Return to the Stars

benditlikebeckhamsadnessblog:

i’m still really sad that bend it like beckham wasn’t a lesbian movie

A cop is far more likely… to kill you than you are to kill a cop… The idea that police have an incredibly dangerous job is what we Southerners call a tall-tale, a stretch of the truth to bolster an ego unwilling to accept mediocrity. Not to take away from what many fair-minded officers do every day, but as those stubborn things called facts would have it, policing is less dangerous than farming, fishing, logging, and trash collecting, as well as six other professions. Now is the time to burst the cop myth and to stop giving them the deference to murder our friends and family in the street.
rivitpunk:

Food for thought…

"I’m only going to only invite the white Olympic athletes to meet me, and then put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in internment camps” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt  

rivitpunk:

Food for thought…

"I’m only going to only invite the white Olympic athletes to meet me, and then put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in internment camps” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt  

by-grace-of-god:

Note the sources of the above quotes.

Contraception is not the answer. We deserve better.

Why We Want More than Birth Control

Boy howdy. This response ended up taking many more hours of research than I had expected. I had hoped to be able to google these quotes, show how they had been taken out of context, and be done with it. Turns out that running down the sources of most of these quotes is harder than you would expect it to be, what with online libraries and whathaveyou. Why? Two reasons: The first is that a simple Google search of the quotes will only get you a cornucopia of pro-ignorance articles (and commenters on pro-choice articles) all parroting the exact same list of 18 karat quote-nuggets. The second reason is that these quotes are old.

image

The most recent was made about 18 years ago. The oldest, 61 years ago. Let that sink in. Think about how the demographics of contraceptive users have changed, and how they’ll continue to change (in the US) with the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Think about the advances that have been made in contraceptive technology since the days of computers that look like this:

image

My girlfriend uses her smartphone to remind her to take her pill. How many women could do that in 1996? But, for the benefit of argument, let’s temporarily assume that the quotes in the original post can all be taken at face value and that at various times several doctors, who were respected sex-educators and advocates of contraceptives, stated that contraceptive use led to higher rates of abortion. In this case, my response is…

 THEY WERE WRONG

image

The evidence that increased contraceptive use leads to lower rates of abortion is overwhelming:

“Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly”

- 2003 study  

“The abortion rate declined 8.0% between 2000 and 2008, from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15– 44 to 19.6 per 1,000. Decreases in abortion were experienced by most subgroups of women. One notable

exception was poor women; this group accounted for 42.4% of abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 17.5% between 2000 and 2008 from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000….

…The economic recession that was occurring in 2008 may have made it harder for poor women to access contraceptive services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies. Alternately, when confronted with an unintended pregnancy, poor women who might have felt equipped to support a child, or another child, when not in the midst of a recession may have decided that they were unable to do so during a time of economic turmoil.”

- 2008 Study

A new study by investigators at Washington University reports that providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduces unplanned pregnancies and cuts abortion rates by a range of 62 to 78 percent compared to the national rate.”

- 2012 study

“Our simulations are performed using FamilyScape 2.0, a microsimulation model of family formation. We simulate both increases in contraceptive use among non-contraceptors and improvements in the consistency and effectiveness of contraceptive use among existing contraceptors. Our results show that changes in either margin of behavior are likely to produce sizeable effects. For example, we find that, if 25 percent of non-contracepting unmarried women under the age of 30 were to begin using contraception, abortion and nonmarital birth rates among unmarried women in this age group would fall by about 25 percent and about 13 percent, respectively.”

- 2013 Study

There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women in 2011, the latest year for which figures were available, according a paper published Monday from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights think tank. That is down 13 percent from 2008 and a little higher than the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The study did not examine the reasons for the drop. But the authors suggested that one factor was greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms. They also noted the economy as a contributing factor, because people tend to adhere more strictly to their birth control during tough economic times. But they did not credit the recent wave of state laws restricting access to abortion, because most of those took effect in 2011 or later.

