here is a piece of legislation that will never pass--but should:

ANY male legislator who votes in any way to restrict a woman's right to choose must, immediately ater the vote, get a vasectomy. this will ensure that, at least he will not be responsible for forcing a woman to bear his unwanted child. a female legislator must make a contribution equal to the cost of vasectomies to providing contraceptives to the local PP clinic.

let them put their bodies where they are forcing us to put ours.

(when asked my party affiliation, this is always my answer)

we know the repukes don't give a damn about women's rights, and we have had clear evidence again this weekend that we cannot count on the dems either. so, is it time to resurrect the national women's party, or something similar? and, what should be the platform?

here are my first ones:

ratification of ERA (for which we have been waiting since 1923)
wage parity
end the iraq and afghanistan occupations
universal health care


a brief history of the National Women's Party:



NWP members picket the White House in 1917, the banner reads, "Mr. President How Long Must Women Wait For Liberty."The National Woman's Party (NWP), was a women's organization founded in 1916 that fought for women's rights during the early 20th century in the United States, particularly for the right to vote on the same terms as men. In contrast to other organizations, such as the National American Woman Suffrage Association, which focused on lobbying individual states and from which the NWP split, the NWP put its priority on the passage of a constitutional amendment ensuring women's suffrage. Alice Paul and Lucy Burns founded the organization originally under the name the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage in 1913; by 1917, the name had been changed to the National Women's Party.

During the group's first meeting, Paul clarified that the party would not be a political party and therefore would not name a candidate for United States president during elections. While non-partisan, the NWP directed much of its fire at President Woodrow Wilson when criticizing those responsible for the social situation in which women of the era lived. The National Woman's Party also opposed World War I.

Women associated with the party staged a suffrage parade on March 3, 1913, the day before Wilson's inauguration; they also became the first women to picket for women's rights in front of the White House. The picketers were tolerated until 1917, but when they continued to picket after the United States declared war in World War One, they were arrested by police for "obstructing traffic". Many of the NWP's members, upon arrest, went on hunger strikes; some, including Paul, were force-fed by jail personnel as a consequence. The resulting scandal and its negative impact on the country's international reputation at a time when Wilson was trying to build a reputation for himself and the nation as an international leader in human rights may have contributed to Wilson's decision to publicly call for the United States Congress to pass the Suffrage Amendment.

After the ratification of the Nineteenth amendment in 1920, the NWP turned its attention to eliminating other forms of gender discrimination, principally by advocating passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, which Paul drafted in 1923. The organization regrouped and published the magazine Equal Rights. The publication was directed mostly towards women but also intended to educate men about the benefits of women's suffrage, women's rights and other issues concerning American women.

Over the next several decades, the National Women's Party authored over 600 pieces of legislation fighting for women's equality; over 300 of these were passed. In addition, the NWP continued to lobby for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. In 1997, the NWP ceased to be a lobbying organization. Instead, it turned its focus to education and to preserving its collection of first hand source documents from the women's suffrage movement. The NWP continues to function as an educational organization and museum.

http://www.answers.com/topic/national-woma...

by the way, for those of you in the DC area--the Sewall-Belmont House is the museum of the NWP--Alice Paul's residence. it is also part of the women's history walking tour.

The Sewall-Belmont House & Museum will be hosting the 2nd Annual Holiday Bazaar

Thursday, December 3, 2009

4pm-8pm

Join us for a wine and cheese reception, live entertainment, and shopping.

Stay tuned for more details!



The Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, on Capitol Hill, explores the evolving role of women and their contributions to society through the continuing, and often untold, story of women's pursuit for equality.
The museum is the headquarters of the historic National Woman's Party and was the Washington home of its founder and Equal Rights Amendment author Alice Paul.

