Rebecca Warner's Blog, page 3

July 23, 2016

Yes, We Cheat When Our Husbands Go Out of Town

There’s a feeling of liberation when my husband goes out of town, and that liberation leads to acts of apathy, selfishness, indulgence, sloth, and gratification.


I am still in love with and attracted to my husband of 28 years. Many of our days and nights are spent together since we both work from home. During the day, despite being busy, we share a few quick kisses, interesting tidbits of news, and a few laughs. We still have very pleasurable and regular sex.


So why would I want to cheat on him when he goes out of town, seeing that I’m so happily married?


I’ve talked to dozens of women who do the same. Shocking, isn’t it?


Here’s how we cheat: Apathy: We may not bother to get out of our pajamas. Selfishness: We most definitely won’t give much thought to “What’s for dinner?” Indulgence: We eat our favorite delicious and fattening foods, and we may eat them while lying in bed, watching a chick flick. Sloth: We leave cereal bowls and wine glasses in the sink. Gratification: there’s a good chance we’ll fire up our vibrators.


Chocolate!


We are reverting to “all about me” behavior that we took for granted as single women. With a man constantly sharing our space, we have to be considerate of his wants and needs. A happy marriage entails mutual consideration, but sheer self consideration can be pretty darn pleasing, too.


For women whose husbands are retired, it’s a notably celebrated event when their husbands go out of town. Retired men are around so much more than working men, and their interests–other than perhaps golfing or fishing–are not as plentiful and varied as women’s. In large part, they still look to their wives to direct their social life and to put a meal on the table–or to decide at which restaurant they will eat.


With men at home full time, many women, if not working, develop even more outside-the-home interests. They may take to playing bridge, volunteering, or long lunches, just to get away from the insistent male energy that permeates their lives day-to-day. I know one woman who bought a horse. That’s riddled with symbolism, don’t you think?


Another friend whose husband retired just last week texted me that she had to go out to her garden and pretend to weed, just to escape his voice. The nattering that had been acceptable during the evening and weekend hours now washed over her, threatening to drown her, in its 24/7 excess. She ended her text with, “He’s going to Palm Beach to visit his son next week, thank God!”


When our husbands are out of town, we can just relax. There are no “helpful suggestions” being offered, no rhetorical questions being asked, and no pressing decisions to be made (other than which flavor of Ben & Jerry’s we choose to eat.) Sure, we eat Ben & Jerry’s when he is around, and we may even share it…but we indulge with a glutinous glee when he’s not.


Because I not only love my husband, but also really like him, I don’t wish he were somewhere else. But when he does go on a business trip, there is a freedom from conscious thought and action that leads to a state of languor.


Not every woman adopts this attitude in her husband’s absence. Some look at it as a time to catch up on things, using their excess time and energy for achievement, rather than powering down into indolence and indulgence. But I know from talking to many other women that I’m far from alone.


To further test out my theory, I conducted a survey (of sorts). One of my books was included in a ten-novel romantic anthology. We authors hosted a Facebook party, with each of us asking questions and awarding prizes for clever answers. I asked, “What yummy foods do you indulge in when your significant other is out of town?” Thirty-five women responded, and all of them described a calorie-laden indulgence, except one, who cited baked salmon. Her husband (I deduced) must not like the taste and smell of fish; but with him gone, she didn’t have to consider that.


Look, if given a preference of being single–either through divorce or widowhood–ninety-nine percent of us would say no thanks. We love our husbands, but sometimes it can be draining to have someone around who, without even knowing it, usurps so much of our time, energy, and even patience.


I recall an occasion when several of us were having fun describing our indulgences when devoid of our husbands’ company, and the pleasure of having time to ourselves. A younger, insightful woman added, “That’s how I feel when my kids are at camp. I love them, but it’s just nice to be free of their demanding energy.”


I’m not going to draw any parallels between the energy-draining behavior of men and children, but…okay, I’m going to draw parallels. They’re hungry, they want to eat. They’re bored, they want you to entertain them. They have a thought, they want you to listen to it. They have a grievance, they want to air it to you.


Is it any wonder that we want to shed the responsibility of meeting needs and being sounding boards when given the opportunity?


