Why is the American Life League lying about a children's book?

I found this video on an anti-abortion blog. It caught my attention because it's about a very good children's sex education book -- It's Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris -- that I happen to own, and let me tell you, the level of bullshit in this video is appalling, starting with the very first "shocking" claim:

Recently, a Washington State Prison rejected a fund-raising letter that included censored images from the book for being "sexually explicit" and "obscene."

Seriously? A prison? Rejected a fund-raising letter? (Fund-raising in a prison? What?) That included images from the book?

Are they trying to imply that children should be treated like prison inmates? Washington State prisons don't allow prisoners to receive mail with depictions of sexual intercourse, so they should have known that if they cut out drawings of people having sex, attached them to so-called "fund-raising letters" and mailed them to prisoners in prison, they would be rejected. So what? What on Earth does this prove? That prisons exist to punish people?

More after the jump.

Page 15 of the book explains that sexual intercourse or "having sex," can involve the penis and the vagina, the mouth and the genitals, or the penis and the anus.

Interesting thing about this quote: it was not included in early versions of the book. It was added to the most recent edition, after it was reported that the heavy focus on vaginal intercourse in abstinence-only classes was leading some children to engage in unprotected oral and anal sex instead, thinking this still counts as "abstinence." By defining intercourse more broadly than just vaginal intercourse, this book avoids that problem.

Nowhere does the book describe the virtue of chastity...

This is a lie. In my own copy of this book, abstinence is described in detail, several times.

Page 68 reads, "Whether or not to have sexual intercourse is a decision each person has a right to make. But a person should always remember that sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy and having a baby. Many young people choose to wait to have sexual intercourse until they feel they are either old enough or responsible enough. This is called postponement. Postponement means to delay until a later time. However, the only sure way to not have an unwanted pregnancy is to not have sexual intercourse. This is called abstinence."

It goes on to say, "In addition to preventing the start of a pregnancy, postponement and abstinence can also help prevent a person from getting or passing on infections that are spread by sexual contact." Page 69 continues, "Many people who choose to postpone or abstain from sexual intercourse say that they can still have a close, loving, and sexy relationship with another person."

Page 82, in the chapter on sexually transmitted diseases, says that abstinence "is the only fully safe way people can protect themselves from getting HIV through sexual contact." (All emphasis mine.)

It's the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, the only sure way to prevent STDs, the only sure way to avoid HIV... how many more virtues of chastity does this book need to mention before the American Life League will notice?

...and in fact, on page 48, Harris attacks the religious belief that masturbation is morally wrong by saying...

The book says, "Some people think that masturbation is wrong or harmful. And some religions call masturbation a sin. But masturbating cannot hurt you."

This is not an attack on religious beliefs! All it says is that masturbating doesn't hurt you, which is true. It doesn't cause injury, or disease, or blindness, or hairy palms, or insanity, or any health problem. Masturbation is the safest form of sex there is!

If the book said something like, "some religions call masturbation a sin, but these beliefs are silly," that would be an attack on the religious belief that masturbation is morally wrong. But it doesn't say anything like that. It doesn't pass judgment on those beliefs at all.

She then provides illustrations of a young boy and a young girl masturbating, with an accompanying how-to explanation.

It's hilarious that they put little black boxes on those drawings, because there's nothing there to censor. The girl is putting her hand between her legs. The boy has his hand covering his penis. It doesn't show anything.

And there is no "how-to explanation," just a general description of what masturbation is. In fact, you can read the whole page for yourself right here. It's a far cry from The Joy of Sex.

...free copies of the book are distributed to children in grades 7-9 at [Planned Parenthood's] annual sex party in Waco, Texas.

Sex party? Actually, Nobody's Fool is a conference "to encourage abstinence, promote parent-child communication and give medically accurate and age-appropriate facts about sexuality issues. These include puberty, healthy relationships, abuse, disease and pregnancy prevention." Planned Parenthood does not have "sex parties" for junior high students in Waco, Texas.

In several states, the contents of It's Perfectly Normal fall directly under the definition of pornography, and in some cases, child pornography.

I seriously doubt that. I can find no information about this book ever being officially labeled as pornography or child pornography in any state in the U.S.