Alice Paul, founder of the National Woman's Party, dedicated her life to securing equal rights for women. The political strategies and techniques of Alice Paul and the NWP became the blueprint for civil rights organizations during the twentieth century. Paul is known internationally as a humanitarian; she was a great revolutionary and pioneer in the fight for women's equal rights.
http://www.sewallbelmont.org /

the cosmetics industry, and the whole mental health field, in addition to fashion. let's see--a size 10 is considered a "plus" size. seriously screwed up here. marilyn monroe wore a 14.

and think about this--keeping women's attention focused on the never-to-be-achieved "perfection" of the models keeps them too broke,too insecure, and too busy, to notice their general second-class status in society.

I am telling you, here and now, that you can all go to ****. Individual mandate? FINES for not buying your overpriced, underserviced pieces of bs? I know who and what you think you are, just like I know what the congressional reps you have purchased are, and may you be damned for it.

I will NOT purchase your worthless policies, no matter what penalties you get your little toadies in congress to pass. not now, not ever. you are holding us hostage, you are KILLING us, and I will not, now or ever, help you pretend that you are doing anything else. You are thieves of a like we never even saw in the robber barons (and we at least got libraries and things out of them). No conscience, no soul, not one iota of humanity in the lot of you. Hey, when I get put in jail, at least I will have health care, yes?

watched the last four elections stolen on all levels, watched our country being slowly destroyed . "GET OVER IT"

well, I never got over it, and will never forget how the reichwingnuts stole our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour. to them, as they lick their wounds and whine about how pres-elect obama better not act as if he has a mandate, I say "GET OVER IT"

last week we used the "t" word when talking about wrinkle's claim that he knows where osama bin forgotten is.

most of us assume that he is lying through his teeth, of course. but, if he is lying, I see two very dangerous scenarios, (and, since I haven't been near a computer, you all might have already discussed this) First, if he is deliberately lying, his contempt for the american people is grave indeed, and makes me wonder just what else he would lie about, especially in office. Second, if he doesn't actually know he is lying, but is delusional, his mind has gone even further than I thought. In neither case should he be allowed near the people's house--the ONLY house he should have is one with nice, quiet, padded rooms.

of a woman at a gallery opening I attended the other night (thank goodness I was on my way to get a glass of wine). She wasn't talking to me, but I stopped, and said, "for openers, he is an adulterer, a liar, and a panderer. want more?" she stormed off.

just prior to that, I had encountered another group, who were discussing the lawless protestors and the horrible left-wing blogs besmirching caribou barbie. I walked up and said, "so, you have no problem with a candidate who is under investigation for ethics violations? " "it's all a lie, the left-wing is out to get her", "uh, no, the investigation was started by her own party, and it's called abuse of power. oh, and by the way, I am so glad to know that you approve of storm troopers on our own streets" the older man practically screamed at me, "you are uninformed" I replied, NO, YOU are uninformed, and that is sad"

after that, I poured a very LARGE glass of wine.

A bitter pill in election season

By CRISTINA PAGE


At all levels, anti-abortion groups are trying to undermine contraception of any kind.
The Centers for Disease Control is not the first place one looks to for ideas on conflict resolution. But with one issue that has divided America, it should be.

A recent CDC study revealed that between 1990 and 2004 teenage abortion rates plummeted by 50 percent in the U.S. The researchers suggest one common-sense policy approach is most responsible: access to contraception.

As political campaigns around the country take very different stands on the abortion issue, there is no question that this argument will intensify. And the stakes couldn't be higher. The next president, if history is any measure, is likely to appoint two Supreme Court justices. Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide, currently stands by one vote. The next election will likely decide whether Roe v Wade remains the law of the land.

Against this political backdrop, another, potentially more important, reproductive rights conflict may get lost. In fact, the issue many candidates don't want voters to think about is not abortion, but contraception, and the media hasn't called them on it.

Access to contraception is the only proven way to reduce unwanted pregnancy rates. It's no wonder that Americans on both sides of the abortion debate overwhelmingly support contraception. Yet few know that more and more candidates vying for their vote don't. Across the states, anti-abortion organizations have added anti-contraception activities to their agenda and expect those they help elect to office to join in these efforts. Since this issue isn't on most voters' radar, most complacently comply.

