) or gender.”

Resistance, at Resist Racism writes:

I’ve gotten into this argument any of a number of times with white people, almost always with the same dispiriting results. A white friend, after being wait-listed for grad school, complained that the selected cohort was 1/4 people of color and how they had taken “her” place. I pointed out that her assumption was predicated on the belief that she was more qualified than any of the students of color and was inherently racist. She didn’t complain about the white students who were admitted before her. She also seemed to have an underlying belief that she was entitled to a spot.

We went round and round on this, and finally I asked her whether or not it was true that I was academically more qualified than she was.

“Yes, but. . . ” she kept saying.

And Tamara K. Nopper writes of her recent experience on a Southwest Airlines flight:

Shortly after sitting down, an older white man sat in the seat next to mine. He then proceeded to spread his legs wide open as if, to quote a wise person I know, “he thought he had balls the size of pumpkins.” In response to the uninvited pressing, I requested room for my legs. The man then proceeded to imperiously point his finger to the floor to emphasize that his feet were within the boundary of his seats. He never addressed the fact that his legs were spread beyond them so as to invade my space and press up against my body. Instead, he said to me, “You’re a big girl.” Talking on my cell phone, I interrupted my conversation to calmly tell the man “Don’t fucking talk to me that way.”

With his right hand, the man reached across himself to grab my left arm. With my arm in his grip, he looked me in the eyes through his glasses and replied, “I’m going to slap you in your mouth.” I freed myself from him and then stood up. I called out to the steward at the front of the plane that I needed assistance since I had just been grabbed by the person sitting next to me. Hurriedly, the man bolted out of his seat, muttering that he would move. As he exited the row he made it a point to emphasize that I had cussed at him, neglecting the fact that he had made the comment that initiated our negative exchange.

I turned around to be met by a young, white woman steward named Crystal G. Webb. When I told her that I had been assaulted by the man who was now making a mad dash for a seat a few rows back, she began to laugh. As she bit her lip, a smirk escaped.

These stories are not isolated incidents. They are but a fraction of the hundreds, thousands, even millions of stories like them from around the world.

Why aren’t we more outraged about this sort of behavior? Why do we refuse to believe that racism is still alive and well?

When mainstream media reports on racism, it’s called “liberal bias.” When independent bloggers report on it, it’s not considered news because it doesn’t come from mainstream media.

What is the mainstream experience then, if it is not the voices of millions telling first hand accounts of the suffering they’ve endured due to racism?

We must see, we must hear, and we must believe.

Another currently hot topic in the realm of racism, is the series of comments made by former Vice Presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton campaign Finance Committee member Geraldine Ferraro.

Image from The Huffington Post

In case you haven’t heard about this, here’s what she said:

“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

In their March 11 follow up story, the Daily Breeze reported Ferraro’s response to the accusations that she was a racist:

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

She defended her remarks on Good Morning America, saying she was “sorry people think it was a racist comment.” She goes on to say she’s been “fighting discrimination for forty years, not just about gender, but about race, and for the disabled, for the elderly, for gays. . .” She tries to say she meant her remarks in a good way, and singles Obama out for being a successful African-American.

She again defended her remarks on NBC’s Nightly News on March 12, saying:

“If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist.”

Despite the fact that she resigned of her own volition, Ferraro thinks she has been prevented from exercising her first amendment rights. She calls the accusations “hurtful” and again mentions how she’s been “fighting against discrimination for forty years.”

Is the new national pastime the Oppression Olympics? Who has it worse: gays or the disabled? Women or African-Americans?

Is this the new face of feminism, one which says, point blank, “Bow down to the woman?”

It’s not just Roseanne Barr, it’s Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong.

Steinem: “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).”

Jong: “If Michelle attacks Hillary, it’s news. If Hillary attacks Michelle — well she can’t because that would be racist. . . If I have to watch another great American woman thrown in the dustbin of history to please the patriarchy, I’ll move to Canada . . . ”

What do all of these women have in common? They are white.

The party line of white privilege is denial, so let’s translate Ferraro’s comments:

Racism is no longer an issue, but sexism against white women is an issue.
If a person of color calls me on my racism, they are being racist against me.
I am sorry if people thought what I said was racist, but I am not sorry for what I said.
I refuse to question my privilege because I am a white woman and therefore exempt due to the fact that I have been the victim of sexism.
I can’t be racist because I have black friends and I have fought against discrimination against women and other marginalized groups.
By calling attention to your own race, you are making race an issue not me.
I was only trying to say that I think it’s great that you people have gotten as far as you have even though you aren’t white.
I am hurt by your accusations of racism and since I am a white woman, my pain is greater than the pain you have suffered at the hands of racist whites.