And here’s the benefit for the man: When he comes home, we’re refreshed, more energetic, more contented, and ultimately, quite glad to see him.


We may be part of a couple, but we’re always, first and foremost, ourselves. And sometimes, we just don’t feel like sharing so much of ourselves–or our Ben & Jerry’s.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on July 23, 2016 04:57

December 2, 2015

Do Book Awards Matter?

Readers' Favorite Awards Ceremony, 11/21/2015, Miami, FL

Readers’ Favorite Awards Ceremony, 11/21/2015, Miami, FL


There was a debate raging on LinkedIn recently, when someone asked the question, “What value do you put on authors when they describe themselves as ‘Award Winners?'”


Responses ranged from vitriolic to meh to upbeat–the last provided by award-winning authors, for the most part.


I don’t describe myself anywhere as “an award-winning author.” I do say, “Author of the two-time award-winning book, Moral Infidelity.” My input on that LinkedIn thread was that I thought I wrote a good book, I wanted validation, and so I entered two contests–and I won in both. And yes, there was a fee for entry to both The Great Southeast Book Festival Book (GSBF) Award Contest ($50), and the Readers’ Favorite (RF) Book Reviews and Award Contest ($89.) This *fee* sparked a lot of, “If you have to pay for it, it has no value” comments.  


Not so, I exclaim!  Paying a modest fee to enter a competitive, professionally-judged contest is by no definition “pay for play.” When I learned from the President of Readers’ Favorite, James Ventrillo, at the awards ceremony in Miami on November 21, 2015, that there were over 600 entries in my category of Fiction: Thriller General, I felt there was indeed value in that award. I had won a bronze medal–third place–in a category that was highly competitive. In fact, there were two silver and two bronze awards in that category; and as Mr. Ventrillo explained, there are five judges awarding points to each book. In my category, there were actual ties for the silver and bronze awards. So, technically, I was in the top five of that category. I don’t know how many entries there were in the Great Southeast Book Festival, but I do know there was one winner, one runner-up, and ten honorable mentions–of which Moral Infidelity was one. As a result, I feel my book has been, well, validated.


In addition, I received a glowing 5-star review from one of the Readers’ Favorite reviewers, and I was able to use it on my Amazon book page under “Editorial Reviews.” I also peppered my social media pages with a high-resolution bronze digital medal that looked pretty spiffy alongside my Great Southeast Book Festival Honorable Mention gold digital badge. I photo-shopped both onto my book cover, which I feel adds interest.


Moral_Cover_June_2014_fin


Now, I admit that when I won the GSBF award in January, 2015, I myself pooh-poohed it. It didn’t get media coverage, and sales of my book did not budge. I had to pay for the gold stickers to use on the book ($25) but didn’t find that exorbitant. When I received notification on September 1, 2015 that Moral Infidelity had won the bronze in the Readers’ Favorite contest, I walked into my husband’s study and laconically informed him. Of course, I had no idea of the level of competition at that time, so I couldn’t assign a lot of value or enthusiasm to the award. But I decided we would attend the awards ceremony in Miami (any excuse to go to Miami, where I had lived for 30 years), so I went to the Readers’ Favorite winners’ page, made reservations, and ordered the complimentary bronze stickers.


After winning that second award, my proud husband contacted a friend who had been a book reviewer for three different national newspapers, asking him if he knew of anyone with a major periodical who could review my book and get it more exposure. He mentioned both awards, and surprisingly, the reviewer replied, “If she’s won the Great Southeast Book Festival award, she’s already accomplished something. There’s buzz about that award in the industry.”  Who knew?  There was an awards ceremony for GSBF winners being held in California, but I didn’t even consider going. Learning that there was some measure of prestige attached to that award, I now wish I had.


Readers’ Favorite posted the information about the winning books on numerous social media sites, including Facebook and Twitter. They put on a heck of a fine awards banquet, and delivered some high-quality photos that can be used for marketing and promotion. So do I feel I got $89 worth of value from Readers’ Favorite? You bet I do! Best of all, sales ticked up that awards weekend when I ran a promotion, and Moral Infidelity entered the top 5,000 on Amazon for the first time. Do I feel I got my value out of the $50 Great Southeast Book Festival Award (plus the $25 for stickers?) Hard to say, but I know that I am now almost as proud of the GSBF award as I am of the RF award.