- 2014 study

And those are just a few of the sources I found by Googling “abortion rates contraception.” I guess all the pro-ignoramuses reblogging this post couldn’t be bothered.I should be able to stop this post right here. The claim that contraceptives lead to more abortions is demonstrably wrong, regardless of who made it. But, I set out to analyse these quotes one by one. So, returning to the world of reality, in which I am highly skeptical of the original post’s sources, we will delve into decades long-since passed and try to work out why, if at all, these things were said.

The Kinsey Quote

This is the oldest of the bunch; spoken in 1955 and published three years later, after Kinsey’s death. This is indeed an accurate quotation from a conference sponsored by Planned Parenthood. This Google Book entry is the closest thing to an online version of the original publication I was able to find, but it only lets you see a few sentences at a time. It does, however, confirm  this longer version of the quote, taken from the pro-ignorance article which seems to have originated this list of quotes:

“At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives. I don’t think it is entirely carelessness. As I pointed out before, you don’t do anything putting on your clothes, or going to bed, or drinking, or eating with absolute regularity. And I think it is just too much to hope that we can ever have any contraceptive practice, outside of temporary sterilization, which is going to prevent this occasional slip that accounts for a high proportion of undesired pregnancies and abortions, especially among those of the upper socioeconomic levels.”

Note that Kinsey specifically bemoans the “absolute regularity” needed for contraceptives. Remember that 2014 study that attributed the recent drop in abortion rates to improved contraceptive technologies that don’t require a daily pill? (Scroll up if you don’t.) I would love to have access to a full digital version of the conference’s write-up. While more recent data renders one man’s 60-year-old opinion moot, I am still curious to see what the wider context of Kinsey’s statements was. “But it seems so straightforward what he meant; More contraceptives = more abortions,” you object. Well, as you are about see, a lone piece of information can appear to mean something very different when deprived of its context.

The Guttmacher Institute Study

Note that the original post does not quote the Guttmacher Institute study (And hey, this one is only 18 years old!) but merely pulls a single statistic out of it. This one I was able to find in its entirety, and it turned out to be a textbook case of fact-mining. You see, the cited figure is 100% true. Out of a sample of almost ten-thousand women who had abortions, 58% were using contraceptives at the time. Case close. Contraceptives suck 5evar. Right? Wrong. You see, deprived of its context, the lone figure becomes a lie.

image

Lets pretend for a moment that I don’t have access to the full text of this study; I only have the lone fact from it the pro-ignoramus wanted me to see (58% of the women who had abortions were using contraceptives). I can still prove it’s bullshit just with armchair reasoning.

image

Consider that the sample set is made only of women who had abortions, rather than a random sampling of women using contraceptives. Now consider that if I asked you to find a group of women who were likely to be using contraceptives, you’d be damn smart to look for women who recently had abortions, since the obviously don’t want to be having a baby right now. While the quote-miners are likely trying to imply that the 58% overlap is proof of contraceptive failure rates or that contraceptive use leads to abortions, the only real reason for the correlation is the common third factor among the two groups; NOT WANTING TO BE PREGNANT.

If lots of people are using contraceptives, which have a small but present failure rate, it stands to reason that most of the people getting abortions; didn’t want kids, tried using contraceptive, but were the unlikely few that experience contraceptive failure.

Let’s say a birth control method X has a failure rate of 1%. A doctor sees 1,000 women who want abortions. 500 of them say they were using method X when they got pregnant. A pro-ignoramus (correctly) concludes  ”50% of the women who had abortions were on contraceptive X.” What they fail to mention is the 49,500 other women (the 99%) that never got pregnant in the first place because of method X.

Not convinced by my armchair reasoning?

image

Let’s look at some excerpts from the exact same study the original post quoted:

“The patterns of contraceptive use among abortion patients may or may not mirror the use patterns of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy. Each contraceptive method entails a different probability of becoming pregnant, and women’s method choice often differs by their socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Consequently, users of each method may differ in their likelihood of carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term or of having an abortion.”

