UK Independent Article: Good Information About Having An Abortion At Home.
The case for ‘home abortions’
Early Medical Abortion (EMA aka the abortion pill) is a simple and safe procedure for abortion in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. The treatment involves taking two sets of pills, up to 48 hours apart, to induce a miscarriage. Its use has been encouraged by the Department of Health (DH) and the NHS because it is suitable for use as soon as a pregnancy is confirmed and, in their own words: ‘Department of Health policy is that women who are legally entitled to an abortion should have access to the procedure as soon as possible’.
Yet British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), a not- for-profit charity that works in partnership with the NHS, has found itself having to take the DH to court over its interpretation of the law surrounding the abortion pill. Why?
At issue is a clash between the phrasing of the Abortion Act and the way that medical practice has advanced since the Act became law in 1968. The Act (S1(3)) specifies that ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ must be carried out in a hospital or clinic. The DH insists that this means not only that the pills must be prescribed and given to the woman while she is in clinic premises, but that she must physically take them on-site.
So a woman needing to use Early Medical Abortion attends a clinic on one occasion to be given the first tablets of mifepristone, which block the pregnancy hormones and trigger the expulsion of the embryo. Then, usually a day or two later, she must return to the clinic to take the second tablets of misoprostol, which will cause uterine cramping and bleeding. Once the tablets are taken, the woman returns home where she will experience her miscarriage, coming back to the clinic in due course for a check up and confirmation that the abortion has worked. During the time she is at home, a woman has round-the-clock access to telephone advice from a nurse of doctor and clear instructions what to do if things don’t go to plan. It’s a protocol that works for more than 17,000 women each year who request EMA from BPAS clinics alone.
Our argument is that to require women to return to a clinic just to take a set of tablets on the spot, and then to travel while at risk of starting to miscarry, makes no sense. In Sweden, which has a law similar to ours, legislators got round the problem by deciding pragmatically that the abortion treatment should be defined as only the medication taken first, but UK officials rejected this solution. Three years ago, a report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on developments relating to the Abortion Act noted that there was ‘no evidence relating to safety, effectiveness or patient acceptability’ that should stop legislation allowing the second stage to be taken at home: yet still no changes were made to the interpretation of the law.
And this is what women tell us they want. In effect, managing an early medical abortion at home is like managing a natural, miscarriage – except with EMA you know what’s coming and can prepare for it. Misoprostol isn’t dangerous: indeed women who have suffered an incomplete early miscarriage are given the same medication to take at home in recognition of the fact that at such a sensitive time it is preferable for a woman to be in the comfort and privacy of her own surroundings. If you could decide to start bleeding, not on your return from the clinic or while doing the school run, but when your partner is there to look after you and the kids are safely tucked up in bed, which option would seem most sensible to you?
BPAS has been advised the law could be interpreted differently to allow some of the abortion medication that has been prescribed and issued in a clinic to be administered by a woman at home. This would in keeping with almost every other area of medical practice. When a doctor treats you for high blood pressure, she prescribes the drugs that will alleviate your condition, and you take them as directed. So it should be with abortion. And so we are going to Court on 28 January, asking simply for a Court Declaration that, in Early Medical Abortion, treatment should be defined as the prescribing and issuing of the necessary drugs, but not necessarily administration. The first medication would still be taken in the clinic, but the second could be taken at home, just as it is in the USA, France and Sweden.
Abortion services must comply with the law: but they should also be shaped by best clinical practice. It is wrong to compromise women’s care through unnecessary restrictions imposed by officials who may fear criticism from those who oppose abortion in principle. Where abortion is legal, it is our job to make sure women do not suffer unnecessary anxiety or discomfort. No woman ever wants to have an abortion. It is the solution to a problem she wishes she didn’t have. No abortion provider wants to take officials to court – but there are some challenge.
Jezebel Article: Important Tips & Information For Women That Are Thinking About Having An Abortion.
