Anti-choice politicians ban women in the military from accessing abortion care at a military hospital – even with their own money. Yes, you read that right.

More and more women are serving in the military every year. And they’re stationed overseas in places where local abortion facilities are inadequate or unavailable, or where they don’t speak the language.

That means that often servicewomen facing an unintended pregnancy overseas literally have nowhere to turn. The same is true for families serving abroad. Wives and family members who depend on military services for their health care are banned from turning to their regular doctor if they face an unintended pregnancy. They can’t even use their own money for abortion care. In fact, the only case where the Department of Defense will pay for abortion services is when the woman’s life is in danger. While women are able to access abortion care at military hospitals in cases of rape and incest, the woman must bear the cost of the procedure herself.

This ban is unconscionable. That’s why I recently went on Fox News to speak out against it.

Fortunately, the Senate is close to lifting this dangerous abortion ban. Ending the ban would mean that servicewomen could receive abortion services at a military hospital where it’s safe.

But anti-choice senators aren’t giving up. They’ve already threatened to change the bill when the full Senate votes, and keep the abortion ban in place. They’ve already rallied their anti-choice activists.

The Senate is back in session this week, and a vote to repeal the abortion ban could come by the end of the month. Contact your senators, and tell them to repeal the ban on military women’s access to abortion care.

If you’re a woman serving in the military, or the wife of a service member, have you ever been affected by this ban? We want to hear your stories.

Let’s put an end to this abortion ban that makes our servicewomen second-class citizens!

Photo credit: Steve Rhodes

Time to End the Ban on Military Women’s Access to Abortion

The Olsons are not the only famous cross-party spouses, of course. Other notables include California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and journalist Maria Shriver (D), and political consultants Mary Matalin (R) and James Carville (D). The New York Times had an article about the Olson’s this week, however, in which Mr. Olson explains the great extent to which  his wife influenced his views on the Proposition 8 case.

Mrs. Olson told the paper, “He would have never been able to take the other side. He wouldn’t have had a wife after that!” She doesn’t take full credit, however, noting that her husband’s “fierce libertarian streak” inclines him to view all discrimination as offensive and to see marriage equality as a matter “of right and wrong, justice and injustice.”

Still, as the New York Times explains it, Mrs. Olson, a lawyer herself, was a significant presence behind the scenes on the case. And by simply speaking with the paper, she is continuing to extend her influence. She agreed to the interview so that people could see her and her husband as “happy heterosexuals who are completely supporting this,” and support it as well.

That’s the thing about marriage. Sometimes it is opposing traits that make a couple stand out — Republican/Democrat, Christian/Jew, Black/White, young/old, man/woman. Other times it is the similarities — a commitment to justice, a common interest, a shared heritage, a single gender. At its best, however, marriage can bring two people together in a bond based on something far deeper than the labels might imply. And spouses can inspire each other in ways neither might have predicted. It is a union that no one should be denied.

Whatever the final outcome of the Prop 8 case as it makes its way through the appeal process, Ted Olson, along with his Democratic co-counsel and backed by his Democratic wife, has shown that sometimes we must look beyond the labels to evaluate others as the individuals they are, and to find common ground in a set of shared values. That is a lesson that people of all orientations can take to heart.

Photo: L-R: David Boies, Ted Olson, Lady Booth Olson. Photo credit: Diana Walker

How the Olson’s Marriage Could Influence Yours

She’s not the only one. Around here, Kevin Poor Bear is known for his charcoal drawings and the occasional piece of beadwork. Award-winning musician Will Peters carves and paints turtles from wood, selling them alongside the stone turtle necklaces created by his wife Lena. And Joe Pulliam, whose intricate watercolor depictions of Lakota life and tradition are often featured in world-class exhibitions, routinely sells paintings and prints around town.

The native art trade is an economically viable way to carry on the vibrant artistic traditions of indigenous populations — that is, when vendors are protected from fraudulent, factory-made items being passed of as native art, a practice that is estimated to drain the market of 80 percent of its value.

Commenting on this trend of illegally-marketed arts and crafts, Chad Henderson of the Old Town Merchants Association reasons, “When you consider that out of that billion dollar industry, $750 million is going toward fakes, it’s enormous. Just imagine what $750 million would do for the indigenous populations.”

A newly-passed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, some benefits of which were extolled by Women’s Rights blogger Brittany Shoot yesterday, provides further protection to Native American artists like Valerie from fraudulent “Indian” arts and crafts on the market.