For those who think any paid entry for a contest makes it bogus, I would like to point out that someone has to read and review the entries, and someone has to read and judge those entries. I can’t imagine any organization that is altruistic enough to pay those persons on authors’ behalf. I can’t imagine any reviewers who would read dozens of books and review them as a favor. Somehow, the costs for the banquet venue and food, the medals, and the photographer, had to be paid. That booth at the Miami Book Fair International, where the award-winning books were displayed, was not free. When you consider all that Readers’ Favorite delivered, I think $89 is a bargain.


So yes, I feel I got my money’s worth…Validation, promotion, and a fun time in Miami, where I met so many interesting authors. Book promoters and marketing specialists were there to offer advice, along with their services. Of course, the promoters and marketers have other (paid) services to offer, and for those who wish to take it further, they at least have a place to start.


I’m now working on my fourth book, and though at this point I have no idea if it will be good enough to win another award, I might just pony up the modest fee and go for what I originally intended to get out of the entire awards process–validation. Where’s the flaw in that?

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 02, 2015 12:12

August 18, 2015

WRITING WITH PURPOSE

lap top on legs

Writing With Purpose


I’ve just self-published my third book in 15 months, and although there has been a great deal of satisfaction in writing those books, I know I need to take a breather–but my purpose in writing them won’t allow me to do so!


I’m working harder than I have in years to write books that explore concepts and actions that empower women, because we are at a critical time in the history of women’s rights. Those rights are being assaulted by right-wing politicians and religious fundamentalists like never before. Women’s Choice is in danger of being extinguished, and that is something I want to fight against–and my best weapons are my words.


I self-published my first two books, MORAL INFIDELITY and DOUBLING BACK TO LOVE, at the age of 59. Yes, quite a late age to start a career in writing. In this, my 60th year, I published HE’S JUST A MAN: Making the Most of Your Womanly Power.


All of my books embrace the concept of women standing in their own power. The escalating assault on a woman’s reproductive choices, especially her right to an abortion, compelled me to publish MORAL INFIDELITY, a book about a hypocritical pro-life governor whose mistress becomes pregnant, and the choices he is forced to make when an unintended pregnancy threatens to ruin his life. Choice  takes on a whole new meaning for him.


DOUBLING BACK TO LOVE is about a woman who asks the question, “Why does it have to come down to choosing just one man, when no one man can give me everything I want?” She won’t be shackled by conventionality and duplicitous morality in seeking love.


Both of those books are works of fiction.


HE’S JUST A MAN is a non-fiction, self-help book for women. It is intended to help women build their self-esteem so that they can approach men and relationships from a position of strength, versus an unhealthy position of perceived need.


None of my books have reached a wide audience, though they have garnered many five-star reviews and ratings from those who have read them. I have yet to “move into the black” in terms of making more money than I have spent in self-publishing them; but I feel compelled to keep writing about the issues that matter most to me, issues which I feel should matter to all women: The right to control our own lives and to have control over our own bodies.


I don’t have delusions that my books will change the world, but I do wish for them to reach enough women to empower and embolden them to fight back against the assault on their rights to social, political and economic equality to men. There’s a lot of good information in my books, backed up by research and a whole lot of experience–mine and others.


So I’ll keep writing and hoping that my 60 years of living–during which I have acquired a degree of wisdom–will find ears to listen, and hearts to follow, in the quest to put to rest, finally and forever, the idea that women are not as deserving of equality in all areas of their lives as men are.


Is that an impossible dream? Perhaps, but then, I always was one to tilt at windmills!

1 like ·   •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on August 18, 2015 13:44

August 4, 2015

Planned Parenthood: Republicans’ New Devil

Republicans are ready to shut down the government over abortion, in taking their fight to defund Planned Parenthood, to the extreme.