The Girl’s Guide To Having An Abortion
One in three American women have had or will have an abortion, and if you’re one of them, wading through the sea of hypercharged rhetoric and actually finding straightforward facts about the medical procedure that awaits can seem daunting.
I’m not going to patronize readers of this website by insisting that the decision is always a “gut-wrenching” or “horrible” or “life destroying” decision or whatthefuckever anti-choice groups insist abortion must be in all cases. In some cases, the emotional aftermath of an abortion is an overwhelming feeling of relief; in many readers’ cases, terminating their pregnancies was simply a legal medical procedure that allowed their life to continue unabated after feeling briefly terrified, alone, and afraid. While none of those who contributed say that they regretted their decision, many readers mentioned that resources available to them to prepare them for their experience were either emotionally anecdotal and thus not applicable to them or startlingly sterile and medical-sounding. In compiling this collection of readers’ experiences, I sought to walk the line between the personal and the medical, to lift the veil of mystery and shame that surrounds a procedure that millions of women undergo every year, that you may undergo, or that your best friend may undergo, or that your daughter may someday undergo, and, since the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is coming up this week, there’s no time like the present.
A Girl’s Guide To Unexpectedly Finding Out That You’re Pregnant
First, you will likely find out you are pregnant, and if the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted, this new found knowledge will be unpleasant. Readers’ experiences finding out that they were surprise pregnant vary from complete shock and what-the-fuckitude to the culmination of weeks of suspecting something was wrong before finally peeing on that sinister little strip.
Pregnancy test buying tip: if you’re nervous (you are) when purchasing an “uh oh” pregnancy test, banish judgmental purse-lipped looks from Walgreen’s cashiers by acting super happy about it.
Finding out you’re pregnant when you don’t want to be is terrifying. Writes one reader:
The thing that struck me the most was that there was a momentum that my body now had, a process that I couldn’t control.
As soon as you find out and you’ve decided that you wish to terminate your pregnancy, call an abortion provider and schedule an appointment, because the longer you wait, the more difficult and expensive the procedure can be. Many readers have utilized the services of Planned Parenthood, but others have been able to have their procedures performed by OB/GYN’s in clinics that aren’t specifically reserved for abortion. When scheduling an appointment, you may want to consider calling around and finding a pro-choice OB/GYN to recommend a doctor who can perform the procedure. And finally, if you’re lucky enough to have it, check on your insurance. Many group insurance plans cover abortion costs as they would birth-related costs. Your boss will not know if you’ve had an abortion, and cannot ask questions about the specific nature of your absence if you have to take time off work. If your employer presses, have the facility that provided you with the procedure write you a note explaining that you are undergoing a medical procedure that takes a certain amount of time to recover from along with a list of the date it would be appropriate for you to return to work. In most cases, the healthcare provider will be glad to help you with this and will even give you input on an appropriate recovery time. If you feel like you need to take an extra day, let them know.
When you go to the doctor, they will make you pee on a stick again, possibly the same brand of pregnancy test you used at home. Once a positive result is received at the clinic, they may take blood for a blood test and they may rely on the urine test results. You’re probably going to have to have an ultrasound that’s administered vaginally, using a wand that is inserted into the vagina. Doctors do this so that they know how far along you are and what method of pregnancy termination will be appropriate for you; ideally, they’ll perform the least-invasive procedure possible without putting you at risk for complications and they’ll recommend one of several options for you.
A Girl’s Guide To RU-486
RU-486 is a pill that chemically induces the body to miscarry. It can be used to terminate pregnancies that are 9 weeks along or fewer and is the most effective way to terminate a pregnancy that’s fewer than seven weeks along. It’s now known as mifepristone and is given to the patient in two doses, the first of which is administered at the clinic and stops the development of the fetus and the second of which is taken at home which induces the uterus to empty its contents. If you’re in the UK, you have to take both doses at the clinic, but this may be changing in the near future.