The legislation, an extension of H.R. 725, specifically grants authority to any federal law enforcement official to investigate possible cases of fraudulent Indian art selling. Previously, only the F.B.I. held this power.

In communities where self-employment via individual artisanship is often the only source of income available to tribal members seeking to support their family or fund their education, this Walmart-esque trend of selling cheaply made replications alongside legitimate art is nothing short of market exploitation. Congress, a historic enemy of indigenous rights , has remarkably begun to inch forward in this long road we like to call “democratic progress.”

Photo credit: Ashley Eberhart (bracelet by Valerie Brown Eyes)

Leaving the Native Art Trade to Native Artists, Not Factories

As a legislator, McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marriage. McDonnell’s Web site proudly boasts that he was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation, an ultra-conservative group. As governor, in February 2010, he signed an executive order banning discrimination against state workers on the basis of race, sex, religion and age — but not sexual orientation, as his predecessors had done. A month later, after much criticism, he issued an executive directive (not as strong as an executive order), saying that he would not tolerate discrimination of any kind, including that based on sexual orientation. And his Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli forced the halt of a proposed state regulatory change that would have allowed government employees to add same-sex partners to their state health benefits.

McDonnell’s former in-law, however — the divorced spouse of his wife’s sister — is transgender. In April, at an LGBT-rights rally held by Equality Virginia, she announced to the crowd, “I am father to three of the present governor’s nephews and nieces.” She said she wants to use her association with the governor to advance LGBT rights, especially because she fears her personal situation may have “hardened” some of his views.

The Washington Post has a long piece today on Deane, and reports that several LGBT activists are skeptical of Deane’s motives. Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond), an advocate of LGBT rights, told WaPo that “several activists have told him they are worried that Deane will shift attention from the cause to her,” and that “It’s incumbent to all of us to keep the issue front and center. The more all of us do to speak out about the issue, the more it becomes about the issue.”

Wait just a minute. The “issue” here is civil rights — and civil rights are about people. One cannot separate them from the people whom they affect.

Yes, there are those whose activism seems motivated by the desire for personal fame rather than truly benefiting the cause. I have no idea if Deane is that kind of a person. I also hope that the comments about her are not motivated by transphobia. On the other hand, she is related to the governor through a marriage that has ended, which seems a tenuous connection — but tenuous or not, the situation also reflects that more and more non-LGBT people will at some point in their lives know someone who is LGBT.

These connections are critical for equality. Research from the Pew Center has found that “People who have a close gay friend or family member are more likely to support gay marriage and they are also significantly less likely to favor allowing schools to fire gay teachers than are those with little or no personal contact with gays.” It does not seem like a stretch to think this would apply to those who know transgender people as well.

Imagine what would happen if every LGBT friend, relative, and ex-relative connected to anti-LGBT politicians made themselves publicly known, in addition to having private conversations with the official. It would be no guarantee that the politicians would change their minds, but it would make it much more awkward for them to justify their positions.

Come out. Be visible. That is perhaps the oldest and simplest tactic in the LGBT-rights handbook. Could it also be the most effective?

Photo credit: Conk 9

Six Degrees of Bob McDonnell

Scott and Elyse are taking their marriage elsewhere as a way of taking personal responsibility and setting an example for others. Stringer explained that “If enough people who have somewhat of a profile — not just politicians, but artists and business leaders — start going into Massachusetts or Connecticut and show New York how embarrassing it is that you can’t get a marriage license for same-sex couples, then we will change things.”

Seven months ago, the New York State Senate killed a bill allowing same-sex marriage in a 38-to-24 vote. Many local politicians have expressed disappointment and anger that the bill didn’t pass but Stringer is the first to publicly boycott the institution in response.

Stringer has shown that he not only supports gay rights in his political career. He allows his political convictions to enter into his personal life, too.

The couples’ decision was largely influenced by their friends. Elyse shared the news of her upcoming marriage with her lesbian friend, who was also in a long-term loving relationship. Elyse was frustrated that her relationship with Scott could be recognized by the state, while her friend’s relationship lacked recognition.

When Scott relayed these feelings to his friend Allen Roskoff, a gay activist, Roskoff suggested that the couple marry outside of New York. The couple agreed that it was “the right thing to do.”

It’s nice to see a politician get behind their beliefs and act in support of the gay community. Stringer and his wife have made one thing clear: they both fully support gay marriage in New York.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

A Straight Statement for Same-Sex Marriage