Everyone knows by now that abortions make up only 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. The other 97% is dedicated to women’s reproductive health, as well as anemia testing, cholesterol screening,  diabetes screening, physical exams, drug screenings (including for employment and sports), flu vaccines, help with quitting smoking, high blood pressure screening, tetanus vaccines, and thyroid screening.


Damn Planned Parenthood for providing necessary, affordable and accessible health care! Those devils!


Senate Republicans held a vote Monday evening to defund Planned Parenthood by stripping $528 million in federal funds for the organization. A procedural hurdle in the Senate caused it to fail, but now Republicans have vowed to roar back, and hard-liners are ready to shut down the government come September, just as they did for two weeks in 2011, when they refused to fund Obamacare.


Abortions have become the rallying cry for Republicans, and the (now debunked) video of a Planned Parenthood employee discussing fetal tissue’s “monetary value,” has given them their latest fuel for their fire. Forget that it was heavily edited, and has proven to be an inaccurate rendering of the actual spoken words.


Republicans don’t care about the truth. They only care about advancing their agenda, even if it means relying on the edited tapes provided by a desperate and deceitful anti-abortion advocacy group known as the Center for Medical Progress.


Senator Joni Ernst (Iowa), is leading the defunding effort, and has fanned the flames considerably by accusing Planned Parenthood of “harvesting baby body parts.”


That’s almost as horrifying as Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels,” at least to those who never bother to become accurately informed. And “harvesting baby body parts” is just as much a lie as “death panels” has proven to be.


I called my Republican Congressmen and expressed my desire that they back off from this latest attack on Planned Parenthood. I stated what everyone who cares to listen and learn knows: Planned Parenthood continues to play a major role in its patients’ overall well-being.


Death Panels? Republicans are the ones chairing those panels by trying to shut down an organization that prevents and treats serious medical conditions that living, breathing, tax-paying adults suffer from.


But that’s okay by them, as long as fetal tissue—which is most often used in studying fetal development, fetal abnormalities and diseases of the fetus—is protected from any supposed malfeasance on the part of Planned Parenthood, since it is partially funded by the government.


And they’ll try to shut down the government to make their ignorance-based, fear-inciting, ill-conceived point.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on August 04, 2015 15:45

July 2, 2015

Bristol Stomps on Abstinence

Bristol PalinBristol Palin stomped all over the legitimacy of abstinence when she announced her second unintended pregnancy.


Looking at her face as she spoke about it, her distress was palpable. “I know this has been, and will be, a huge disappointment to my family, to my close friends, and to many of you,” she said in an interview.


Bristol is 24-years-old, certainly old enough to handle motherhood. Unlike when she fast-tracked to adulthood with her first pregnancy at 17, she has had time to experience motherhood, albeit in a pretty cushy environment.


It occurred to me, looking a Bristol’s sad and distraught face as she shared her news, that this is a pregnancy she would rather not go through. Though her tune has changed to a more upbeat one since that interview, her honest feelings about the fix she is in can’t be so easily dispelled.


Bristol will have the baby amid a supportive family, with no concern about how to provide for that child’s future. Though an unintended one, her pregnancy will result in a baby being born into a stable and nurturing environment.


If only every woman who faced an unintended pregnancy had that same assurance.


With her financial comfort and her family’s support, Bristol is in a safe place. Imagine if she already had the one child, yet was struggling because she had no money, no job, no husband and no family to help her. Imagine how that distraught feeling would turn into one of utter despair.


That is what many women face with an unintended pregnancy—utter despair. Unintended pregnancies happen. Access to free birth control would diminish that possibility, and there are many women who very much want access to birth control, but have no means of attaining it. Bristol had every means to avoid an unintended pregnancy. With abstinence as a choice, and birth control for prevention, how did Bristol find herself in this position yet again?


Regardless, Bristol is much better equipped to deal with an unintended pregnancy that millions of other women. Every woman should have a choice in dealing with unintended pregnancies, which is why access to a safe, affordable, unencumbered abortion procedure must always be available to women who cannot afford—financially or emotionally—to have a second or a third or fourth child that would not be born into a safe and stable life, as Bristol’s baby is certain to be.


