Blog neighbor Tim Gebhart is right, and that Sioux Falls paper is wrong: censoring this Doonesbury cartoon on abortion laws passed by various states is as hypocritical as the Republicans who want to keep government out of everyone's health care except when they want to punish women for having sex.
To make up for that Sioux Falls paper's reticence, I reprint the censored cartoon, as Mr. Gebhart has. I would say enjoy... but that is not the appropriate response to this skewering of Republican priorities.
Skewering. Oops.
This is a syndicated cartoon. Do you have the right to reproduce it in your blog?
I am going to go out on a limb and say "no", especially since Cory is matching up the comic strip with advertising. At least according to the User Agreement found at http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/slate_user_agreement_and_privacy_policy/2005/01/_2.html (slate.com is where the comic strip digitally resides). However, since it is a blog post about the First Amendment, and Cory is probably not posting the image with the sole purpose to generate revenue...this is what lawyers and courts are for!
Nope, Michael. I'll take it down when Mr. Trudeau's lawyers call to kick me around. But as Joseph notes, there is a First Amendment issue here. I'm trying to help Mr. Trudeau get out the word to South Dakota readers left in the dark by that Sioux Falls paper.
For "the rest of the story":
http://doonesbury.com/
Under fair use, it's probably okay to show one strip out of a series to illustrate the gist of the whole story. Here's a link to the doonesbury page for those wanting to follow the story.
It's a curious circumstance. The Argus is as free to not publish as it is to publish. Presumably they are paying the license either way. That's kind of a little known trick in the licensing/marketing world. Want to keep something off the market? Buy an exclusive license. It happens more often than you might guess.
Stick to your guns, Cory. If somebody doesn't want that cartoon up there, you'll hear about it. Meanwhile, your fair use argument is most likely a good one here, as long as you don't start publishing the series on a daily basis.
Do also note though, Cory, that on the site, under the "Media Center" tab, it's pretty easy to contact Gary about this and ask him.
http://doonesbury.com/media/contact
As a photographer, I am very concerned about copyright abuse. Be very careful Cory.
We are missing the point of the Argus not publishing by focusing on whether this a copyright infringement, in my mind.
I love Doonesbury, read it every day, and have nearly the complete set of strips through the 70's (the last year's strips was a constant on my birthday list). Trudeau is willing to push the envelope in making fun of the issues of the day and I think that not only needs defending under the First Amendment but it serves a political purpose of value. For me, it makes me sensitive to how we discuss certain issues and how they can be construed.
This said, rape is not a matter I find funny ever. As much as you might disagree with conservatives on this issue, the analogy to rape diminishes the seriousness of rape and the trauma it can cause those who have been raped.
"We?"
Yes Cory, be very careful not to put any of Michael Black's pictures on your blog. Heaven forbid anyone should ever get to see them. LOL.
Meanwhile, consider that oftentimes it is far easier to get forgiveness than permission. Like I said, if Trudeau et all, or other interested parties don't want those frames up there, they will let you know.
And you will, no doubt remove them with alacrity, yes?
Yes, Troy is a serious issue. For many women, state authorized intrusion into their bodies is RAPE.
Troy, it's not an analogy. It's not a metaphor, and it's not funny. If someone sticks a probe into a woman's vagina without her permission for no reason other than to humiliate her, it is rape. Period. Even more loathsome is that it is state sanctioned rape. Monstrous, draconian, structural sex descrimination of the highest order. Intolerable.
Their governor of PA is saying "We're not making any body watch... they can close their eyes." Come on! That's what rape victims do. Ted Klaudt is in prison for precisely this kind of perverse sexual abuse.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/pennsylvania-gov-women-just-close-your-eyes-
What Charlie and Bill said. Vaginal insertion without the woman's permission is rape.
Today's strip: http://www.doonesbury.com/
"except when they want to punish women for having sex"
A New Age Theocrat could not have said it better.
And Cory, this is a property rights call, not a First Amendment one. But when you are a Theocrat, fair implementation of a Constitution would fall far to close to a Republic than a tyranny.