Readers who utilized this method remarked that they experienced massive, massive menstrual cramp-like feelings in their abdomen combined with some nausea. Women utilizing this method of abortion should make plans to bleed quite a bit, because while the cramping can be relieved with over the counter pain medications, the bleeding cannot. The bleeding will go for anywhere from a week to a month after taking RU-486, but most people I spoke with mentioned it went on for around two weeks.
A Girl’s Guide To A First Trimester Surgical Abortion
If you’re more than 7 weeks pregnant, you may be better suited for a vacuum aspiration. You’ll have to undergo the same pee test/general vital checkup/ultrasound routine as everyone else, and when it’s time for your procedure, you’ll put on a hospital gown, lay down on an exam table under mild sedation and have the contents of your uterus essentially vacuumed out of you. The procedure’s done in a matter of minutes, but readers reported that the sound of the mechanism used to perform the procedure is “disturbing.”
Afterward, you’ll probably need over the counter pain relievers to help any residual cramping. You’ll probably feel “out of it” and need someone to take you home and make sure you have some crappy movies and cheese fries or something. You’ll have to go to a follow-up appointment after some time has passed to make sure that the procedure was successful. Bleeding may continue for several days to a few weeks after the procedure.
A Girl’s Guide To A Late Term Abortion
This is tricky, because most places don’t have doctors that will perform procedures on women who are beyond their first trimester and still wish to terminate their pregnancies. Second trimester abortions are massively more expensive, complicated, and traumatic than first trimester abortions, and thus it’s important to stay on top of your own reproductive health and, if you’re afraid you might be pregnant and you don’t plan on carrying the pregnancy to term, take a pregnancy test if you’re in the least bit scared.
If a pregnancy is too far along to be terminated via vacuum aspiration or medicinally, doctors will perform a D&C, which is a procedure in two steps. First, the patient has the cervix numbed and has several seaweed matchsticks inserted into the cervix. These sticks absorb moisture from the body and expand, dilating the cervix. This part of the procedure is extremely painful and should be met with all available anti-pain resources available- hot water bottles, the maximum dose of pain killers your doctor recommends, very limited physical activity. After the sticks are in the cervix for at least 12 hours, the patient will return to the hospital, where she’ll have the option of being placed under general anesthesia or partial anesthesia, which means you’ll be partially conscious for the procedure. The contents of the uterus are then removed via a sharp instrument and suctioned out.
Following a D&C, like with other abortion procedures, there will be blood, and you’ll probably have to take at least a few days off of work. It’s not recommended that you have sex or use tampons for at least a few weeks following a D&C, to prevent infection.
As with other procedures, you’ll have a follow-up appointment at a date in the future you and your doctor determine where they’ll check to make sure everything’s fine.
In a perfect world, birth control would work 100% of the time as intended and we’d all be able to will ourselves pregnant using only the power of our intentions, but the fact of the matter is, we can’t will our natural processes to line up with our goals and objectives. I’m not trying to advocate that all unintentionally pregnant women choose abortion, rather, I hope that this collection information gathered from reader experiences can serve as a guide for women who have decided that abortion is the best course of action for themselves.
It should be evident from this post that there’s really no such thing as “just” having an abortion, that the cavalier attitude that sexually active women have toward life or toward motherhood is more convenient myth than anything else. From communicating with readers who have terminated a pregnancy, it’s clear that no one wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it’s the least-shitty of a bunch of shitty choices a woman can make when she becomes unintentionally pregnant, especially if she’s not physically, financially, or emotionally ready to handle a pregnancy. Adoption is a wonderful alternative for people women who don’t wish to be mothers, but abortion is the only alternative for pregnant women who don’t want to be pregnant.
More resources/information:
Guttmacher Institute
Planned Parenthod
I’m Not Sorry
New BBC Interview: Zambian Author & Economist Dambisa Moyo Talks About Her New Book How The West Was Lost.