Though she was a paid and promoted advocate for abstinence, we now know Bristol can’t be counted on to set an example. We can’t assume she would be selfless enough to look beyond her own circumstances, and to consider that others who are dealing with unintended pregnancies are in much more dire straits than she. Her religious beliefs and Party affiliation wouldn’t sanction her advocating access to free birth control or unencumbered abortions. So what can we expect from spokesperson Bristol? Nothing.


Instead, let’s use her pregnancy to serve as a reminder that even with the best intentions, unintended pregnancies occur.  And when they do, it is keeping choice a viable option that matters. Options and decisions should be a discussion between a woman and her doctor, and politicians should stay out of that discussion. For now, their unrealistic rhetoric limits a woman’s options to their prescribed single most fail-safe solution against future pregnancies,  “Keep your legs together.


Bristol stomped all the air out of that notion.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on July 02, 2015 10:12

June 4, 2015

Female Viagra Finally Approved!

Female Viagra has finally been approved! Five years after the FDA first denied approval of flibanserin because it “could cause dizziness,” they finally overcame their concerns about the non-fatal fainting effect and gave it the thumbs up. Government health experts are backing an experimental drug intended to boost the female sex drive, but stress that it must carry safety restrictions to manage side effects including fatigue, low blood pressure and fainting.


A good friend of mine, a nurse, worked for the company that ran the trials. It was a years-long process, and the results were very favorable. And the husbands were very supportive of their trial-inducted wives, don’t you know.


But then, the FDA didn’t approve it because its singular objection at that time was the side-effect of dizziness. I am not kidding. I remember thinking, upon reading that, about all the drug commercials, and how it takes 30 seconds just to administer warnings of the side-effects. And the FDA was worried about dizziness?


I thought then that there was something fishy about not approving a drug that increased the female libido. The drug was originally an anti-depressant, but the startling benefits of increased libido in women caused the drug company to initiate the long-term, expensive trials.


The FDA has twice rejected the drug since 2010. Now, five years later, the Food and Drug Administration panel voted 18-6 in favor of approving Sprout Pharmaceutical’s daily pill flibanserin, on the condition that its manufacturer develops a plan to limit safety risks.


I took care of my parents for years, and learned about the life-threatening side effects of certain drugs. When my mother, after open heart surgery in September, 2000, was prescribed Vioxx, she went into renal failure, had gastrointestinal bleeding, and seizures.


The doctors were at a loss as to what caused this. I researched Vioxx online, and found an article in the British Lancet about the side effects of Vioxx, and the horrible effects of the drug—renal failure and gastrointestinal bleeding–which led to my mother’s death–were there.  It was also stated that Vioxx should never be given to a heart patient. Despite numerous accounts of such devastating incidents, Vioxx was not removed from the market until 2004.


Then there was the matter of Avandia and my father’s diabetes. After his endocrinologist prescribed it in 2005, I researched it before filling the prescription. Long story short, it could cause severe heart problems if given with a higher dose of insulin. I actually had to fax the doctor and ask him to lower my father’s insulin dosage so that he wouldn’t suffer from heart failure attributed to the combination of Avandia and insulin. The dangers were known for years (hell, I knew it in 2005) but Avandia use was not severely restricted by the FDA until 2010, after it was linked to tens of thousands of heart attacks, strokes and heart failures.


So with such dangerous drugs with known mortal side effects being prescribed years after they should have been removed from the market, I had to wonder about the FDAs concern with the “dizziness” connected with female Viagra. That dizziness has been “upgraded” to fatigue, low blood pressure and fainting.


My experience with the FDA and drug companies has taught me that such decisions are influenced by money and power.


So here’s my theory: Some well-funded, Christian fundamental right-wing faction thought it was a bad idea for women to actually enjoy sex. Sex is just for procreation, right? Pressure was exerted at the right levels. But somehow, five years later, with science proving that nothing worse than fainting could occur with the use of flibanserin, the FDA capitulated. They had to.


Science won. Religion lost. Now if we can just convince them of the “side effects” of global warming.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 04, 2015 15:09

May 8, 2015

MORAL INFIDELITY FREE ON AMAZON

11160245_970335102979596_1311982243_n


#politicalthrillers @MoralInfidelity Free on Amazon May 8-10! @www.rebeccajwarner.com or Amazon.com


Get your free copy of this political thriller, with a 4.8 rating on both Amazon and Goodreads!  53/57 five-star reviews!