It disturbs me that governments can force people to undergo procedures. Making doctors follow scripts of questionable veracity is bad enough... I don't want to set the precedent that, should 51% of a group gain control, they can force doctors to do things to my body.
I'm not getting a colonoscopy till ~I'm~ good and ready, thank you!
Wayne, the governemnt should grant the same right to the pre-born. The abortion procedure is far more final than the sonogram. And besides, the sonogram would be useful evidence in a death penalty verdict prior to allowing the state to execute the pre-born person.
WayneB. Yes, it disturbs us. Now imagine how much it must disturb a woman who has already been raped and is pregant as a result. I hope the doctors and other health professionals stand up and say no to this. Their relationship with their patient is being compromised by an over intrusive government. If a woman says no, they should honor theire patient's wishes and their own conscience in the same way a soldier must refuse to act if what they have been asked to do is immoral (torture, mass murder, etc.)
Whether you agree with Roe vs. Wade or not, is allowing the Government to mandate the insertion of anything into our bodies a road that we want to travel down?
"Their relationship with their patient is being compromised by an over intrusive government."
New Age Theocrats ignore the patient/doctor relationship regarding the child.
"is allowing the Government to mandate the insertion of anything into our bodies a road that we want to travel down?"
We are already allowing people's limbs to be ripped off and then their skulls crushed without due process.
Steve, no matter what, I promise never to support any govenment telling a doctor or anyone else that they have to insert something into your vagina if you don't want them to. Or any of your other orifaces, for that matter.
Your vagina and your uterus is a safe haven in my book Sibby. Nobody has any right to be in there if you don't want them to be. And, I promise never to change my mind about this. Okay, bud?
"...in the last decade, the percent of all reproductive-age women living in states hostile to abortion rights has jumped from about a third to more than half."
http://feministing.com/2012/03/16/more-than-half-of-american-women-live-in-places-that-dont-respect-their-reproductive-rights/
Bill, how about people's limbs and head? Or is it only vaginas that deserve protection? If so, then we have a due process problem.
Steve,
That's an interesting point about the sonogram - the 5th amendment grants me the right to protect myself against self incrimination.
This is a poorly established logical chain - because someone is doing something I disagree with, I want to subject them to things - force them to medical procedures regardless of their medical value or the patient's wishes.
The state has no more right to subject my wife to this procedure than it does to force us to circumsize my son.
Wayne, the criminal in question is the child, not the mother. It is the child that is being charged with being a criminal deserving of the death penalty without due process. Baby killers are being allowed to stick intruments into their mother's vagina in order to tear off its legs and arms and then crushing its head and then throwing them into the garbage.
Yes, Sibby, what goes on in your vagina and your uterus is your business and no one else's. Suppose some organism that is not you started growing inside you and someone told you it was immoral for you to have it removed. The absudity of this apparently escapes you. Why am I not surprised? Have you made that reservation at Yankton yet?
"The absudity of this apparently escapes you."
Bill at one time you were that organism. As much as I disagree with you, I do not believe you should have been removed without due process.
Infanticide, Yuck.
Elliot, abortion is age and sex discrimination wrapped up in just one agenda item of the New Age Theocrats.
Patriot Trudeau on the strip and the death of print media:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/03/garry_trudeau_interview_his_doonesbury_strip_about_the_virginia_and_texas_ultrasound_laws_.html
This would be so much simpler if we just moved to the "Brave New World" model...
Let's stay focused here gentlemen. The issue here isn't abortion (which is legal — like it or not), it is rape (which is illegal, and indeed along with "incest" and "mother's life" is one of the exceptions allowed among most anti-abortion folks.)
The absurdity is that Arizona and Pennsylvania are mandating that any woman seeking an abortion, whether she was raped or not, must nonetheless be raped by her doctor under penalty of law.
It is a legislative abomination, outrageous, and immoral on its face, regardless of one's stance on abortion.
Good eye, Bill. The National Women's Law Center: Womenstake
"The issue here isn’t abortion "
Yes it is Bill. You lost the debate.
i lost my bidet....
Au contraire, Sibby. If the issue is abortion, you lost the debate, bigtime. Numerous times now. It remains legal as it has been since Roe v. Wade despite your endless machinations. You may still be debating it, but no one else here is. Not surprised you didn't notice though. That's fairly common among the neurotic and the delusional.