Does this look like pornography to you?

I know the lights are on, and the woman is on top, but come on. I don't think the average person would consider that pornography, especially in the context of a sex education book. It doesn't even show their genitals.

Planned Parenthood has gone too far, and should be charged with the distribution of pornography to minors.

But they won't, because that would be crazy. Sex education is not pornography.

I don't know why ALL is wasting their time on this book. If parents want to buy it or check it out of the library for their 10-year-olds, what do they care? It's not a public school textbook that kids are required to read, it's for parents to buy for their children. Doesn't ALL support parent-directed sex education?

What's wrong with 10-year-olds knowing this stuff? What is the harm in 10-year-olds knowing that sex causes pregnancy? Or that any sexual contact can spread disease? Or that masturbation does not spread disease? Ignorance doesn't help anyone make good choices. Education prevents bad choices, and ALL should support that.

Read More......

Liberty and justice for all

Pat Buchanan just wants to be free, you guys! It's his American dream! But there's a problem! See, Pat feels that he can not be truly free unless he has the right to take basic freedoms away from others who are not as rich, white, male, straight and Christian as he is.

That's the gist of this column decrying ENDA:

The [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] will also do something else — further restrict individual freedom and further criminalize personal conduct. It would tell an employer: You may not want to hire homosexuals, but you are no longer free not to. For if you fail or refuse to hire or promote a homosexual, we will punish you, fine you, shut you down, break you.

If you don't go out and hire up some homosexuals right this instant, the jack-booted thugs will bust your kneecaps and burn your shop to the ground!!

God, what a nut! He makes it sound like ENDA is some kind of mandatory gay quota, rather than a perfectly reasonable law prohibiting discrimination against qualified, hard-working employees for being gay, a practice that 89% of the population finds unacceptable.

But not Pat! He actually defends the right of the powerful to fire or refuse to hire people not just for being gay, but also for being black, Jewish or female:

Men are no longer free to hire or sell their homes to whomever they wish, or to associate with whomever they wish.

In the 1950s, there were men's clubs and women's clubs, WASP country clubs and law firms and Jewish country clubs and law firms. Black folks had their own restaurants, barber shops, movie theaters and churches.

We were a free country then. Did people use their freedom to discriminate? Undeniably. Did race discrimination need correcting? Undeniably. But in enlisting state power to end discrimination, we harnessed Leviathan. The Left is now using the monster to reshape America. Thus is freedom, the cause of the American Revolution, supplanted by equality, the cause of the French Revolution. [Emphasis mine.]

Without the right to keep minorities poor and powerless, we are not free! According to Pat, an unequal society is the only truly free society! A house divided against itself is the only one that stands!

I don't know where folks like Pat get the idea that freedom is something you have to horde for yourself and keep from others to enjoy. If a black family can go to the same movie theater or restaurant as me, I don't see that as a threat to my freedom. If gay people can compete for the same jobs and live in the same neighborhood as me, that doesn't make me less free. Equality is not the enemy of freedom; justice is not the enemy of liberty. What the hell is Pat's problem?

Read More......

Vagina is destroying the Church of England!

Check out this silly article at LifeSite News, bemoaning the girlie-fication of the Church of England:

American Baptist writer Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and board member of Focus on the Family, wrote that the “feminization of the church” is the equivalent of the liberalization of the church. He points to the fact that in the US Episcopal Church, the number of women enrolled in Master of Divinity programs now represents almost a third of total enrolment with the mainline Protestants groups following suit. “In many liberal seminaries, women students now vastly outnumber men.”

Mohler added, “The feminization of the ministry is one of the most significant trends of this generation. Acceptance of women in the pastoral role reverses centuries of Christian conviction and practice. It also leads to a redefinition of the church and its ministry. Once women begin to fill and represent roles of pastoral leadership men withdraw. This is true, not only in the pulpit, but in the pews. The evacuation of male worshippers from liberal churches is a noticeable phenomenon.”

Some writers are pointing to the weakening of the Church of England as a warning sign for British sovereignty and independence. As the officially established church, the Church of England plays a significant role in Britain’s political and social make-up and has an impact on its distinctiveness from its European neighbours.