FIVE STAR ***** REVIEWS


MORAL INFIDELITY is a first-rate, suspenseful book! Unbelievable that this is Rebecca Warner’s first book. In my advanced age I tend to fall asleep when I read…but MORAL INFIDELITY kept me awake and very interested in all the plot twists and turns.”


“This book had me hooked from page 1. The author knows just how to keep your attention.  I loved every aspect of this MUST READ!” Jennifer Theriot, Best Selling Amazon Author.


“Moral Infidelity was a fantastic read! The characters are well-developed, the plot is full of surprises, and the narrative keeps you turning page after page.”


“This has been one of the best books of mystery I have ever read, the author has a unique way of storytelling.”


“Almost against my snobby literary non-fiction taste I was drawn into the engaging plot lines, well-drawn characters, steamy setting and, well, the delicious tension the author builds. It’s fun, and the pay-offs keep coming as the story unfolds to its necessary end.”  Jay Leutze, Award-Winning Author of Stand Up That Mountain (Simon & Schuster) 


“This is a well written book with a political and moral spin that will keep you wondering your stance on the matter. I can’t believe this is her first book?! I am thrilled to learn she has another.”


“Couldn’t put it down. This writer did her homework in all the arenas that cleverly packaged this smart, sexy novel.”


“Anyone wanting to read a well-written novel with well-developed and believable characters should read Moral Infidelity. Rebecca Warner’s novel is fast-paced, entertaining and with enough drama (mixing the political and family relationships sprinkled with crime and cover-ups), to keep any reader engrossed.”

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 08, 2015 05:13

May 5, 2015

North Carolina Violating Women’s Abortion Rights

The North Carolina Legislature and its Governor Pat McCrory have made restricting women’s abortion rights their top priority.


They have been working overtime to restrict women’s access to this safe, legal medical procedure. On April 23rd, the Republican-led House approved bill HB 465 by a vote of 74-45. The legislation, which is expected to pass the Republican-controlled state Senate before heading to Republican Governor Pat McCrory, will change the state’s “informed consent to abortion” law, which currently requires that a pregnant person meet with their physician at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed.


The assured passage of HB 465 will increase that waiting period to 72 hours.princess-isabelle


“Mandatory delays such as these create additional burdens for North Carolina women, especially women in rural areas who have to travel many hours to reach a health-care provider, and for women who do not have the resources to take extra time off work or pay for child care,” said NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina. “Mandatory-delay laws such as this endanger women’s health by creating unnecessary burdens that can impede earlier, and therefore safer, abortion care.”


After a setback ruling in December, 2014, in which the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s decision striking down the 2011 North Carolina law requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound of the fetus performed and described to them, the lawmakers forged ahead with even more restrictive legislation.


Despite the fact that the appeals court stated that, “The state cannot commandeer the doctor-patient relationship to compel a physician to express its preference to the patient,” and that “this compelled speech provision” violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, undaunted NC lawmakers are testing the waters again.


This draconian legislation reminds me of a scene in the movie, “Braveheart” in which King Edward I (Longshanks) laments that there are too many Scots. His solution is to declare reinstatement of the old practice of primae noctis, which is to allow his nobles to have the right to take the Scots’ newlywed wives to their beds on their wedding night. Upon declaring primae noctis, Longshanks states (in obvious reference to impregnating the Scots’ brides), “If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out.”


In its own convoluted way, the NC Legislature is also controlling “breeding.” It is imposing laws on a woman’s body, and violating it by taking any choice away from a woman, forcing her into an act that is against her will—and against her own best interests physically, mentally and emotionally.


Women have always been pawns in a man’s world, subject to being moved around the board by domineering men until their objectives—and victories—are established. It is simply appalling that women in the 21st Century are still used as pieces on a chessboard with as little regard for their rights as Longshank held in the 13th Century.


We’re in a time period that is comparable to the 13th Century, when the world was experiencing the High Middle Ages. The key historical trend of the High Middle Ages was the rapidly increasing population of Europe, which brought about great (i.e., a significant amount of) social and political change from the preceding era.