. . . . .


http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid...

all by itself. until just a week or so ago, however, I had not seen the video of the whole incident, which, immediately after this embrace, shows georgie actually kissing grumpy. THAT, I think, ought to be shown side-by-side with the embrace. the whole thing is creepy, sleazy, and just plain makes my skin crawl.

even the NYT gets it:

Editorial
It’s About the White House


Like many Americans, we have been intrigued and often exasperated by the long-running Democratic primary and the ever smaller-bore spats between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So we are thankful to Senator John McCain for reminding us Tuesday what this year’s presidential race really is about.



On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his judicial philosophy. He is determined to move a far too conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary even further and more actively to the right.

Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need.

Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school integration, protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers, and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.

Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what “the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of America.” (He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea that values evolve over time.)

. . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/...

I just caught something about this on tv last night--what an amazing group, and what an amazing rebuild--my hat is off to these forward-thinking citizens (would that the people in my community were this committed)

Greensburg: Greenest Town in America
By Eric Mack
Greensburg, Kansas
29 February 2008

Mack report - Download (MP3) audio clip
Mack report - Listen (MP3) audio clip

On May 4, 2007 a gigantic tornado measuring more than 2.5 kilometers wide with winds over 325 kilometers per hour destroyed almost all of Greensburg in southern Kansas, leaving the small town's 1500 residents devastated and wondering what to do next. They came up with a revolutionary idea. Reporter Eric Mack visited the town nine months after the tornado to learn more about the plan to remake Greensburg as the 'greenest town in America.'

All that's left of most homes is a crumbling foundation
All that's left of most homes is a crumbling foundation
Greensburg looks like it was hit by a bomb. The streets are lined with empty foundations. A set of steps leads to where a house once was, but there's nothing there. Trees are just stumps, with no branches on them. All the residents have been relocated to rows of emergency government trailers on the far side of town.

Greensburg City Manager Steve Hewitt recalls the week after the storm, when he had a number of conversations with officials about how to rebuild. " 'This is the opportunity now to make this town the way it needs to be. We can start fresh - new buildings, new parks. We can do everything like we never could before.'" When Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius visited in the wake of the tornado, she said 'going green' was perfect for a town called Greensburg.


So Hewitt and other city leaders decided to seize the opportunity and rebuild Greensburg as a model green community: energy-efficient, low carbon-emitting, sustainable, and powered, at least in part, by the forces of nature that once reduced it to rubble.

. . . . . .

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/200...

Women's Vote Gives Clinton Pennsylvania Win


By Allison Stevens
Washington Bureau Chief



WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--Women helped Sen. Hillary Clinton knock out another must-win victory Tuesday night in Pennsylvania's presidential primary, giving her enough political--if not financial--fuel to keep her campaign running through the remaining nine Democratic contests through June 3.

Clinton was beating Sen. Barack Obama 55 percent to 45 percent with 94 percent of the vote counted, according to CNN.

"We all knew Pennsylvania was either going to be the semi-finals or the finals of the game," said Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York and a vocal Clinton supporter. "So the game goes on."

. . . . . . .

"White women voted for Hillary Clinton and they voted for her by a pretty solid margin," said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider.

Women went to the polls in much higher numbers than men, according to CNN exit polls. Nearly 60 percent of the electorate was female, 41 percent male.

Women flocked to Clinton out of a desire to support a female presidential candidate and because they responded to her populist economic message, according Ellie Smeal, a prominent Clinton supporter and president of the Feminist Majority Foundation in Arlington, Va.
. . . . . . . .


A female backlash against gender bias in the media also drove women to Clinton, Smeal said. "The women are so angry over the treatment of Clinton and are feeling it has been just abysmal and that it has been so sexist."

. . . . .

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn...

of checking out my local reichwing hate rag, or having to pay for it, and also spared me polluting my computer having to check out that other site.

A Women's Questionnaire for Democratic Candidates
Run Date: 04/18/08
By WeNews Staff

Through the Democratic primaries, women have been divided between supporting Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Women's eNews readers, correspondents and editors submitted questions they'd like to ask the candidates to help decide how to vote.

