Padaviya

Highly recommend reading this, click through to download the PDF for free.  It’s a really great feminism 101. 

When I went to work at Ms. in 1972, I wore a matching pink skirt and blouse—and a girdle. I had just gotten married and was, therefore, not able to get a bank loan without my husband’s approval. I had given up playing basketball (half-court for girls) in college because no coach or court could be found. And I had had an illegal abortion.

Actually it was having had that abortion that was my first tie to Ms. and the women’s movement. The Preview Issue of the magazine, which was excerpted in New York magazine, included among such classics as “Click! The Housewife’s Moment of Truth” by Jane O’Reilly and “I Want a Wife” by Judy Syfers, a list of celebrity names under the headline “We Have Had Abortions.” It took a lot of courage back then to admit to what was a crime. In the corner was a coupon which readers could fill out to add their name to the list. I filled it out with pride and relief (I hadn’t admitted to my crime before), and by the time those coupons were being counted and processed several months later, I was managing editor of Ms.

Many of the social, economic, and political restrictions that held women back were overthrown during the 17 years I was there, and Ms. was a prime mover in that wave of change. Every day at work I was learning a lot about women and about myself. I know for sure that I would not be the person I am today had I not been part of the Ms. experience, and I certainly would not have had the expertise to draw on when I started writing about Second Adulthood (Inventing the Rest of Our Lives, Fifty Is the New Fifty, and out this month How We Love Now). Without the women’s movement, I wouldn’t have had the courage or the confidence to even draw on that expertise and go public with my ideas.

This year Ms. celebrates its fortieth anniversary. It’s hard to believe that it has been so long, and when I look at photographs I am amazed at how young we were! My daughter is 25, the age of most of the staff back then. She wears whatever she pleases—but never a girdle (do they still exist?); she has several credit cards in her name; she has maintained a commitment to volleyball throughout her school years and now plays on a (co-ed) New York City team; and if she needed an abortion, she could get one (though women, especially rural women, in other states, would have a much harder time).

The battles we fought are won, but not over. Women still earn less for the same job than men; the fashion and beauty industry still makes us feel we should look a certain way and if we don’t—especially if we are over forty—we should be ashamed. Title IX, which made women’s sports viable, is under siege from those institutions that think their athletic budgets are better spent on football. And as every election and legislative session reminds us, the right to choose abortion is under siege. Her generation will undoubtedly be called upon to hold onto these gains.

As she moves through her life, my daughter will also come up against still unresolved inequities. If she marries and has children, she will quickly learn that no matter how much of the work and family responsibilities her partner shares, the workplace is inhospitable to the needs of working parents. Sure, we now have family leave policies, but since frequently they are unpaid, time off is a luxury most can’t afford. And although work hours have eased up somewhat, there is a price for that flexibility too—a gentle shove off the fast track. That will have to change.

Caregiving in general, she will learn, is still women’s work. Studies show that when a family is called upon to take care of an aging or ailing relative, it is almost always a female (an unmarried female is usually the first choice—as if she didn’t have pressures and responsibilities of her own, including being her own sole financial support) who gets nominated. I see care-getting as a new frontier that I hope my daughter’s generation will cross; it is time for our society to step in where individual (unpaid) caregivers are toiling, and it is essential for all those caregivers to be encouraged to give the same degree of care that they are expending on others to their own well-being.

Her generation will also have issues of their own. But thanks to the strength and confidence they have absorbed from the changing world Ms. has been celebrating—and chastising—for 40 years, I have no doubt that they will prevail.

Stanford University will mark the 40th anniversary of Ms. magazine with a winter quarter of more than 25 events titled: “Ms. at 40 and the Future of Feminism.” The symposium, which will run from January through March, will feature lectures, panel discussions. performances, exhibits and an international, multigenerational essay contest.

Just as we will condemn those who force women to continue pregnancies against their will, we condemn those who would take away any woman’s right to continue a pregnacny.  Even a judge.