We’re looking at a future of a rapidly increasing population due to inaccessibility to abortion. Unfortunately, if this legislative trend continues, the social and political change from the preceding Roe v. Wade era will be great indeed, moving us back towards the equivalent of the Dark Ages.


In the next election, let’s equivalently “breed out,” with our votes, these misogynistic politicians in every state that is fast-tracking restrictive abortion rights. Let’s give them no voice, and no choice, in making decisions about women’s reproductive rights. Let’s violate their sense of superiority the way they violate women’s rights.


Let’s raise our collective voices, and demand “Freeeedommm!” from oppressive government with our own brave hearts!

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 05, 2015 05:58

April 1, 2015

CHOICE is Subjective to Arizona Governor Doug Ducey

Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, on Monday signed into law a controversial measure blocking women from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage through the federal healthcare exchange.


In other words, no taxpayer-subsidized policies that include abortion coverage.


So let us put this in perspective. A person who smokes, eats or drinks to excess, or takes illegal drugs, can get subsidized (read: taxpayer assisted) medical insurance through the federal healthcare exchange. You and I are subsidizing resource-draining, lifestyle-losers, and Ducey has no problem with that.


But a woman who might possibly, at some future date, through the most natural of acts—sexual intercourse—experience  an unintended pregnancy, cannot get the same subsidized insurance that millions of lifestyle-losers enjoy, if that coverage includes abortions.


I’m beating a worn drum here, but there are myriad health-related reasons why a woman might need a legal medical procedure known as an abortion. Like an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when an embryo implants somewhere other than the uterus, such as in one of the fallopian tubes. Or to prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems, something not often diagnosed until the second term of pregnancy. Or physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman’s health if the pregnancy is continued. Some women have medical issues that could mean risking death or severe injury if the pregnancy is carried to term.


Is a woman supposed to bear the expense of an abortion if the medical need for one arises? Or should she just pay privately for a separate policy, at up to three times the exchange rate, to ensure that if any of these conditions present themselves somewhere in her future, she is covered?


And what about rape? Can a woman be so discriminated against that she has no recourse if she is raped and becomes pregnant and wishes to have an abortion, and doesn’t have the insurance coverage or the money to obtain one?


This one will be challenged in the courts, it will be struck down, and women will be able to get subsidized insurance that covers all of their medical needs, including abortion—for whatever reason. But in the meantime, a woman will have to choose to do one of the following:



Forego having any medical insurance and pay the tax penalty;
Pay three times as much for an unsubsidized private policy;
Settle for buying an exchange policy that does not cover this legal medical procedure.

A woman should not have to make any of these limited choices. But these male politicians see nothing wrong with severely limiting women’s choices.


They don’t accept that women should have any choice in the matter of deciding what to do with their own bodies.


They don’t accept medical science, which supports health reasons for having an abortion.


They don’t accept the law—you know, the one that says a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy—handed  down by the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973.


No, these medically ignorant, meddling male politicians think they know better than a woman what she should do with her own body. They think they know more than physicians about the medical necessity for abortions. They think they know better than the Supreme Court what rights and what choices a woman should have.


It is time to vote these arrogant fools out of office, to wipe the slate clean of misogyny, and to re-establish, in no uncertain terms, a woman’s right to choose. Let these male politicians believe what they will personally, but don’t let them use their elected status to act upon their beliefs to the detriment of women.


We’re always going to argue about abortion. It’s a hard choice and it’s controversial, and that’s why I’m pro-choice, because I want people to make their own choices.~ Hillary Clinton

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on April 01, 2015 07:41

February 18, 2015

Legacy of CHOICE

REKINDLING THE TORCH OF CHOICE


Those of us who are over 50 have reached that comfortable age when we no longer have to worry about an unintended pregnancy. For us, the issue of reproductive choice has faded in importance. But for our daughters and granddaughters of childbearing age, it should still matter—now more than ever.