“According to the 1988 NSFG, 90% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method and 10% are not. The abortion indices for current users and nonusers are therefore 0.6 and 4.3, respectively, indicating that women using any method are only about 15% as likely to have an abortion as are women using no method. In other words, even though contraceptive use is often imperfect, it reduces the probability of having an abortion by about 85%.

Gee, I wonder why they didn’t quote that last line.

The Judith Burty Quote

Honestly, I hit a brick wall with this one. The quote is supposedly from a 1981 edition of ‘The Scotsman’ newspaper, but strangely, The Scotsman’s archives don’t have any articles more recent than 1950, and their main website has nothing older than 2000. I couldn’t find much out about Judith Bury either. Googling her just brings up lots of pro-ignoramuses copy-pasting these same quotes. As with the Kinsey quote, more recent research renders the point moot, and (especially given my findings with the previous statement) I would be very interested to see the full context of the quote,

The Malcolm Potts Quote

So what year did Dr. Malcolm Potts predict that there would be a rise in abortion rates as people “turned to contraception”? 1973. Yes, this is really some cutting-edge material here. Again I cannot find the original source for this quote. The pro-life article that seems to be the originator of this list of “quotes” (see what I did there?) gives the following citation:

Malcolm Potts, M.D., Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in 1973.

Quoted in Andrew Scholberg, “The Abortionists and Planned Parenthood: Familiar Bedfellows.” International Review of Natural Family Planning, Winter 1980, page 298.

Yes, their source is literally, “Some 34-year-old anti-choice propaganda said that he said that.

image

Well, since I can’t find the full context of “Dr. Pott’s” quote, lets see what the real Dr. Potts has to say on the matter. Here’s a quote from a paper he co-wrote in 1990:

“If more funds were available to expand counselling services and increase the use of newer, more effective methods such as subdermal implants, abortion rates could be lowered. Thus, all those who are disturbed by the tens of millions of abortions that take place each year must work together to help bring about a significant reduction in that number by advocating a considerable increase in investment in family planning services and in support for contraceptive research. Without such a change, it is possible that more legal and illegal abortions will be induced in the 1990s than in any previous decade. Whatever happens with funding, universal access to safe abortion could undoubtedly save the lives of a million or more women in the 1990s.”

You can check out more of his more recent research into family planning in developing countries here. Regardless of what Dr. Potts said or didn’t say in 1973, or in 1990, abortion rates are now at their lowest since 1973. The authors of the study that found that specifically credit the development of new kinds of birth control. You know, the ones that weren’t around during the decades these quotes seem to be from.

“Sex Education: A Teacher’s Guide” quote

Ok, last quote from the original post. Who wants to guess what decade it’s from? Let’s see, the quote is from a sex education book put out by the Canadian government in….1973! (Why does that year keep coming up?) Unfortunately there aren’t any online copies of this ancient tome floating around, the department that published the book hasn’t even existed for twenty years, and I’m not paying $50 to buy a used copy to debunk some anti-sex douche-canoes on the internet. So, I’ll have to supply some other Canadian (2012) statistics:

“In Canada, the teen birth and abortion rate is 27.0/1,000 women between the ages of 15-19 versus 61.2/1,000 in the United States.The abortion rate among all women of reproductive age (15-44) in Canada is 14.1/1,000 versus 20/1,000 in the United States. Put another way, the teen birth and abortion rate is more than 50% higher in the United States versus Canada and the abortion rate is about 25% higher in the Unites States. Canadian women also have something else. They have access to health care and sex education is widely taught in the schools. Laws, cost, and indignities don’t reduce abortion, knowledge and contraception do.”