How about this... when it's time to debate the abortion issue, we'll send you a memo.
also had m-u-t-i-l-a-t-e in Scrabble last night 90 pts!
I'm waiting to see a post on the Governors two vetos. (Guns & Billboards.) Pretty cool. I wonder if the legislature will be successful in attempting to override them.
Bill, this only applies to women who want an abortion. This is not a medical procedure only for raped women who are required by law to go to a doctor and get raped again. You are using deception and illusions.
"It remains legal as it has been since Roe v. Wade despite your endless machinations."
That is because the New Age Theocrats grant due process to women, but not their children. Yes Bill, you Theocrats have created a legal tyranny.
Steve,
Your tactics are horrible. You are your own worst enemy. I do not think you will ever be capable of having a coherent discussion, and therefore will never successfully accomplish any change. Instead, you choose to be a bad example for anyone who would like to affect a change in societal and cultural mores. Please stop.
Here's a question: if it is moral for someone to shoot and kill someone who is breaking into their house, why is it not moral for someone to have an abortion if she is impregnated by her rapist? Or is the "castle doctrine" only applicable to bricks and mortar, not to people's bodies?
Eve, the child is a criminal argument. Go ahead take to court, get a death penalty verdict, and then the state carries it out, not Planned Parenthood.
Joseph, if you are capable of having a constructive debate instead of resorting to personal attacks like Fleming then answer this: why not carry out Roe v Wade due process ruling equally?
I do not think it is moral to kill someone who is breaking into your house...:)
Steve,
The unborn are not considered persons by the US Government, and therefore do not get due process, rights et cetera. Until the definition is changed, your argument will be unsuccessful.
Joseph are you a person?
Steve, e-mail me if you want, I will be more than happy to discuss issues with you further: joseph.sterling.nelson(a)gmail
Steve, the reason many of us don't interact directly with you any more is that it's very plain that you only consider fetuses human beings, and the only human beings worthy of respect, compassion, or care.
Eve & Joe, at one time the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not persons, how respectful, compassionate, and caring was that? So we had a civil war, the 14th Amendment was passed, Roe V Wade used that to say abortions were legal without addressing the issue of the preborn being persons. Based on all of your reactions, my insistence that the 14th due process needs to be applied equally has legs.
Thank you for proving my point, Steve.
How unfortunate those calling themselves pro-life want to abort environmental protection.
"Administrator [Lisa] Jackson will discuss the history of women's leadership in the environmental movement and why a clean and healthy environment is vital for American women and their children."
First they wanted to insert their faith-based propaganda into the heads of female citizens who wanted to obtain a legal procedure, but I wasn't a female so I said "I'm okay with that."
Next they wanted to insert a ten-inch plastic wand into the vaginas of female citizens who wanted to obtain a legal procedure, but I wasn't a female so I said "go for it!"
Then they wanted to insert a four-inch cotton swab into the cheeks of citizens who wanted to obtain legal, oh, let's say guns, insurance, or employment but I wasn't a...wait...what?!
This is an issue of whether a United States citizen with consciousness and will can expect unconditional bodily autonomy outside of criminal suspicion or intent, and the lines for what the government can legally do to you are being drawn.
Steve is like an automaton. Hit his button and he runs the tapes. He's not even thinking any more. He's on autopilot. A stimulus/response machine. It's kinda creepy.
Steve, the 14th Amendment applies to people, not single-celled organisms or clusters of stem cells. If you want to argue for personhood of these, it's a steep, uphill climb that you have yet to complete.
Meanwhile, women are without question people subject to equal protection under the law. There is no extraordinary proof required to appreciate this blatantly obvious fact.
And it is also a blatantly obvious, fact that pregnancy and childbirth is a life-threatening, physically demanding, liberty restricting medical condition from which women are as deserving of protection should they seek it as any other medical condition a person (male or female) can confront.
To exclude women from this protection, or to make such protection more difficult to obtain than any other life and health threatening condition is an obvious breach of their 14th Amendment rights.