According to ABC News, a Massachusetts judge ordered a mentally ill woman who discovered she was pregnant to have an unwanted abortion, and to be sterilized against her will, as well.

[Family and Probate Court Judge Christina] Harms found the woman would choose to end her pregnancy if she were competent and agreed to appoint her parents as guardians “for the purpose of consenting to the extraordinary procedures of abortion and sterilization,” the Appeals Court said.

The Appeals Court ruling does not identify the woman, who is believed to be about five months pregnant.

The judge reasoned that if Moe were competent, she would opt for an abortion to benefit from medication that otherwise could not be given to her because of its effects on the fetus.

The Appeals Court said the judge also directed the clinic to sterilize the woman at the same time “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.”

The Appeals court said that the woman, who considers herself Catholic, refused requests to have an abortion, and that no one besides Harms had even brought up the idea of sterilization.

VANCOUVER—A Vancouver woman is furious at Facebook after the company removed breastfeeding photos she posted on the social networking site.

Emma Kwasnica, 33, said since she joined Facebook in 2008, nearly 30 of her breastfeeding photos have been taken down and her account has been temporarily frozen in four separate incidents.

The latest incident occurred this past Saturday when she tried to log on, she said.

Kwasnica said Facebook removed her photos because of what it says are a violation of its policies on obscenity, nudity and sexually explicit content.

“This is a child’s right to eat, a mother’s right to nurse her child,” Kwasnica said in a telephone interview from her Vancouver home.

“There’s nothing sexually explicit in breastfeeding photos, nothing at all.”

Kwasnica said she has sent emails to Facebook, but has yet to receive an apology or any kind of response.

A spokeswoman for High Road Communications, which represents the social networking site in Canada, says Facebook reached out to Kwasnica in an email on Wednesday.

Stacie Bumbacco couldn’t provide details on the correspondence, but says the company’s global policy allows breastfeeding photos to be posted on the site.

But the policy also says photos with a fully exposed breast violates its terms and may be removed if they are reported.

Kwasnica said the incident has left her feeling confused about Facebook’s rules, pointing to a recent case in which Facebook issued a public apology to another woman in North Carolina who was in the same situation.

Television station WCNC of Charlotte, N.C., reported on its website last month that Facebook apologized to Heather Stultz after it removed a breastfeeding photo she posted on her breastfeeding support page called “Respect the Breast.”

Just as in Kwasnica’s case, WCNC reported that Stultz’s photo was initially removed because it violated Facebook’s rules on pornographic content.

Eventually, Facebook reversed its decision on the photo in question and apologized, saying the photo was removed “in error.”

“So are American women allowed to post breastfeeding photos and Canadian women aren’t?” Kwasnica said.

“It’s very confusing. It’s very vague. And the only acceptable policy at this point is to leave all breastfeeding images alone.”

A Facebook page was set up earlier this week in support of Kwasnica that has already attracted about 3,500 supporters.

A fetus’s gender should not be revealed until after 30 weeks of pregnancy, says an editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal.

This change in procedure for a fetal ultrasound, where the sex is usually disclosed to parents at 20 weeks, would help prevent female feticide, says Rajendra Kale, editor-in-chief of the CMAJ.

In Canada, doctors rarely perform abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy unless the baby has a lethal fetal abnormality or the mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy.

Kale says that in countries such as India, China, Korea and Vietnam, female fetuses are commonly aborted because of a preference for sons. Though by no means widespread, the practice is carried out by some immigrants to Canada, Kale says.

His editorial cites a small U.S. study of about 65 immigrant Indian women that found 40 per cent had terminated earlier pregnancies, and 89 per cent pursued abortions in their most recent pregnancies after learning they were having girls. Previous Canadian research has suggested that sex selection is occurring in Canada in certain groups when families have had girls and are seeking a son.

The practice has created a gender imbalance in these communities.

“A pregnant woman being told the sex of the fetus at ultrasonography at a time when an unquestioned abortion is possible is the starting point of female feticide from a health-care perspective,” writes Kale.