Furthermore, the quote’s claim that “abortion is the most widely used birth-control method in the world” is patently absurd, and a well known abortion myth. Contraceptive use is increasing, while rates of both contraceptive failure and abortion are decreasing. Consider:

In 2010, publicly funded contraceptive services helped women prevent 2.2 million unintended pregnancies; 1.1 million of these would have resulted in unplanned births and 760,000 in abortions. Without publicly funded contraceptive services, the rate of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would all be 66% higher; the rates for teens would be 73% higher. The number of unintended pregnancies averted by public funding was 15% higher in 2010 than in 2006, even though the number of clients served fell 5% during that period. This is partially because more family planning clients currently use highly effective contraceptives, such as long-acting reversible methods, than previously. More importantly, women who are unable to obtain public services are more likely now than in 2006 to be using either no contraceptive method or a less effective one, probably because of the recession.”

- Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010

In conclusion, (and as we already know) if the pro-ignorance movement had any interest in actually preventing abortions hey would advocate for better sex education (not ‘abstinence only’), better ease-of-access to contraceptives, less restrictive abortion laws, and welfare programs that make it easier for women to afford to keep their children. These things have been proven to reduce abortion rates. Restricting abortions and discouraging contraceptives increase the frequency of abortions. But of course, the pro-ignorance movement actually has very little interest in preventing abortions. “It’s about controlling women. It’s about making sure they have consequences for having unapproved sex.

by-grace-of-god, I’d like to think the studies I’ve linked here will change your mind about contraceptives, but they probably won’t.

cockend:

The mummified heart is said to be that of vampire Auguste Delagrance, responsible for the deaths of more than forty people back in the 1900, a period of vampirism in the USA. When he was identified, Delagrance was hunted down by a Romano Catholic priest and a Voodoo Hougan, and was destroyed in 1912. (x)

This is fucking Rad

It’s not real.

Teach a parrot to say “A baby in the womb is life” and only that and you basically have every pro-life argument ever.
TSK: Parental authority, abdicated

cranquis:

Hyperactive 4 year old boy (well known to our Urgent Care): *going completely bonker-nuts in the exam room, non-stop screaming and laughing, running into the walls, throwing exam gloves around — basically acting WAY worse than his usual hellacious self*

Mother: *sits calmly, looking at her phone, raising not one finger to slow down the destruction*

Cranquis: *sits staring at both of them, truly amazed, waiting to see just how long this can go on*

image

Cranquis: He’s, uh, pretty hyper tonight.

Mother: *not looking up from phone* Oh, it’s probably the coffee.

Cranquis: What? Why was he drinking coffee?

Mother: *eye-rolling sigh* Be-CAUSE, you guys have that free coffee dispenser in the waiting room, so how do you expect me to keep him from drinking it?

Cranquis: 

image

metis-problems:

radfemale:

cognitivedissonance:

The fedaura is strong with this one.

Yes, there must be something wrong with the woman respectfully stating there was no romantic connection on their date. Male superiority complex is so fucking bizarre and I thank every religion’s god that I’m a lesbian all day.

someone doesn’t take rejection well 0.0

metis-problems:

radfemale:

cognitivedissonance:

The fedaura is strong with this one.

Yes, there must be something wrong with the woman respectfully stating there was no romantic connection on their date. Male superiority complex is so fucking bizarre and I thank every religion’s god that I’m a lesbian all day.

someone doesn’t take rejection well 0.0

Do you support Kiliel?
Anonymous

askmiddlearth:

I’m assuming you’re talking about Kili and Tauriel’s romance? I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “support” (that word could go so many different ways), but here’s basically my thoughts on their relationship:

I enjoyed watching them interact in the movie, and between the two intended romantic relationship in Desolation of Smaug, I much preferred Kili to Legolas (though that was probably due more to some weird writing.) But as a rule I’m not a huge fan of non-canon mortal/immortal relationships, because they’re inherently so tragic, and I don’t really like signing up for things that I know will make me sad later… oh, and from the “Tolkien scholar” side of things, their relationship is no extremely unlikely that I’m very tempted to call it impossible.

(I wrote a more detailed version of my take on their relationship in this post, if interested.)

And as “How It Should Have Ended” pointed out, their relationship, which is supposed be bridging the gap of pseudo fantasy racism, is literally built on his crude joke about him wanting her to put her hand in his pants.

maarnayeri:

Let us be vividly clear about this.