And more to the point, demanding that they have a sonogram wand inserted into their vagina without their permission for no medical purpose whatsoever is beyond the pale.
It is an oppressive act of violence and control, a blatant overreach of government intrusion into the most private of private places in a person's body. In other words it is legalized rape, pure and simple.
Run for something, Bill. Here's more ammo.
" except when they want to punish women for having sex."
Yes!!!
"women are without question people subject to equal protection under the law."
YES!
"a United States citizen with consciousness and will can expect unconditional bodily autonomy"
YES!!
"The state has no more right to subject my wife to this procedure than it does to force us to circumsize my son."
YES!!!
"If someone sticks a probe into a woman’s vagina without her permission for no reason other than to humiliate her, it is rape. Period."
YES!!!
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!
i'll have what d.e. is having.....
The Brookings Register also practices censorship by not running the examination strips this work and substituting another Doonesbury strip instead.
Copyright, shompyright.
Take 5 minutes to bone up on copyright math. Cory and Tim might be in hock for $16 billion and 150,000 jobs they cost the creative industries. Warning, some non-STEM majors may not get it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html
Jeeze, that's heavy John. Who knew? Cory just put half the South Dakota work force out of business maybe. Good thing he didn't run two comic strips or we'd all have to move to Wyoming or something.
I thought we had made some progress for women rights in the last 40 years. Seems like everything I worked for in the 60's and 70's has been unraveling. What the heck happened?
It is amazing there are Neanderthals, who do not want a raped woman to be able to have an abortion. I just figure they are spawn of the knuckle draggers who thought it was the woman's fault she was raped. (She probably brought it on herself by wearing a short skirt or she was asking for it.) Probably just a matter of time because I'll bet they are saying it under their breathe.
Thanks, Lawrence—it's not good news, but it's important news. Apparently our local for-profit media just can't handle certain awful truths. The South Dakota Blogosphere remains as relevant and necessary as ever.
Steve, the state is raping women. That kind of thing got the U.S. dropping bombs on Yugoslavia, didn't it?
I remember the time I went in for a voluntary colonoscopy (I had some concerns with my plumbing). I was raped, as things were inserted before the scope went in. But apparently, this is normal procedures for when a colonoscopy is done, and I cannot call it rape. If a transvaginal ultrasound becomes "normal procedures" for getting an abortion, then I would have to say that it should not be classified as rape (no more than getting a paps smear is rape (which my female sources tell me is a lot more painful and invasive than a transvaginal ultrasound)). Rape is an emotional word, and using it to is fallacious (specifically argument by emotive language). Until the procedure is done without the woman's consent, I do not think it can, by definition, be accurately described as rape. However, if the Government were to say, mandate that person A pay for person B's recreational prescription drugs, and person A very much does not give consent, now that is rape.
Joseph, a quick question for you. What's the difference between making love and being raped?
Among many things, there are two things wrong with your analogy. The first is that the women are being coerced and under duress to have the transvaginal ultrasound procedure inflicted upon them. The second is that the procedure serves no medical purpose. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
I won't even begin to try and understand the thought process of your last sentence.
What Jana said. Rape is rape. Taxes are not.
Joseph, your colonoscopy was a diagnostic measure to determine if you had a disease, and, as you say, it was voluntary, and you had it done for a reason.
There is no parallel here.
You were not required by law to have an unnecessarily invasive examination unrelated to your medical condition simply because the some of your state legislators and your governor feel it is necessary to shame you.
That's key, Bill: the procedures Joseph describes are all medically prescribed by doctors as necessary parts of the procedure he chose to have. The transvaginal exam is ordered by the state for no necessary medical reason.
There are also legal requirements for doctors to tell lies to their patients, Cory. They are instructed to tell them that abortion causes breast cancer, for example. The irony here is that he same people who support laws like this are frequently the same people who claim that government mandated health care somehow interrupts the doctor/patient relationship. The tone of the whole debate has become absurd and bizarre.
From what I heard this morning the Democrats in Pennsylvania want to amend the bill to force insurance companies to pay for the ultrasound, but Mitch Daniels said no way, so besides being forced to do the procedure they would be forced to pay out of pocket for it.