See, God calls the men to the church, but when they realize they'll have to go to school and eventually work with women, it drives them all away! The call of the Lord is no match for the girl-cooties, it seems.

Read More......

HEB reusable bags!

photo credit: mss

FINALLY the local Austin grocery store, HEB, has begun selling reusable shopping bags for the unbeatable price of 99 cents each, and I'm now the proud owner of five of them! I've been waiting for this forever. THANK YOU, HEB!

I know the benefits of using reusable bags over disposables are debateable, but personally, every time I go to the grocery store (about once a week), I come home with at least 10 new plastic bags, and that's WAY too many for me to reuse (my kid is too old for diapers, and I don't have a dog). And, you know, it's not just the petroleum usage and landfill space that bugs me. I've read that plastic bags resemble jellyfish when they're in the ocean, and that turtles and dolphins choke to death on them, and that's no good. Maybe it's not the most dire problem in the whole world, but it's something. Reducing litter and waste even a little is still a good thing.

Read More......

You are a box.

Wow. If you ever doubted that the pro-life movement thinks of women not so much as people with individual personalities, feelings and responsibilities in life, but more as mindless, thoughtless containers for babies, this little video from InsideCatholic.com ought make it pretty clear.

For those who can't view the video, it goes like this:

SCENE: a box factory

NARRATOR: If you thought there was a small chance that a baby was hidden in a box, wouldn't you treat the box as if it held a baby, just in case?

SCENE: an ultrasound image

NARRATOR: So even if you think there's just a small chance that an unborn child is a baby, shouldn't you treat it as if it were, just in case? Something to think about.

And shouldn't we treat women like property, you know, just in case?

Read More......

Dem debate 11/15

I watched the debate tonight, and I'm glad I did. Hillary Clinton performed beautifully -- she opened by saying she wore her "asbestos pantsuit" -- and the crowd seemed sympathetic to her. Several times, when Edwards and Obama attacked Clinton, the crowd booed! It was weird! And Clinton made sure to hit right back at them, claiming that Obama's health care plan leaves 15 million people uncovered, and pointing out that Edwards was opposed to universal health care in 2004. And that's just the first ten minutes! After that, everyone seemed to calm down a bit and lay off the personal attacks.

And strangely, this time around, it was Obama who screwed up on the question about driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. He said he was for it, and went on at length about it. Hillary's answer was a simple "no." Guess that's the last she'll hear about that issue.

Then her answer on the whole "gender card" nonsense was superb. She repeated that she's being attacked because she's ahead, not because she's a woman. When confronted about her "all-boys club" remark at Wellesley, she didn't back down; explaining that women have faced "impediments" to progress, and that she wants to shatter the highest glass ceiling. It's nice to have a feminist in the race.

All in all, a pretty good debate. I hardly ever watch these things, but I liked this one. I think for the next few weeks, Hillary's going to be getting a lot more positive media coverage. It's already started, with headlines like this: "Clinton Calls – And Raises -- In Vegas Debate."

Read More......

Pro-Life America

Would you want to live in an America where birth control pills are illegal? How about an America where ALL abortion is illegal, even for women with life-threatening emergencies? Or an America where frozen embryos have rights? How about all three? Don't think it could happen? Maybe not, but in several states across the country, people are trying their best to create exactly that America.

Montana:

State Rep. Rick Jore of Ronan, a staunch abortion opponent, hopes to have Montana voters decide next year whether the state constitution should define “person” in such a way as to outlaw abortion.

Jore, the Legislature’s only Constitution Party member, is proposing a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define person as “a human being at all stages of human development or life, including the state of fertilization.”

...

After state officials review the measure for form, Jore and his supporters can begin gathering signatures of registered Montana voters, in an attempt to qualify the measure for the 2008 ballot. He said he hopes it’s ready for distribution within a few weeks.

Colorado:

The wording of a proposed initiative that would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado won an OK from the state Supreme Court on Tuesday.

...

The measure would give fertilized eggs the state constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process.

And elsewhere:

• GEORGIA: According to organizers in Colorado, a bill is ready to go before the legislature to put a similar measure on the ballot in 2008.