What the New York Times did to Michael Brown today was not merely slander. It wasn’t a case of a lack of journalistic integrity.

Highlighting that a black teenager was “no angel” on the day he is being laid to rest after being hunted and killed by racist vigilante forces is not an unfortunate coincidence.

The New York Times deliberately played into an archaic American tradition in devaluing both the merit of black life and the tragedy of black death.

They chose the day of his funeral, as his family, friends and activists everywhere have to grapple with a human being lost to pontificate about how he was “no angel”. Michael Brown was many things to many people; a son, a brother, a cousin, a nephew and another black causality of murderous police institutions and today, amidst all the racist violence he, his loved ones and community have had to endure, he was going to finally receive the respect and moment of honor he deserved and NYT decided today, of all days, to tune in their audience onto wholly irrelevant facts about his life - that in turn, transform the very injustice surrounding his death and the following police violence that plagued Ferguson into a national panel about whether or not his death is actually worth mourning and their language suggested that to them, it indeed is not.

This was hardly an accident or mistake. This is the perpetual hostility that is met against black life in America. The consensus is that black people deserve no respect and for black life to be legitimized and honored, we must meet a list of prerequisites. Subsequently, if black people aren’t valued, neither are our deaths understood as tragic or murders seen as criminal action.

This has been the atmosphere of America since its inception and much has not improved.

invisiblelad:

(Huffington Post) The writer of a much-maligned New York Times article about Michael Brown admitted on Monday that he had made a mistake when he described the slain teenager as “no angel.”

Those two words that John Eligon chose, along with a series of of descriptions about Brown’s “dabbling” with drugs, alcohol and rap music, set off a scorching round of criticism for the way the paper had characterized Brown. The Times dug an even deeper hole for itself by writing a concurrent article about Darren Wilson, the man who killed Brown, in which Wilson was described as a “well-mannered, relatively soft-spoken, even bland person.” Many said that the contrast seemed to fit a pattern in which black victims of crime are maligned in the media.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s send up of this article is freaking legendary, people. 

thepeoplesrecord:

Cash raised for killer Mo. cop now surpasses Brown donations
August 24, 2014

Online fundraisers for Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson surpassed the amount of money raised for Michael Brown’s family as the officer’s supporters gathered at an afternoon rally Saturday.

Supporters of Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., came toBarney’s Sports Pub in south St. Louis.

"Many of us have received death threats toward ourselves and our families," said one speaker, wearing sunglasses, paint beneath her eyes and a baseball cap. "We will not hide. We will no longer live in fear … If you support Darren Wilson, make your voices heard."

She refused to give the media her name, saying “You want my name? I am Darren Wilson. We are Darren Wilson.

The media has shown a strong bias against Wilson supporters, the speaker said, drawing loud applause from the crowd.

"We share the united belief that officer Wilson’s actions on Aug. 9 were warranted and justified and he has our unwavering support," the woman said.

A crowd-funding page created for Wilson raised $235,010 from 5,902 people before organizers stopped accepting donations Friday after surpassing their goal of $100,000 in four days. The group then opened a new fundraising page, which already has more than $104,000.

This amount surpasses the more than $214,000 raised in support of the Michael Brown Memorial Fund. According to the page, which was set up by Brown family lawyer Benjamin Crump, “the funds will assist his family with costs that they will acquire as they seek justice on Michael’s behalf.”

The Support Darren Wilson group, which has more than 58,000 likes on Facebook, encouraged supporters who could not attend the rally to “blow up some Twitter accounts” with photos of supporters and the hashtag #‎iamdarrenwilson.

Source

Disheartening (though unsurprising) and thoroughly disgusting! 

"We will not hide!"

<refused to give the media her name>

Ferguson is no longer a trending topic

sapphicnymph:

This should worry you. This fight is far from over, we can’t start strong and simply not finish

wow-images:

He’s much nicer once you get to know him

I didn&#8217;t see it at first.