Obama and Clinton

(WOMENSENEWS)--Women's individual life journeys refract our view of what constitutes "women's issues." As a voting bloc, women will determine who will be the next president. Women usually vote in higher numbers than their male counterparts--in the 2004 election, women were 60 percent of voter turnout--and to date, record numbers of women of all ages have voted in the primaries.

Breadwinners might dwell on the unmet need for high-quality affordable child care. Caregivers might talk about their social contributions being undervalued and having no safety net. Women in every walk of life who are not safe at home might focus on the failure of the legal system to offer better protection.


Power of the Women's Vote Forum, Bryn Mawr College
April 20, 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
Power of the Women's Vote Forum - Bryn Mawr College, Thomas Great Hall

WVPA is proud to co-sponsor this event. Speakers participating in the forum include: Liz Abzug, Founder of the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute for Disadvantaged Women; Judge Ann Butchart, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; Joanne Epps, Professor of Law, Temple University; Risa Vetri Ferman, District Attorney, Ontgomery County Rita Henley Jensen, Foundation andamp; Editor-in-Chief of Women's eNews; Carol Tracy Executive Director, Women's Law Project; Senator Connie Williams, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Lynn Yeakel, Chair of Women's Health andamp; Leadership, Drexel University. Refreshments will be provided. Register by contacting sheila_mcdaid@comcast.net .

How will such concerns be met by the next president?

That's the big question behind all the following queries from readers, staffers and advocates gathered by Women's eNews.

This Sunday, April 20, two days before the Pennsylvania primary, Women's eNews will co-sponsor a nonpartisan forum on the power of the women's vote at Bryn Mawr College, just outside Philadelphia. Editor in chief Rita Henley Jensen will moderate the discussion among a family court judge, a law professor, a district attorney, a former member of Congress and the head of a women's legal rights organization. Representatives of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are expected to make appearances as well.

. . . . .

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn...

how many of you got to see erika falk on cspan this weekend? she was talking about her book, and how little media coverage of the women who have run for president since 1872 (eight) hasn't really changed much. (counting the seconds until the deniers weigh in)


Women for President

Media Bias in Eight Campaigns
Author: Erika Falk






A timely analysis of gender bias in press coverage of presidential campaigns

When Hillary Clinton announced her 2008 bid for president she was the Democratic front-runner. Despite this, she received less coverage than Barack Obama, who trailed her in the polls. Such a disparity is indicative of the gender bias the media has demonstrated in covering women candidates since the first woman ran for America's highest office in 1872. Tracing the campaigns of eight women who ran for president through 2004--Victoria Woodhull, Belva Lockwood, Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patricia Schroeder, Lenora Fulani, Elizabeth Dole, and Carol Moseley Braun--Erika Falk finds little progress in the fair treatment of women candidates. A thorough comparison of the women's campaigns to those of their male opponents reveals a worrisome trend of sexism in press coverage--a trend that still persists today.

While women have been elected to the highest offices in countries such as England, Germany, and India, the idea that a woman could be president of the United States provokes scoffs and ridicule. The press portrays female candidates as unviable, unnatural, and incompetent, and often ignores or belittles women instead of reporting their ideas and intent. Since voters learn most details about presidential candidates through media outlets, Falk asserts that this prevailing bias calls into question the modern democratic assumption that men and women have comparable access to positions of power.

"With Hillary Clinton a serious contender for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Falk's book is timely."--Publishers Weekly

"The people running Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign probably haven’t made time to leaf through the University of Illinois Press’s most recent catalog. Too bad for them. They could have placed an early bulk order for Erika Falk’s Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns. . . . It seems like a book that Clinton’s staff would find useful – and not just as a projectile to bounce off the heads of members of the press corps." --Inside Higher Ed

" does an excellent job job of pointing out what has changed and what has stayed the same in media coverage of women's political participation (why, for example, always the preoccupation with clothes and hair!)."--Library Journal


. . . .

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catal...