• MISSISSIPPI AND MICHIGAN: Working on similar initiatives. A similar amendment in Michigan failed in July 2006 when supporters were unable to obtain the required 317,000 signatures.

• OREGON: The attorney general struck down the wording of a similar initiative, a decision that is being contested in court.

These people want to give a fertilized egg rights even before it implants in a uterus and begins to grow. The morning-after pill would have to be outlawed. So would the regular birth control pill, since it can sometimes prevent implantation. The patch, shot, ring and any other hormonal form of birth control would have to go, as well, because they work the same way.

Women seeking fertility treatment might be forced to either use all fertilized eggs created in the lab, or donate them to someone else. Women carrying high-order multiple pregnancies may not be allowed to reduce down to twins or triplets; they could be required to carry however many fetuses they have: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12... Embryonic stem cell research would have to be banned.

Women who've been raped would not be allowed to abort. Little girls who've been molested would not be allowed to abort, either. Pregnant women with serious illnesses like cancer would not be allowed to abort to receive treatment, and might even be required to hold off treatment for themselves to protect the embryo. Pregnant women with emergencies like placental abruption or ectopic pregnancy could bleed to death waiting for courts to give their nonviable fetuses "due process."

This is the nightmare the woman-hating "pro-life" movement seeks to unleash on this country. Will America allow it? God, I hope not.

Read More......

Why give federal funding to abortion clinics?

Recently I've been reading a lot about this new movement afoot to take away Planned Parenthood's federal birth control funding. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing abortion clinics, they say, and that sounds like a compelling argument. But what they don't tell you is that federal Title X funding has absolutely nothing to do with abortion:

Over the past 30 years, Title X family planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals and others. In addition to contraceptive services and related counseling, Title X-supported clinics provide a number of related preventive health services such as: patient education and counseling; breast and pelvic examinations; breast and cervical cancer screening according to nationally recognized standards of care; sexually transmitted disease (STD) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention education, counseling, testing and referral; and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

Title X funding enables local non-profit clinics (like Planned Parenthood) to provide low-income people with necessary reproductive health care like STI/HIV testing, treatment and prevention, pregnancy testing, birth control, breast exams and pap smears. It doesn't fund abortion, and doesn't keep Planned Parenthood performing abortions in any way.

There are 859 Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States, and only 232 of them provide abortion. The rest do nothing but low-cost birth control, pap smears, pregnancy tests, breast exams, STI tests and the like. Those are the clinics that would close without Title X funding -- possibly hundreds of them -- many in places where there are no other birth control clinics. This can only lead to an explosion of unintended pregnancies and STIs.

Why give federal Title X funds to Planned Parenthood? Because there is no other non-profit organization with 859 reproductive health clinics all over the country (even in small, remote towns like Alice and Lufkin) to give it to. Cutting off Planned Parenthood would literally cut off birth control and pap smears for millions of low-income people with nowhere else to go. It's a terrible, unconscionable idea that will save no babies and help no one.

Read More......

Abstinence-only is utterly useless

Boy, the evidence against abstinence-only just keeps mounting these days. First, the news that abstinence-obsessed Texas leads the nation in repeat teen births. Then, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy released a study showing that abstinence-only classes do not change teens' sexual behavior, while comprehensive sex education programs do, for the better.

Now comes this fascinating new analysis showing that teenage sexual activity doesn't really lead to delinquency:

Perhaps most surprising, the Virginia study found that adolescents who had sex at younger ages were less likely to end up delinquent than those who lost their virginity later. Many factors play into a person's readiness for sex, but in at least some cases sexual relationships may offer an alternative to trouble, the researchers say.

Even then, there are emotional and physical risks. Young adolescents, in particular, are less likely to use condoms and so are vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

But those are risks that other nations have mitigated with education, Harden and Turkheimer said, while U.S. educators wanting a piece of the nation's $200 million "abstinence only" budget must adhere to a curriculum that links sex to delinquency and explicitly precludes discussion of contraception.

The new study "really calls into question the usefulness of abstinence education for preventing behavior problems," Harden said, "and questions the bigger underlying assumption that all adolescent sex is always bad."   (Emphasis mine.)