A study done in Canada found a distorted ratio of male to female births in the Indo-Canadian community, particularly among couples that already have two daughters.

“So clearly female feticide is happening, especially at the time of the third child,” Kale said.

In the editorial, Kale proposes postponing the disclosure of the gender, which he called “medically irrelevant information” in most cases, until after about 30 weeks of pregnancy.

Obstetricians group disagrees

Kale wants to see gender disclosure policies at 30 weeks adopted by the provincial colleges that govern doctors. “Such clear direction from regulatory bodies would be the most important step toward curbing female feticide in Canada.”

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada said Kale’ s proposal is inconsistent with their policy, which states that “a patient’s request for disclosure should be respected, either directly or in a report to the referring health professional.”

In an email to CBC News, the obstetricians group said it believes it is the right of the patient to be informed of the gender of the fetus.

The editorial also did not consider tests on the market that give expectant parents a fetal sex determination of high accuracy as early as eight weeks into a pregnancy, the group notes.

People will always try to get around regulations but that’s no reason not to have them, Kale counters.

The obstetricians group says it doesn’t condone abortions based on non-medical reasons such as the gender of the fetus.

“The SOGC feels strongly that it is the cultural values and norms in specific segments of the Canadian population that must change to ensure that females are not confronted with procedures and intolerant environments before or after they are born,” the association said.

Education call

Dr. Pargat Singh Bhurji, a pediatrician in Surrey, B.C., calls the practice of female feticide barbaric.

“People [do] not want to come forward to talk about this,” Bhurji said. “But what I’m saying is this is definitely happening.”

Couples can go to clinics in the U.S. that advertise early sex determination in Indian newspapers, Bhurji notes. Cultural factors such as dowry and the belief a boy is needed to carry the family name drive some, he adds.

The long-term goal has to be education, Bhurji says.

Dr. Samuel Soliman of the New Life Fertility Centre in Mississauga said some patients have told him they’ve had abortions after having a girl or two.

“I think it is part of the whole spectrum of violence against women, which starts from inside the uterus to the outside and the value of women,” says Soliman.

While the rule against disclosing gender might work in Canada, Soliman said, it would not apply in the U.S., Soliman notes.

[comment from me: “doctors rarely perform abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy” may be true in practice, but it’s not the legal case. In Canada, you can legally have an abortion at ANY point in your pregnancy, so introducing a rule about telling women the sex of their baby later is relying on the refusal of doctors to obey the law and provide abortions after 30 weeks. Though I agree that sex-selective abortions is troubling and shouldn’t be ignored, doctors withholding information from pregnant women strikes me as condescending, obnoxious, and unprofessional, and a slippery slope toward restricting access to abortion in general because we apparently feel that women are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves.]

At first glance, Provisional Measure 557 (PM 557) is not a bad law. It purports to address Brazil’s high maternal mortality ratio by ensuring better access to quality maternal health care, notably for pregnant women at a high risk for health complications. The problem is that it won’t reduce maternal mortality. Notwithstanding the fact that many of its provisions are legally and constitutionally questionable, its requirements are not based on sound public health policy.

So what is going on? Brazil, the most populous Catholic country in Latin America, finds its politics intrinsically tied to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Dilma, who won a last-minute reprieve from the church’s negative onslaught in the 2010 presidential elections once she disavowed any suggested support for abortion, is to a certain extent beholden to that base. Indeed, Dilma’s cabinet includes an unofficial church representative who was responsible for brokering an agreement between the Vatican and Brazil during President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration. For years Catholic and evangelical parliamentarians have been trying unsuccessfully to establish a registry for pregnant women, with Dilma’s support they’ve finally succeeded.

Passing such a controversial law during the height of the holiday season without congressional review or approval suggests some backroom negotiations were at play. A provisionary measure is a legislative tool available to Brazilian presidents to pass a law without congressional authorization and is intended for urgent matters. Congress can only debate and approve the law once it has been enacted. While maternal mortality is absolutely a pressing issue, PM 557 is a law that requires long-term implementation to address an endemic issue; therefore, it clearly does not fall into that category.