Indeed, Bill: in what other procedures are doctors required to read a state-mandated script?
Appalling, John. One of the key tenets of the lawsuits against ObamaCare is that the state cannot require citizens to purchase medical insurance. But we can require women to purchase a state-mandated rape. Ugh.
Larry, you make me laugh!
Thanks.
I don't know how many people have had this procedure done. I'm guessing at least half have not since they are male. I had this done during this pregnancy. There wasn't any paperwork, or long explanations on what would be done, only that an ultra sound would be performed. It was an odd experience I will admit, but rape? No. But I guess I get to walk around and tell people that the female midwife at a military hospital raped me.
Sometimes as a woman it doesn't matter if a procedure is due to hospital procedure, standards of care, or doctor preference. It's being done to you. A pap-smear is way more invasive, uncomfortable, and sometimes painful. Does it serve a purpose, yeah but it still can feel like a violation. So am I being raped? I am under pressure at the time to consent to this, cervical cancer risks and all. But does that make the procedure less of a rape? As someone who has worked in the medical profession, there are all kinds of things that get done people don't want and sometimes I question if there was ever really a reason. I am also confused, since if a woman is going to have an abortion (and the pregnancy is too far along to use a drug to cause uterine contractions) a whole lot of other stuff is going to be stuck up her vagina in a more painful and invasive way. If this ultrasound is too much, I don't know she could go through with the procedure. But I guess all that has to happen is for the medical community to come up with a reason to make it part of the standards of care (which is in the realm of possibility because all kinds of crazy things are written in sometimes) and then it is magically not rape.
Sometimes the discussion of these laws leads this interested party to wonder whether these invasive maneuvers are in retaliation for what woman/earth haters call ObamaCare.
What Christine Nelson just described is horrifyingly real in its naivete. These sanctioned rapes are a chilling effect on privacy rights: bring on the courts.
Christine, for me it is one thing if a doctor deems it is medically necessary. If I think it is bogus I can refuse.
But this bill has nothing to do with medical necessity. The doctor is not making a decision about my medical care, or even his desire to cover his ass in case of a malpractice suit. This is some dumbasses in congress deciding for me and my doctor what medical procedures I Must Have. That's just bullshit.
BTW, I too have had a transvaginal ultrasound. I very much disliked it, but my doctor and I decided it was a necessary procedure for my health. Okay. I got to decide, not some pervert in a suit in the state legislature. That is the key.
As I understand it, the purpose of the law is to force the person who is having an abortion to see an image of the fetus before the operation can happen, and further to compel the doctor to say things about the science that he may or may not believe to be true.
The doctor must do these things under penalty of law. If the fetus is too small to be imaged by external ultrasound methods, the transvaginal technique is used only so the image of the contents of the uterus can be displayed as graphically as possible.
There is no clinical reason for it. It is done soley because of the religious beliefs of the legislators and the governor who wrote and signed the bill. If I am mistaken in this narrative, I invite someone who knows more about it to correct me.
Bill, You are mistaken. It's not for the religious beliefsof the legislators. This bill is appearing in multiple states. Coincidentally they have all found their religious beliefs? The Republican party is pushing this, but why? How can this help them? Are they playing to the Evangelical vote? Which is like 10%? Why do they want to make themselves appear more extreme? I just don't get it. It's politically motivated, but why?
John, I think the Repubs are trying to curry favor with the anti-choice zealots, the far right extremists. Those are people, like Rick Santorum, who want women to know and stay in their place. They believe a subservient woman, dressed similarly to the most Taliban-oppressed, head-to-toe burqua clothed, following behind her man/master = their god's plan.
Makes my skin crawl.
http://talibangelical.blogspot.com/
I think the driving force behind these arguments is religious and sincere if sometimes overzealous. In this instance it involves an overreach that in my opinion is constitutionally unsound.
Here is an interesting discussion along those lines. I don't think either side should be demonized, but rather we have to learn to discuss these issues without allowing ourselves to become polarized in the process. In that regard, I think Obama's compromise on the insurance issue is reasonable whereas laws like Arizona and Pennsylvania are proposing are not.
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/matern.html
You da human, Fleming: classic Blogmore thread.