to post or not to post

hm

i was contemplating doing the blog-post a day version of nanowrimo, but hark, look, 'tis the second already.

i don't know, maybe i will plug along anyway and write two "today", and make something up about daylight savings time.

i know when i was supposed to be writing papers there were *several* posts itching to come out that now seem to have sizzled.

but there's always something to ramble on about, really.

on propositioning (no, not that kind)

i have heard/read a lot of articles/blog posts in pushing for a defeat of proposition 8 : california's anti-gay marriage ammendment.
from obama (who in classic form isn't so much against it as he is, unlike mccain, not for it) to levi strauss co and B. Clinton and A. Schwarzenegger, all lining up to help maintain homos' right to marriage in the state of california.
which is great. go gays! get your rings on!

but i have barely heard a whole lot of grumbling against proposition 4: which would force young women under the age of 18 to 1)tell a parent of their intent to abort an unwanted pregnancy and 2) wait 48 hours to do so.

i''m not saying YAY PROP 8! i'm saying, where is the outrage against prop 4? clearly, the under 18 demographic provides neither a significant voting block (lol, any, really) nor a realistic demand of capitalist power.
i don't know, my own personal issues with marriage aside, wtf?? prop 4 is about bodily autonomy at its very core. it is saying that a young woman, simply because she is not yet 18, does not have full say in her body. if that young woman doesn't, nobody does. and that is far and above more scary to me than a world where gays can't get married and receive benefits for being legally connected to someone, when, in reality, those benefits should be basic human rights, anyway.

ok, prop 4, how many times do i have to repeat myself: you cannot legislate/force communication. it doesn't work. the little "oh, she can tell another adult" clause is bullshit. sure, she can tell another adult, if, and only if, she is willing to have her parents wind up with a child protection investigation case. awesome. proponents want to make the world a safer place for teen women, shut up and listen to those teens. you say you don't want your 'girls' to be taken advantage of? i fail to see how this law applies to creating such security.

ffs, no teenager i have ever interacted with is going to Just Say No to sex just because IF she gets pregnant, she'll have to tell someone if/when she has an abortion. (and wo/man, do i have a serious sense of dejavu over that statement.) so don't even try to make it that this about some sort of sexual wellness. all this does is encourage young women to take matters into their own hands- whether that means ignoring the pregnancy, thereby placing the fetus at risk of no prenatal care, or attempting home-made abortions. way to promote health and safety!

and waiting 48 hours.... ok. because every woman who has ever had an abortion just woke up one day and said, "oh, i don't *actually* want to be pregnant. i shall call an abortion clinic and have an abortion today. AND they will be able to schedule me the same day i call, because there are totally enough providers. AND i can absolutely get to and from one with no problems whatsoever!"

i've called enough abortion clinics in new york city, bastion of evil though we may be, and have never heard of a same-day appointment. and that's ignoring the fact that all of california is not urban with relatively easy access to providers.

i will say that i do quite vehemently agree with the Requires minor’s consent to abortion, but i'm not sure what with exceptions means. i know someone who several years ago in new york city received an abortion her mother wanted her to have more than she did and so i'm not exactly sure what "exceptions" would be included. which means that there is nothing i see salvagable in this ammendment.