The biggest problem with maternal mortality in Brazil is not access to health care services, which PM 557 claims it will address, but rather the quality of public health services. The majority of preventable maternal deaths actually take place in public hospitals. PM 557 does not guarantee, for example, access to health exams, timely diagnosis, providers trained in obstetric emergency care, or immediate transfers to better facilities. It doesn’t even ensure a pregnant woman will find a vacant bed when she is ready to give birth.

What PM 557 does do is raise questions about preserving a woman’s human rights: her right to privacy, which would be violated by the compulsory government registration to control and monitor her reproductive life; her right to autonomy and dignity, which would be violated by denying her the freedom of choice; and her right to liberty, which would be completely void as she’d be legally obligated to have all the children she conceives (protecting the rights of the “unborn,” which is flagrantly unconstitutional) and will be monitored by the state for this purpose.

It’s unlikely that Congress will review the new law until it next meets in March. In the meantime, it’s unclear whether women will be lining up to register their pregnancies and if they do what will be the consequence of a pregnancy that ends in miscarriage or an abortion—the latter of which, under Brazilian law, is criminalized except for cases of rape or risk to the life of the pregnant woman. One thing we can be certain of is that maternal mortality rates will not be dropping any time soon, but the prosecution of women for harming a fetus or for getting an abortion could be on the rise.  

By Gillian Kane

brightblackdaylight:

As feminists, we tend to think a lot about male privilege (stuff like the fact that men are more likely to be bosses and CEOs and less likely to get raped), but not very much about female privilege. I stumbled across this, a list of female privileges:

As a woman …

1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.
2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.
3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.
4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.
5. I will probably live longer than the average man.
6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.
7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.
8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is.
9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.
10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s.
11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.
12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.
13. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.
14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.
15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.
16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.
18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.
20. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.
21. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.
22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.
23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man.
24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/06/08/female-privilege/

What do you guys think? Are these valid? Which ones are not valid? I don’t know much about the statistical claims, but I would certainly agree with points like 4, it is much more socially acceptable for me to cry than a man, or generally display emotions other than anger or desire. 

Thoughts?

Have I completely responded to these “privileges” before? If not, this is as good a time as any. 

As a woman …

1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.

But a much higher chance of being murdered by an intimate partner, making you not safe in your own home. Also, the majority of murderers are men. 

2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.

This is disingenuous. Men aren’t being driven to suicide more successfully, they actually just happen to be more successful when they attempt. This sentence makes it seem as though more men are driven to suicide, when in fact more women attempt. The fact that men are more successful is generally attributed to the fact that they employ more effective methods, such as the use of guns or other weapons. Now, you may be able to say that the socialization that leads to men using these methods is a problem, and that I’d agree with. But let’s not pretend as though men are offin’ themselves right and left because of some matriarchy or something.

3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.

Is sexual assault included in this? By conservative estimates, at least 1 out of every 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Also, women are still more often victimized by someone they know, making them less safe in their personal lives, and men are more likely to be victimized by strangers (again, mostly men).

4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.

Sure. But what social power does crying get us? Hillary Clinton was accused of crying during her campaign trail and it was a big fuckin’ deal. It showed she couldn’t handle the big time political arena, according to lots of folks. So female willingness to show emotion still keeps them out of arenas of power, even if it is considered “ok” in other settings. Besides, feminists are the ones who continuously say that it is ok for men to learn emotional language and expression, so MRAs holding this up as some kind of “privilege” or “checkmate, feminists” is counter-intuitive.

5. I will probably live longer than the average man.

Um, ok. Is the implied argument here because women’s health is taken care of so much better than men’s? Because um, need I bring up the fact that original research on heart disease was done only on men? And now it’s come to light that women’s heart disease can manifest differently? Oh, and that said heart disease is the number one killer of women?

6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.

Wait, so no greatness is expected of women, and this is a privilege?