What is the point of "sex education" that only protects the kids who don't have sex, anyway? That's like having a driver's ed class that only teaches pedestrian safety, or a cooking class that only teaches how to order a pizza. It makes absolutely no sense at all, and it's screwing kids over:

Erandy Gonzalez is a straight-A student from Oak Cliff. The 17-year-old also is pregnant with her second child.

While Erandy has excelled in school, she has a limited understanding of where a teenager might find birth control. That, it seems, is the Texas way.

It really is. When I was a 17-year-old Texan, I had no idea that I could get free birth control at Planned Parenthood, without health insurance and without my parents knowing. They don't tell you that in school in Texas. (And Planned Parenthood's vague advertisements aren't much help.)

For additional evidence, Texas should look west, to California.

Both states face unique challenges posed by burgeoning immigrant populations. Hispanics have the highest teen birth rate of any ethnic group. But while Texas leads the nation in teens having babies, California has seen its numbers plummet.

Texas has focused on abstinence. California, by contrast, requires schools to provide information about both abstinence and birth control; teens there also have easy access to contraception.

It makes sense: Texas only cares to protect kids who are not having sex, while California works to protect both abstinent kids and sexually active kids. They don't consign their sexually active teens to the moral trash heap; they work to keep all kids safe from harm, so they can grow and succeed in life. And it works.

Read More......

Hillary's Fact Hub

Damn. See, this is why Hillary is the front-runner: Meet the Press was over at 11 AM (in my area, anyway), and she's already got a rebuttal online. This is one seriously slick campaign.

Read More......

Texas #1 in repeat teen births, too

Via Feministing, Texas now is not only the teen birth capital of the US, it's also the repeat teen birth capital of the US:

Nearly one in four Texas teen girls who have given birth once, will become a mother again as a teen, according to the study by Child Trends, a nonpartisan social science research group. The group used 2004 data — the most recent available — from the National Center for Health Statistics for its report.

But what really caught my eye is this bit:

In a Lufkin High School class for pregnant students, the curriculum includes information on birth control, something required by law, said Superintendent Roy Knight. "Our primary focus is on abstinence; however, we still work to be proactive to prevent further unplanned pregnancies," Knight said.

Required by law? Really? Well, let's just have a look at the state of Texas' law on sex education:

(e) Any course materials and instruction relating to human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, or human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome shall be selected by the board of trustees with the advice of the local school health advisory council and must:
(1) present abstinence from sexual activity as the preferred choice of behavior in relationship to all sexual activity for unmarried persons of school age;
(2) devote more attention to abstinence from sexual activity than to any other behavior;
(3) emphasize that abstinence from sexual activity, if used consistently and correctly, is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and the emotional trauma associated with adolescent sexual activity;
(4) direct adolescents to a standard of behavior in which abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and
(5) teach contraception and condom use in terms of human use reality rates instead of theoretical laboratory rates, if instruction on contraception and condoms is included in curriculum content.
(f) A school district may not distribute condoms in connection with instruction relating to human sexuality. (emphasis mine)

That doesn't look like a requirement that schools teach about contraception, to me. There's a big, fat IF right in the middle of it. It says "IF instruction on contraception and condoms is included," then it is to be nothing but typical-use failure rates and "but abstinence is the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy for sure!"

And now we see the result of that law: highest teen birth rates in the nation, highest repeat teen birth rates in the nation, and very little progress on improving the situation, compared to other states. From 1992 to 2000, Texas' teen pregnancy rate went down only 17.9%. California's teen pregnancy rate dropped 39.6% in that same time period, thanks to comprehensive sex education.

I know that when I was a student in a Texas abstinence-until-marriage class, all they told me about birth control was that it failed. Do they really expect teens to hear that message and say, "Oh, wow! Birth control! It fails! I should use it!" Give me a fucking break! That message only discourages birth control use. And it obviously doesn't discourage sex. Those Texas teens can't all be giving birth to the second coming of Jesus.

Read More......

North Carolina improves heart attack care by putting profit first!

Just kidding! They did it by putting profits aside and focusing on what's best for the patient.