Here is a new BBC interview with the talented Zambian author and economist Dambisa Moyo! Dambisa has a new book coming out next month called How The West Was Lost. Two years ago, Dambisa released an incendiary manifesto called Dead Aid and it became an international best seller. Dead Aid challenged the paternalistic and racist attitudes the western world has towards to the African continent. According to Dambisa Moyo, the problems on the African continent are due to the influx of foreign aid. Dambisa believes a radical strategy is needed and foreign aid must be cut off except humanitarian aid, for the African nations. Dambisa argues, African dictators do not have an incentive to develop their economies when the western world pours billions of dollars of foreign aid. The pernicious African dictators would be forced to assist and develop the economies on the African continent if foreign aid was cut off. Now, Dambisa Moyo’s new work is focusing on the problems in the economies in the developed world.
NY Times Article: Understanding The Creation Of The Academic Discipline Male Studies.
The Study of Man (or Males)
By CHARLES McGRATH
Published: January 7, 2011
IF you are a college graduate of a certain age, you probably remember that there used to be an all-purpose discipline that studied men and their behavior. It was called history. There was also a subject, called literature, that studied what men wrote. And art examined the pictures men painted.
Boris Kulikov
Frustration with the neglect of women’s accomplishments — call it phallocentrism if you like — was what led to women’s studies, which has lately morphed into gender studies on some campuses. Women’s studies also gave rise to something called men’s studies, which is essentially pro-feminist. You can’t exactly major in men’s studies, but roughly 100 universities offer courses that fall under the umbrella, and the field has produced influential thinkers like Michael Kimmel, who is a professor at Stony Brook University and author of “Manhood in America: A Cultural History.”
The academic turf devoted to sex and gender these days is so crowded, in fact, that the prospect of a newcomer, a discipline called male studies, has generated a minor controversy.
Male studies, largely the brainchild of Dr. Edward M. Stephens, a New York City psychiatrist, doesn’t actually exist anywhere yet. Last spring, there was a scholarly symposium at Wagner College on Staten Island, intended to raise the movement’s profile and attract funds for a department with a tenured chair on some campus. A number of prominent scholars attended, including Lionel Tiger, an emeritus anthropology professor at Rutgers, who invented the term “male bonding,” and Paul Nathanson, a religious studies scholar at McGill University, who specializes in the study of misandry, the flip side of misogyny. Both are on the advisory board of the Foundation for Male Studies, which Dr. Stephens founded last year.
There will be a second conference in April at the New York Academy of Medicine — right on the heels, as it happens, of the annual conference of the American Men’s Studies Association — and the two groups have already begun jousting.
Robert Heasley, a sociology professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and president of the association, has accused the new movement of “inventing something that I think already exists.” And at the Wagner College conference, Rocco Capraro, a history professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, said much the same thing. Men’s studies had been around for 30 years, he pointed out, and was “an emerging interdisciplinary field concerned with men’s identity and experience in the present, over time, across space.”
His definition was sufficiently vague, in other words, that it seemed to cover just about everything male-related, and he suggested that the differences between men’s studies and male studies were mostly ones of emphasis.
Actually, the differences are a good deal deeper than that. One argument that male studies advocates make is that men’s studies has essentially been co-opted. According to Professor Tiger, the trouble with men’s studies is that it’s “a wholly owned branch of women’s studies.”
There is also a political dimension to the split. “I’d like to get away from this terminology but it’s true,” Professor Heasley said in a recent interview. “It’s left wing/right wing.”
But ultimately the differences have to do with radically different notions of what it means to be a man in the first place.
The people in men’s studies, like those in women’s studies, take a mostly sociological perspective and believe that masculinity is essentially a cultural construct and that gender differences in general are fluid and variable. To Professor Kimmel, we live in a world that is increasingly gender-neutral and gender integrated and that this is a good thing for men and women both. “That ship has sailed — it’s a done deal,” he said recently, dismissing the idea that men and women are as different as Martians and Venutians.
