So, apparently Damon Wayans is working with handpicked young artists to “develop innovative television shows for the internet.” And apparently their idea of innovation is making fun of violence against women and children. (Warning: the video is potentially triggery, as is the rest of this post.) For those of you who would rather not watch the video and possibly generate ad revenue for its creators, here’s the rundown: a woman calls her boyfriend to tell him she’s pregnant. He pretends to be happy about the news; she’s thrilled that he wants the baby, and starts making plans for their new family life. When he gets off the phone, he calls for help, and “Abortion Man” answers the call. Abortion Man accosts the young woman as she’s walking down the street and beats and kicks her. Miscarriage hilarity ensues.

I really hesitated to post this, because I know that giving the creeps who made this video more publicity is exactly what they want, and will let them claim they’re “edgy”. But we need to speak up and let them know that they’re not edgy or funny or clever; they’re just misogynistic bullies.

This isn’t funny:

At 1:15 in the morning a pregnant woman is beaten in her apartment on Hickory Street. Police say the suspect, who’s apparently the baby’s father, repeatedly punched the woman in her body, face and head. He reportedly told her he was going to “make her lose that baby.”
[…]
According to the Centers for Disease Control, some 324,000 pregnant women are hurt every year by an intimate partner or former partner. And a study a few years ago that found homicide was a leading cause of death among pregnant women.

This isn’t edgy:

Excited by the ultrasound Jan. 7, [Ashley] Lyons made plans to show the fetal pictures to her ex-boyfriend, Roger McBeath Jr., 22. She left her family’s home, telling her mother she would be back for dinner. But when her father and brother found her, she was sitting in her parked car — with the car engine running and the headlights on.

She had been shot twice in the head and once in the neck. In her lap was her handbag — half opened — with the ultrasound picture inside, her father said.

“He knew that if she had that baby that she would be in his life forever, and he didn’t want that,” said prosecutor Shawna Jewell.

On a cold Kentucky afternoon four days later, Lyons was buried with her tiny baby tucked into her arms.

And this is the work of monsters, not superheroes:

[Roxanne] Fernando was pressured to terminate her pregnancy and initially agreed. She later had a “change of heart” and that set in motion a chilling chain of events, he said.

“It would be the fetus that would drive the planned and deliberate killing of Ms. Fernando,” Davidson said.
[…]
Fernando was hit with a wrench up to 20 times, bound with tape and wrapped in a blanket before being stuffed in the trunk of the car.

It was thought she was dead. But as the car began driving away, sounds could be heard coming from the rear.

“There was a realization Roxanne Fernando was still alive. They could hear moaning,” Davidson said. […]

Fernando was taken to a remote area near Mollard Road and Ritchie Street in northwest Winnipeg and repeatedly beaten with a broken hockey stick until she was obviously dead.

I’ll update this post with contact information for Damon Wayans or wayouttv.com as soon as I find some — it’s surprisingly difficult to come by. I left a comment on their web site, but you have to create an account to do that. (On the bright side, you can use Mailinator to create a throwaway email address for your account.) If anyone finds a better way to contact them, please let me know.

(ht: feministing)

Even after the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of women and children are raped every year in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Panzi Hospital in Bukavu serves the survivors of this epidemic of sexual violence.

The hospital also has a daycare for children conceived as a result of sexual violence.

Susannah Breslin at The Reverse Cowgirl found out more about what we can do to help. I’ll quote here, but I recommend reading the whole post:

If readers wish to contribute funds they can do it through the Bank Account of Panzi General Reference Hospital, to which they can send their donation. Please mark the check or bank transfer with “VVS project” (”Victims de Violence Sexuelle Projet”, in other words, Victims of Sexual Violence project). This is the project that is run within the infrastructure of the Panzi hospital and in which we treat and rehabilitate the raped women. The hospital is owned and run by the organisation called CEPAC.

Account number: 170-0362031-93 (USD account)
Title of receiver: 8ème CEPAC V/C HOPITAL GENERAL DE REFERENCE DE PANZI
BANQUE COMMERCIALE DU CONGO
AGENCE DE BUKAVU/ RD CONGO
Swift code / BCDCCDKI

Via Nonviolent Choice:

The UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women will receive $100,000 from the United Nations Foundation for 100,000 signatures on its petition. They’re currently at 68,4823. Please help them get over 100,000.