ORLANDO, Fla. - In an ideal world, every heart attack would end like Willard "Ziggy" Hill's. Within 90 minutes of arriving at a small community hospital in North Carolina, he was having a blocked artery reopened at Duke University Medical Center 25 miles away.

"It was like being a car in a pit stop at NASCAR," he said. "I thought 'I am in really good hands.'"

Two years ago, he might not have been. North Carolina was a bad place to have a heart attack, scoring below national norms of fast care. Now it may be one of the best.

The reason is the nation's most ambitious statewide project to redo how serious heart attacks are handled. Paramedics, doctors and 65 hospitals put aside powerful individual interests like money and control, and focused on giving faster care.

Why is this important? Drugs, devices and doctors do no good if they do not reach people quickly, before the heart suffers permanent damage.

Heart attacks happen when arteries are blocked, crimping a critical blood supply. The first choice of treatment is angioplasty, in which a tiny balloon is pushed into the vessel and inflated to flatten the clog.

However, many small hospitals lack specialized suites called catheterization labs needed for angioplasties. Instead, they sometimes give clot-dissolving drugs, which do not always work.

In the North Carolina project, 55 small hospitals agreed to send appropriate patients to 10 larger ones for angioplasty, even though it meant giving up thousands of dollars of revenue.

This is how all medical care should work: what's best for the patient should be paramount. The hospital's funding shouldn't even enter in to it.

That's why we need universal health care: so doctors and hospitals can focus on patient care instead of profit.

Read More......

State hospital to turn away dangerous mental patients, for lack of funds

Yet another perfect example of why this country NEEDS universal health care:

Mentally ill patients with no way to pay for their care -- often considered dangerous to themselves and others -- are usually taken to the Austin State Hospital.

But now the state says it is no longer going to pay for all of those Travis County patients.

So where will these mentally ill patients go?

To the already-clogged Emergency room, that's where! So the busy ER staff can ignore them, or let them walk out, or sedate them, or tie them down, or something.

"What I can do for a mentally ill patient who is dangerous and unstable in some way, is heavily sedate and restrain them," said Dr. Christopher Ziebell, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Brackenridge. "I don't have experience choosing one psychotic or another."

The Austin State Hospital does know how to take care of the mentally ill.

But the state says Travis County MHMR has been going over-budget -- sending too many patients to their facility.

Right now the Austin State Hospital is treating 123 patients. The county says it only gets enough money to pay for 63.

So, now the plan is to send the excess patients to local emergency rooms. There's no other resource for folks who don't have insurance coverage or funding.

This is a complete disgrace! The United States spends far more per person than any other nation on health care, so how is it that there's "not enough money" to keep dangerous mentally ill people off the streets and on their meds?

That's bullshit! For what we spend, we should have a world-class mental health system, with enough beds, staff and funding to deal with everyone.

This is personal for me, because I have an elderly family member who is severely mentally ill and a frequent patient of the Austin State Hospital. The last time she visited the regular ER, she wound up in jail on assault charges. We don't even know how it happened (because we weren't there), but it seems obvious to us that the ER doesn't know how to deal with the severely mentally ill. And now that ASH will be taking even fewer patients, I don't doubt more of them will wind up behind bars, and the jails and prisons don't know how to deal with them, either. They don't even give my relative the medicine she needs; they just heavily sedate her.

Why in the world are we still feeding this broken health care system trillions of dollars, so rich insurance executives and lobbyists can live in gated communities in the hills and put their own relatives in posh nursing homes where they won't be beaten or neglected, while millions and millions of ordinary people have to go without necessary care? It's ridiculous!

Read More......

The feminist case for Hillary

I loved this article!

But like almost everyone who is not a straight, white, Christian male, I've dreamed of having someone in the White House who looks like me. This is more than simplistic identity politics. Yes, it's identity politics, but it's not simple.

We live in a country where identity still, to a huge extent, shapes experience. A black person understands better than me what it's like to experience racism; a gay person understands what it's like to be denied basic rights because of your sexuality. And I feel that we need to put someone in the White House who understands that eight years of George W. Bush has devastated women's status in this country—and who will prioritize putting things right.

Read it all! It's great!

Read More......