The male studies people, on the other had, are what their critics call “essentialists” and believe that male behavior is in large part biologically determined. Men think and act differently from how women think and act because that’s how evolution shaped them. In the most extreme formulations of essentialism, men are basically still Neanderthals: violent, clannish, sexually voracious and in need of female domestication.
Professor Tiger, who has a somewhat more benign view of men than that, nevertheless worries that the changes that have allowed women to control their own reproductive process have unnaturally and disastrously altered the balance of power between the sexes.
But the biology vs. culture argument has been going on for years, and the male studies movement is less an expansion of that debate than a response to a specific crisis, the nature of which both sides agree on: academically at least, young men are in trouble.
Starting in grammar school, they lag behind girls by most observable measures, and the gap widens through high school and college. If males go to college at all, that is. College enrollment tilts at almost 60-40 in favor of women, and once enrolled, women are more likely than men to do well and to graduate.
There are a lot of explanations for why this is so. A popular theory, set forth in books like “The Trouble With Boys,” by Peg Tyre, and “The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Hurting Our Young Men,” by Christina Hoff Sommers, is that grammar school classrooms have become excessively feminized, impatient with boys’ naturally boisterous behavior and short attention spans and inattentive to the way in which boys learn differently from girls. (Critics who went to school in the ’50s, when seat-squirming, loud-talking and other boyish hijinks were even less tolerated, are told that back then education didn’t matter so much and that a boy who didn’t do well in school had more and better employment options than such a student does today.)
Professor Tiger believes that by the time girls get to college, there is a Darwinian component to the achievement gap: women are aware of the divorce rate and the likelihood that they may raise children without ever marrying in the first place. “They’re studying for two,” he explained. “Guys just don’t have that sense, that inwit. That’s biology at its most essential.”
And then there are the various cultural arguments: that at least by some standards of masculinity, learning — reading and writing especially — is “uncool,” and that college campuses have become inhospitable to men, who now suffer from fragile self-regard. People associated with the male studies movement frequently bring up the date rape seminar now obligatory on most campuses. On their very first day at college, awkward young men are gathered into a room with their female counterparts and, the argument goes, made to feel like sexual predators.
Miles Groth, who teaches psychology at Wagner College and was host of the conference there last spring, says that what he hears all the time from male undergraduates on his campus is “I just don’t feel welcome here.” Professor Groth’s “Engaging College Men,” published last year by Men’s Studies Press, discusses programs at 14 campuses directed at improving the lot of men, and he has himself established a men’s center at Wagner, a small, private liberal arts school where only 36 percent of the students are men and a quarter of them are recruited athletes on scholarship.
The 15 or so members, many of them philosophy majors, meet once a week to share their thoughts in an atmosphere that is a “safe haven” for creating male intimacy, according to Michael Martin, a freshman football player. “I think of it as a fraternity in the truest sense,” he explained. “I think women love that we do this. Or if they don’t, they haven’t had it accurately explained to them.”
Kyle Glover, a senior and leader of the group, had this to say: “Guys are struggling. I’ve heard this argument that now is the girls’ time to get back but I don’t accept that.” He went on: “We talk a lot about what makes us tick as males. How did we get here? What’s your relationship with your dad like? Your mom? What do you think women want from you? What do you think you want from them?”
Professor Groth’s courses examine what it means to be a man from the points of view of psychology, anthropology, literature and even movies. “Why the silence?” he said between classes one day. “Why hasn’t our generation been more vocal about what’s happening to our young men?” And then he partly answered his own question: “It’s the continuing myth of male power. If I as a man raise these issues I’m just raising that old specter of male power because I want to keep women under control.”
Professor Groth, Professor Tiger and Dr. Stephens all seem at great pains not to say anything critical about feminism or women’s studies. “I don’t think male studies has emerged from acrimony,” Professor Tiger insisted. And yet the male studies movement appears to be animated at least in part by a sense that feminism has gone too far on campus and the women’s studies departments are too powerful. Professor Tiger and Dr. Stephens like to recite by the sheaf statistics showing how much more resources are being poured into the study of women and their problems than into men and their plight.
Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny. There used to be a link on the Web site for the Foundation for Male Studies to an interminable screed by someone called the Futurist, who was convinced the overvaluing of women and undervaluing of men was about to create a civilizational cataclysm. The piece began more or less rationally, but soon flared with gas jets of anger and worries about “rage-filled ‘feminists’ who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could.”
This intemperateness has recently caused Professor Groth to distance himself a little from the foundation, though Dr. Stephens believes that the rift is less philosophical than methodological, with Professor Groth concerned with setting up men’s centers and Dr. Stephens with establishing an academic department devoted to men.
Some of Dr. Stephens’s critics like to account for his male studies enthusiasm by pointing out that he went through a bad marital breakup, something he readily admits. “I was a happy psychiatrist until 1994, when I decided to get divorced,” he said, sitting in his windowless, ground-level office on the Upper East Side. “The kids got alienated and I got bankrupted — part of the gender-skewed system.” What got him thinking about what eventually became male studies, he went on to say, was his discovery that divorce law barely acknowledged paternal instinct and a sense, growing out of his psychiatric practice, that no one was paying attention to the special needs of men.
Dr. Stephens is an old-fashioned-seeming man, with a grandfatherly mustache and a fondness for bow ties, but he is convinced that, far from being a throwback, he is in the forefront of something: “I don’t have a goal. I have a vision. I sign all of my correspondence, ‘Looking forward.’ I’m looking forward to some really new approaches to understanding ourselves.”
ONE of Professor Groth’s colleagues at Wagner, Jean Halley, who teaches sociology and gender studies, describes him as a popular teacher whose courses on gender and masculinity attract a big enrollment. But she complains about the essentialism of male studies and says that Professor Groth “seems to like to position himself in a contentious way.”
Professor Groth, who is unmarried and has no children, is a boyish 63. He typically wears a coat and tie but keeps his shirttail carefully untucked. What motivates him, he says, is concern over the way college-age men seem to be foundering and a concern that if nothing is done, they may soon find themselves both unemployable and unmarriageable.
“It’s not O.K. these days to talk about the problems of boys and young men without seeming to be anti-girl,” he said. “There aren’t enough courses and enough people willing to come out of the woodwork and take the flak. A lot of people are hoping it will go away, but I’m not going away. I’m tenured.”
He added that he sometimes wondered if the name “male studies” itself was a problem and said, “I like ‘andrology,’ except that’s the study of prostates.”
Last semester, Professor Groth taught a course on the psychology of men; of 30 students, all but five were women. “I asked everyone, ‘Why are you taking this course?’ ” he recalled. “The boys didn’t say anything. The girls all said, ‘We want to understand the guys better.’ ”
Here Is Jennifer Peto’s Incendiary Master Thesis About White Jewish People & The Holocaust.
Canadian lesbian feminist Jennifer Peto has received a lot of media attention about her controversial Masters Thesis.
The National Post newspaper’s comment editor Jonathan Kay has attacked Peto in numerous articles.
Jennifer Peto is being attacked because she challenges the power of whiteness and white skin privilege of the Jewish community in Canada.
It is politically incorrect to state that white Jewish people are not a minority group. Jennifer Peto’s Master’s Thesis, The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education states that white Jewish people have white skin privilege.
Peto argues that, white Jewish community construct and create feelings of being victims because of the Holocaust.
According to Peto, white Jewish people have “become white” and are now a part of whiteness .
In the early twentieth century, it is true that white Jewish people encountered discrimination. However, in the twenty-first century, white Jewish people
are now “completely white” they are no longer an ethnic minority in Canada.
Here is the link to Jennifer Peto’s Master’s Thesis and you can decide whether you agree with her arguments or not.
| Link: Peto_Jennifer_201006_MA_thesis.pdf |
Gayblackcanada 