7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.

Because women’s labor is mostly unpaid and has been historically. Essentially the value in the match is that the man is getting a free maid, baby machine, sex partner, cook, etc. Or perhaps the woman is particularly adherent to social beauty standards, and therein lies the value (i.e. a trophy wife, which, to maintain that standard of beauty actually take quite a bit of work). 

8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is.

How are we talking here? I mean, there are plenty of famous friendships that men have had throughout the ages. I mean, sure, maybe guys are socialized into minimal physical contact and not using emotional language, etc. but that doesn’t mean that men are encouraged not to have friends.

9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.

This and the next are just about the only one on this list that has any sort of validity. Although, this is more of a class issue than a gender issue. It just so happens that women in general are not valued for their physical labor (in the sense of lifting heavy things, construction work, etc.) and as such are not considered worthy of these (higher paying) jobs.  But the danger comes from those who are higher above the menial workers in these positions not adhering to safety requirements or trying to make sure those safety requirements don’t exist in the first place. 

10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s.

11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.

So, men can’t show feminine qualities because of what other men will think (largely, since this is what status is generally determined by). Why is this a female privilege again?

12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.

Um, what? Maybe not “damning”, but it’s certainly seen as a deficiency. Women are not strong because they are seen as not violent. Women cannot fight. Women cannot defend themselves. Women are helpless. This attitude has historically kept women in places of subservience, not only because it is common social attitude but because it is internalized. So, even if women break from that, they’re told they cannot. This is patriarchal gender roles at work, and it’s something feminists are trying to break from.

13. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.

And women grow up hating everything else about their bodies. Oh, and they also end up getting plastic surgery on their genitals. So baby boys are mutilated before they really know what’s going on. Women are made to be complicit in what can be considered their own mutilation, and they pay for the privilege. 

I’m not saying that women getting plastic surgery is always a mutilation. But what I think is a mutilation is the distorted bodily images that are thrown at women every day with little to no deviation. If we had more deviation and women still chose plastic surgery, that would be much better.

14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.

Heterosexism issues. This also happens with women, depending on the person.

 
15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.

Heterosexism, again.

16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.

Oh you know, only if you want to be taken seriously in political or business arenas.

17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.

But not the power figure.

18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.

And then if you do, you get blamed for any sexual advance or assault that anyone chooses to commit.

19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.

You know, I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to notice, but essentially every time this list says that the man’s “worthiness as a human being” is called into question, what they’re really saying is that the man will be called a “sissy” or will be likened to a woman. I think that’s telling on a “female privilege checklist”.

20. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.

Mostly because men aren’t expected to know about children, want anything to do with children, etc. This is why they’re much more accepted into the public sphere. There’s very little social power that comes with interacting with children, mostly because children are by and large undervalued despite what a lot of the hoopla regarding kids in our society might imply.

21. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.

Mostly because patriarchy and male privilege relies on complicity among men. That’s also why there’s such heavy policing of gender roles.

22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.

No, in fact a woman’s entire value is placed on her sexuality, and she is lauded for remaining “pure” and shamed for making conscious sexual choices. Golly, what a privilege. I’m so sorry someone likens a man to a woman if he chooses not to have sex. Poor, poor men.

23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man.

“At my attractiveness level”? Let me get this straight, dudes don’t get access to the gals they think are hottest, and they think women do, so this is a female privilege? I also like how they don’t take into account the work that women have to put into beauty ideals in order to attract those men.

24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.

This is not true. There are very few people bemoaning the lack of mothers in the lives of children, or few people examining what the lack of motherhood does to children. Oh wait, could that be because men more often don’t partake in parenting and thus leave it up to the mother? Again, what a privilege!