(Unfortunately, I’m having trouble connecting to the main web site to find out what the money will be used for, but nonetheless, it seems worth a moment of one’s time.)

JivinJehoshaphat and Nicole Russell question whether the annual March for Life is a worthwhile expenditure of money and effort. I’m not a fan of the March as it is currently constituted, but I think that it still has the potential to be a useful pro-life tool.

It seems to me that there are several functions that marches can serve:

• Getting the attention of policy-makers; demonstrating that you can mobilize a lot of people for your cause, so they’d best pay attention. (The cynic in me whispers that these days, if the marchers brought $100 each, they might be taken a bit more seriously.)
• Energizing and refreshing activists.
• Introducing an issue or a movement to those who don’t know much about it.
• Showing members of the general public who share your belief that they aren’t alone, that there is a movement they can join and people they can work with.

I don’t think the March for Life succeeds at the first function — if it did, it wouldn’t be in its 35th year — but then again, I don’t believe that’s a realistic expectation for marches anymore. Marches have become commonplace, even passé; they no longer make people sit up and take notice the way they did in the 60s. Recall that over a million Americans marched against the Iraq War in February 2003, and were dismissed by Our Only President (tm Molly Ivins) as akin to a “focus group” that he need not bother listening to.

On the second point, there is no doubt that the March and the various meetings and conferences that surround it allow activists to connect with each other and renew their enthusiasm for the work that needs to be done in the year ahead. However, it could serve this function even better if all members of pro-life community were welcomed and allowed to contribute their ideas. As it stands, the March is largely for conservative Christians (though others may attend if they don’t call attention to the fact that they’re different).

Far from showcasing the diversity of the pro-life movement, Nellie Gray actively rejects any responsibility to do so. That’s why the March fails at the last two functions. It shows the public only one aspect of the pro-life movement — the very conservative, Christian, pro-Republican, mostly white side — and doesn’t invite anyone who doesn’t fit that description to join, even if they are in agreement that abortion is the taking of a human life.

We need public events like marches, but we need them to be open and inviting. At its best, the pro-life movement is about inclusivity, about embracing all human beings as part of Us. Our public face should reflect that.

(ETA: I read shortly after posting this that Nellie Gray had been taken to the hospital. All differences aside, I certainly wish her the best.)

In honor of the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, the United Nations declared October 2 the International Day of Non-Violence. twistedchick wrote about the nonviolent tactics being used by Buddhist monks in Burma/Myanmar, and the similarity between their actions and those espoused by Gandhi.

Amnesty International (yes, I know, but when they’re right they’re right) has a letter campaign urging the government to release the protestors.

(note: all of the links to Amnesty documents lead to its members-only site. Those of you who are not members can read the local copies I’ve linked. All are PDFs.)

Amnesty International has been claiming that its new policy on abortion (local copy) is limited in scope, because it will only push for states to guarantee access to abortion “for women who become pregnant as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest — or whose lives or health are at grave risk due to pregnancy.” Think about what the phrase “health at grave risk” means to you. It probably conjures up images of injury or illness that brings a person near death, or that may result in permanant disability. It probably doesn’t bring to mind a situation in which a healthy mother carrying a healthy baby seeks an abortion due to poverty or abandonment by the child’s father.

What does the health clause mean to Amnesty International?
(more…)

Have been avoiding the news today. I don’t need the media to tell me what I remember. I’ll read about the Petraeus report, but I’ll do it tomorrow, as I refuse on general principles to go along with this latest effort by the Bush Administration to pretend that the Iraq war had anything to do with September 11.

Instead, observed “Patriot Day” by writing my members of Congress to beg them to try to stop George Bush from attacking Iran.

Hey, the warmongers have their definition of patriotism, and I have mine.

So, “Paul Hill Days” has* come and gone. I’m pleased, though not a bit surprised, to learn that turnout was poor: the murder cheerleaders were able to scrape up sixty people for their parade only by dragging along their children. The re-enactment of Hill’s crime was even more sparsely attended. I’ve seen video online, and there appeared to be about twenty-five people there. Maybe a few more if you count the gawkers in the background.

I’ve discussed this subject with many very reasonable, absolutely anti-violence people who argue that Hill’s admirers should be given as little attention or acknowledgment as possible. The people behind this event are a tiny fringe, they say. They have a martyr complex that we probably feed by speaking out against them. They have a desire for publicity that we definitely feed by speaking out against them.