Let’s be clear and see this for what it is: a giant load of bullshit.

No person of color who calls a white person out on racism should apologize to the white person for thinking the remarks were racist. White people do not get to decide what is or is not racist. We can’t because we are not victims of racism; it is not our call.

Furthermore, there is no trumping of feminism by racism or racism by feminism. Both originate from prejudice plus power, but then veer off in different directions. Sexism is the oppression of women by the patriarchal power structure while racism is the oppression of people of color by the white power structure.

Feminism is not the same as racism and they should never be conflated.

Many white people, and I have been guilty of this myself, try to come up with analogies to address racism, often in an attempt to deny their own. We will create alternate universes where race isn’t used to discriminate but instead substitute things like hair color, eye color, height, or whether or not someone has freckles. And then we will say, “Oh, isn’t that ridiculous? I would never discriminate against someone based on their hair color so why would I do that to a person of color?”

Let me counter with a question: Why on earth would we need to create an alternate universe to deconstruct racism when we already live in a world where people continue to perpetrate oppression based on race?

There are no analogies needed for racism because there are none. No other oppression of any marginalized group is akin to racism because only racism oppresses people on the basis of their race. To create analogies avoids addressing the fact that racism exists.

Period. That’s it. So leave feminism, homophobia, and everything else out of it.

In a development reported in multiple Internet news sites and blogs, “a federal appeals court has struck down a Texas law that makes it a crime to promote or sell sex toys.” (1)

It’s difficult to get one’s head around the idea that any state would consider sex toys a threat, but apparently that is the case. According to Statesman.com:

The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.” (2)

This implies that it is not merely the termination of a pregnancy—abortion—that is construed as murder in Texas. We should also include sperm and eggs as victims of the Great American Holocaust. After all, according to the U.S. Government, I am pre-pregnant, “regardless of whether [I] plan to get pregnant anytime soon.” (3)

Feasibly I could rack up one murder a month per annum; the unfortunate male members of my species will be charged as serial killers.

And the weapon of choice? “[A]n artificial penis or vagina [used] ‘primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs’.” (4) Thankfully, there is always an exception, in this case, “for instances in which the purchase meets a ‘medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement’ need.” (5)

I’m trying to imagine what police officers, lawyers, and judges, might need a sex toy for in the course of their chosen professions, None of the scenarios are anything less than horrifying and all involve the word “rape.”

As for doctors, I suppose they invoking the long-standing tradition of Dr. Freud’s favorite, hysteria, when the woman in question was herself under threat of strangulation by her own uterus (6) and needed the “manual stimulation of the [her] genitals by the doctor to ‘hysterical paroxysm’.” aka orgasm. (7) Now what exactly is a threat here? Oh right. . . sex toys.

It’s not bad enough that one would want to self-pleasure in the privacy of one’s own home; the statute also indicates that, “[a]nyone in possession of six or more sexual devices is considered to be promoting them.” (8) Let the War on Dildoes begin in earnest! (Kids, remember: JUST SAY NO. . . orgasm.)

However, thankfully, a brave soldier in this ongoing battle, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, has recently asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case, yoking masturbation to those old chestnuts, bigamy and incest, (9) the same nasty things that threaten to run rampant in a world where homosexuals are allowed to exist and engage in sexual interaction. (10)

Personally, I’m grateful that Mr. Abbott is so dedicated to this cause because without him, I might try to rise above my station and seek sexual pleasure for its own sake. I’m indebted to him and his brethren for instructing me on what to do with my sexual organs since I honestly had no idea what to use them for! With him around I am reminded that I am after all, a woman, nothing more than a baby-making machine, a vessel who willingly and gratefully accepts the tool of the state.

1. Stephen Kreytak, “Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys,” Statesman.com, February 14, 2008.
2. Ibid.
3. January W. Payne, “Forever Pregnant,” Washingtonpost.com, May 16, 2006.
4. Bonnie Goldstein, “The Texas Dildo Massacre (NSFW)”, Slate.com, March 3, 2008.
5. Ibid.
6. Wikipedia, “Female hysteria.”
7. Ibid.
8. Stephen Kreytak, “Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys,” Statesman.com, February 14, 2008.
9. Bonnie Goldstein, “The Texas Dildo Massacre (NSFW)”, Slate.com, March 3, 2008.
10. Sean Loughlin, “Santorum under fire for comments on homosexuality,” CNN.com, April 22, 2003.

Photocollage by The Automatik

CLICK FOR IMAGE DETAIL