Those of us who became sexually active in the 70s had protections in place to safeguard us from unwanted pregnancy. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that unmarried women could legally be prescribed birth control pills. And then in 1973, the landmark Roe v. Wade decision gave women the right to make decisions about whether or not to have an abortion. These protections are still largely in place in 2015. However, with the aggressive anti-choice agenda being pushed by state and federal lawmakers, that may not be the case by the next presidential election.


I’ve always advocated choice, simply because I felt another person should never have any say over any decisions regarding my body. Choice dovetailed with the years I became sexually active, and my reproductive choices were protected under the law.


Legal protection of women’s reproductive choices has been under relentless assault for some time, and those efforts are escalating. Republicans in Congress, emboldened by their new majority, introduced five abortion restrictions in the first three days of the new legislative session! Their proposed restrictions would severely limit women’s access to abortion. Politicians are inserting themselves in the most private and personal medical decision that should be left up to a woman and her doctor.


What is truly baffling is their quest to defund Planned Parenthood. One in five women visits a Planned Parenthood clinic at least once in her life. Why would Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood when it helps to prevent more than half a million unintended pregnancies each year, thereby making the need for an abortion moot? It seems irrational, and at cross-purposes. Yes, Planned Parenthood is there when a woman needs abortion care, but performing abortions is only three percent of the many services they provide. Why inhibit a woman’s access to birth control, pelvic screenings, breast exams and other health-and-reproductive-related services?


We are going backwards, and the generations of women who are of child-bearing age do not seem meaningfully motivated to halt this persistent march back to the days of no choice. They’ve lived with the victorious results of a hard-won battle that raged through the 60s and early 70s. That is ancient history to them, but it isn’t ancient history to those of us who saw the battle being waged and first benefitted from its accomplishment.


The Women’s Liberation Movement, like the Civil Rights movement, required organization, dedication, and unification to be recognized. The impetus for that kind of solidarity is not there today. The pro-life movement, on the other hand, has burgeoned and is gaining strength day by day. Both the Civil Rights and Women’s Liberation Movement brought about positive changes in society. Imagine if legislation were being churned out to prohibit African-Americans from having the same rights as white people, such as drinking from the same water fountain? Would you not think, That’s nuts! They can’t do that! We’re way past that!


Why aren’t women reacting as strongly to the potential loss of their right to make decisions about their own bodies?


Perhaps it is because we older women have become unworried, since we are no longer personally affected. Maybe it is because younger women don’t know about or can’t relate to the horrors of backroom abortions. They may know women who have had an abortion–a safe, legal medical procedure; but they don’t know women who died from a botched abortion.


The Nineteenth Amendment that gave women the right to vote was also hard fought for and won. Think about how you took for granted your right to vote when you turned eighteen. In that same way, younger women are taking for granted that they will have reproductive choices in the future. But that is not so. Even access to birth control, as we can see by the assault on Planned Parenthood and the SCOTUS decision in the Hobby Lobby case, is under attack.


It is time for women of every generation to stop taking choice for granted. Let’s acknowledge that the Republican’s answer to birth control—total abstention—is unrealistic, and that it is up to us to keep birth control and safe abortions accessible. This is going to require our generation’s involvement. Those of us who enjoyed virtually worry-free sex must educate younger women about how difficult it was when women had no access to birth control or safe abortions.


It is time for our generation to rekindle the torch of choice, and to pass it down. It is time for us, the most outspoken, inspiring and audacious women in history, to shake women of all ages out of their complacency! Our legacy should be the empowerment of younger women in constructing stronger, independent lives that aren’t lived according to ideals imposed by men. It is our duty to encourage them to fight for the continued right of choice, so that they can in turn inspire the generations of women who come after them to do the same.


We are not too old to take up the battle. Let us give others the benefit of our experience and knowledge. We lived it, so we can talk of it with intelligence and confidence. Let’s start by engaging our daughters, granddaughters, and young friends in meaningful conversations about what the loss of choice will mean for them. Let’s emphasize the value of their vote, and enlist their support of organizations that support choice, like Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Emily’s List.


Let us not go gently into our golden years. Instead, let us reinvigorate and do what we can now to help preserve a woman’s most fundamental right—the right to have total control over her own body.

1 like ·   •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 18, 2015 11:36