All that is true, and if these were just people spouting off ugly opinions on the Internet, I might agree that the best thing to do is ignore them. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. The organizers of “Paul Hill Days” celebrate and associate with people who have proven their willingness to kill. It would only take one of them being inspired to action by this rally for more murders to take place.

Wisconsin Right to Life (the Wisconsin affiliate of National Right to Life) issued a press release denouncing “Paul Hill Days”. (You can thank them here.) Pro-Life Wisconsin (an associate of American Life League) did not:

When asked why Pro-Life Wisconsin did not denounce the event, Hamill said her organization did not want to get involved.

“We only speak on what our organization is doing,” Hamill said. “We’re not about to comment on what other organizations are doing.”

That’s just wrong. As I mentioned above, there are perfectly good reasons why not every pro-life organization issues a statement every time some marginal figure says something crazy enough to make the news. But this was a celebration of the murder of two people that was taking place in PLW’s own backyard, in the name of their cause. To refuse to speak against it even when asked point-blank goes beyond merely “not commenting on other groups” and comes dangerously close to tacit approval.

To Pro-Life Wisconsin: your representatives could have refused to comment on any specific activities while emphasizing your own group’s stand against violence. They could have gone further and stated that since using violence against abortion providers is contrary to the goals of your organization, people who support it should neither join nor donate money to Pro-Life Wisconsin. All this, without once mentioning any other group.

[Planned Parenthood spokesperson Lisa] Boyce also noted that while WRTL condemned Paul Hill Days, its press release provided enough information about the event and its organizers to allow supporters to seek out more information and attend it.

That’s also just wrong. Wisconsin Right to Life’s statement may not have been as strong as I might have liked. (Personally, I think an in-person protest would have been appropriate.) But, well, National Right to Life has a pretty stodgy institutional personality, and WRTL’s statement is actually more strongly worded than I’d expect from one of their affiliates. They’re just not fire-breathers, you know? There’s absolutely no reason to believe that the statement was anything but sincere. For Boyce to hint otherwise is just a cheap attempt to score political points by implying that the pro-violence forces actually have a lot of secret support among regular pro-lifers — a falsehood which some of the pro-violence forces believe as well, and which gives them aid and comfort.

The danger of condemning something loudly and publicly is that by doing so, we bring more attention to it. I’ve long been opposed to the disproportionate press coverage given to certain figures who are famous for promoting the “justifiable homicide” theory. I feel that interviewing these people and treating them as though they’re a major force in the pro-life movement just gives them more of a platform for spreading their views.

So, for WRTL to provide specific information about “Paul Hill Days” in their press release (and really, they didn’t provide very much), or for me to link to their web site, may have been a tactical error. Maybe it would be better to follow the example of many anti-racists, who refuse to link to sites such as Stormfront when discussing them. I’m not convinced, though. I believe it’s vital for pro-lifers to denounce violence, and to do it not just in general terms but to confront promoters of violence with our opposition, so that they know they don’t have our unspoken support. That might be worth giving them a little more attention in the process.

* Grammarians, please advise: “have” or “has”? “Days” is, of course, plural, but the overall event is singular**.

** And thank goodness it is.

From the mindful mission: information about saving Troy Davis, who is scheduled to be executed in Atlanta on July 17th despite serious doubt about his guilt.

From Nonviolent Choice Blog: a chance for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to work together to assist a woman in Poland, and others like her.

From Consistent Life: an opportunity to let Amnesty International know what you think about their recent policy change on abortion.

From Frederick Clarkson comes word of Paul Hill Days:

Planned events include:

Activities at our two remaining killing centers

Literature distribution

Ministry at the Federal Courthouse

Reenactment of 7-29-1994

Paul Hill March

Ministry at other public forums

This needs to be protested. Vigorously. By pro-lifers.

EDIT: I realized not everyone necessarily knows who Paul Hill was. On July 29, 1994, he shot and killed two people, and wounded another, at an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.

This rally in Milwaukee is cheerleading for murder.

Following up on the previous post: Women for Women International responded to my query.