Ok. So there’s a debunking of the “female privilege checklist”. Merry Christmas folks.

iamabutchsolo:

We all know the trope: The person(s) of color (overwhelmingly the black guy) gets killed off first, especially in a horror film. Well here is a brief list of such films, many of which not only feature the person of color dying first, but feature the main white characters ultimately saving the day:

• Night of the Living Dead
• X-Men: First Class
• King Kong
• Scream 2
• Predator (1 & 2)
• Serenity
• State of Play
• Deep Rising
• Kill Bill: Volume I
• Jaws: The Revenge
• House of Wax
• Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem
• Stargare
• Aliens
• The Shining
• Leviathan
• Terminator (1 & 2)
• Red Dawn
• Jurassic Park
• Gremlins
• Hollow Man
• Hulk
• Predators
• United 93
• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
• Super 8
• Cursed
• Killjoy
• Queen of the Damned
• Transformers (Not a complete fit in the trope since it’s not human-based. The only autobot to die in the film is Jazz, the jive-talking autobot voiced by a black actor)
• 300
• Resident Evil
• The Mummy (1 & 2)

And believe me, I could probably find many more if I looked a little harder. (Feel free to correct me on any films, as I have not seen a few of these films).

So, what is the point of this list? Well, it’s to illustrate that even if at first glance, a film may show potential of diversity, people of color are still, in many respects, disposable in films. It’s just enough time to introduce the idea that these films are inclusive by introducing some racial diversity, yet allows them not to have to explore the nuances of these characters of color by killing them off, to focus on the true protagonists - the white folks.

Now, let me make it clear: the individual films listed are not necessarily racist because the feature this trope, and the reasoning for killing of the character of color might not be a conscious choice. Rather, the focus is how the overall trope itself is racist, as it is evident in several films that even if there are people of color in films, they are likely to be killed off or rid of early on, further illustrating Hollywood’s penchant for not telling stories of people of color in any meaningful way and only actively engaging a white-centered audience.

Last week, the UK Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), published the world’s largest, most comprehensive and systematic review of mental health outcomes and abortion care. The review included 44 high-quality studies done in developed countries and published between 1990 and 2011.

The conclusion? Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems. “The best current evidence,” according to the Academy, “suggests that it makes no difference to a woman’s mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy.”

A commentary on the study published in the December 17th of the British Medical Journal, The Lancet notes:  “Past studies on the effect of an induced abortion on mental health have been mixed in terms of their quality, findings, and interpretation. Some have shown no harm while others have found associations with mental disorders.”

Last week, the world’s largest, most comprehensive systematic review on mental health outcomes of abortion was published by the UK Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC). The review claimed to provide a definitive answer: having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems.

According to the Academy’s own statement, the review’s Steering Group and the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists (NCCMH) “carried out a systematic and comprehensive search of the literature and identified 180 potentially relevant studies published between 1990 and 2011.”

The Steering Group was careful to ensure only the best quality evidence was used, so all studies were subject to multiple quality assessments. In total, 44 papers were included in the review.

On the basis of the best evidence available, the Steering Group concluded that:

• Having an unwanted pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of mental health problems. However, the rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy are the same, whether they have an abortion or give birth.

• The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems is having a history of mental health problems. In other words, women who have had mental health problems before the abortion are at greater risk of mental health problems after the abortion.

• Some other factors may be associated with increased rates of post-abortion mental health problems, such as a woman having a negative attitude towards abortions in general, being under pressure from her partner to have an abortion, or experiencing other stressful life events.

The Steering Group recommends that future practice and research should focus on supporting all women who have an unwanted pregnancy.

These results, said The Lancet, “should guide care and advice for women with unwanted pregnancies who need mental health support whatever the resolution of their pregnancy.”

Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is also crucial through education and the provision of contraception. But women still face barriers to accessing these services.

Last week, continued The Lancet, “US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendation to make the emergency contraceptive pill, Plan B, available without prescription to all women of childbearing age in the USA. Plan B will not be available without prescription to girls 16 years or younger under the ruling.”

The AMRC’s findings show that Sebelius’s decision is an assault on the mental health of women as well as their reproductive rights. It should be reversed.

We could not agree more.

Take action to help reverse this decision—click here to tell President Obama not to let science and medical standards be trumped by politics.