Dear Jen,

Thank you for your email and interest in our organization. Women for Women International does not advocate for or against abortion. During our rights awareness training session on women’s reproductive health, we focus on educating women about standard health practices for themselves and their children. We discuss prenatal care, infant and child care, nutrition during pregnancy, natural family planning methods and other topics designed to reduce the maternal and infant mortality rates in the communities where we work. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

I’m very glad to hear that. WWI seems like a great organization. Their stated purpose is “Supporting women in war-torn regions with financial and emotional aid, job-skills training, rights education and small business assistance so they can rebuild their lives.” You can become a “sister” and sponsor another woman, or just donate to WWI, who will use the funds for their educational programs and administrative costs. There are also other, non-monetary ways to get involved.

They are highly rated by Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy.

Marysia asked for links to human rights organizations people can support if they feel compelled to leave Amnesty International due to Amnesty’s new abortion policy. I commented over there, but thought I would post them here as well.

Consistent Life are suggesting the following:

Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Human Rights First

Friends Committee on National Legislation

I sent a donation to FCNL, with a note explaining that I was coming over from Amnesty and why. I also let AI know that I would be supporting other organizations and why.

Additionally, I have been looking into Women for Women International, for people who want to offer women in war zones such as Darfur life-affirming, nonviolent assistance.* I don’t think that WWI is involved with abortion advocacy, but I have written to them for a clarification.

* I was particularly infuriated this week by the Amnesty spokesperson who cited a World Health Organization estimate that 68,000 women die annually as a result of abortions, and said, “Once we looked at that figure, neutrality would have meant essentially saying it’s okay that 68,000 women a year die because of criminalization of abortion.” That is a monstrous claim, and the exact equivalent of warmongers accusing those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion of saying it was okay for Saddam Hussein to murder his own people.

Consistent life ethic supporters who are planning to be in DC for the March for Life may want to think about sticking around for the March on Washington sponsored by United for Peace and Justice. It would be great to see people at both events who are for the protection of all human lives.

There are reasons that people tend to have a knee-jerk association of “pro-life” with “right wing”. One is certainly that abortion supporters promote this stereotype in an effort to both fire up their base and marginalize their opponents.

But another is that the right wing wants it that way. Certain elements of the right, particularly the Christian right, see the pro-life movement as their property and work hard to keep it that way. The near-total suppression of support for contraception among pro-life groups (see below) is one manifestation of this. The annual March for Life in Washington, DC is another.

The March is the largest single anti-abortion event of the year, and is therefore an important public face of the pro-life movement. Yet it isn’t representative of pro-lifers in America, and doesn’t try to be. March organizer Nellie Gray is avowedly anti-feminism. She doesn’t “do outreach” to minorities. For several years she threatened members of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians with arrest if they dared march with their banner. In 2002, she followed through on that threat. She has also tried to discourage participation by Feminists for Life, and by a group of non-stereotypical pro-lifers who gathered to march in 1997 to show the diversity of the pro-life movement.

Now, Kristen Day of Democrats for Life of America reports that Nellie Gray called her this morning and told her that DFL was not to bring its banners to next month’s March.

Some have argued that Gray has a right to ask that people not promote their own particular groups at what is supposed to be an event focused on the pro-life cause. That might be a fair point, except that the March is in fact filled with people displaying signs and banners proclaiming marchers’ religious and political affiliations. It’s just that most of those are conservative and Christian, and therefore apparently meet with Gray’s approval.

Please contact the March for Life and ask them to allow all signs promoting a peaceful pro-life message, no matter their ideological affiliation. If you are planning to attend the March, please consider standing with DFL and other groups that the people who consider themselves the owners of the pro-life movement are trying to push out. Democrats for Life will be meeting at the Hotel Washington at 15th and Pennsylvania at 11:30 am to walk over to the March as a group. PLAGAL is planning to meet them at the hotel and walk over with them; this might be a good place for other supporters to gather.

Amnesty International USA members: remember today is the last day to fill out AIUSA’s survey about their proposal to abandon their current neutrality on abortion. It is vitally important for people who value the human rights of both unborn children and their mothers to communicate their views to AIUSA.

I noticed the other day that AIUSA finally issued a public statement, a mere eleven days before the deadline for member input (and including no mention of the member survey). The statement claims that “The organization’s policies are determined by AI members worldwide through a democratic process.” This comes after months of apparently trying to stifle any notice or debate among members on the proposed policy change — even going so far as to tell callers to the national office that no change of policy on abortion was being considered! That’s the kind of “democratic process” I expect from the Bush administration, not Amnesty International.