Stopping Stupak!

So! As you can see from the picture post yesterday, a bunch of us went down to DC for the National Day of Action against the Stupak Amendment on Wednesday. It was one of the coolest things I've ever done, and one of the most empowering days I've ever had. You can read all about my experience at Sex.Justice.Change, the blog for Planned Parenthood Rochester/Syracuse.

But here on this blog, I'll just raise a few issues that have been on my mind regarding the day.

• When we first got to DC, we were waiting to cross a street, and I noticed the man standing next to me was an official, in a uniform (I'm not sure what, some kind of security guard or something). I said hello, and he asked if we needed any help with directions (which were helpful). He then asked us where we were from, and welcomed us to the city. He then said "It's always nice to have beautiful ladies in the city."

We all looked at one another, not knowing whether or not to burst out laughing. We didn't really respond, but we were all thinking the same thing: We aren't here for you to ogle, Mr. We're here to freaking protest and rally and lobby and make change and save the world. We aren't just your eye candy, and we don't appreciate that kind of objectification. We're not here for you to feel like the city is nicer just due to our presence - we're here to start trouble! It was pretty ironic, considering we were feeling so empowered and excited, carrying our signs and walking toward the Senate building…

• Then, at the Rally, a bunch of girls from Syracuse were standing directly behind the podium, which was awesome. They got to be on TV - I could see Andrea (another CM blogger!) the entire time from the overflow room we were watching in. But apparently, there was some tension about the signs people were holding. I noticed in the beginning, a sign that read "Immigrants are not the Enemy." It's pretty relevant - the Stupak amendment would unfairly affect lower class women, a disproportionate number of which are immigrants. A latina woman even spoke at the rally about how Latinas would be affected by it. But apparently, the woman holding that sign was asked to switch it out for a more generic one - one of the ones printed by Planned Parenthood. When she refused, and insisted on holding her sign, I understand that someone was told to stand in front of her, blocking her sign with an ever bigger one. Our group didn't agree on whether or not that was fair. Was it just about good PR, representing the organization's goals? Or was it because were in a federal building? Or was it an infringement of first amendment rights? If its the latter, it kind of adds insult to injury when you think about how we were sticking up for our rights just by being there.

• In that same vein, one of our girls was holding a sign that read "Erections get insurance, why don't unplanned pregnancies?" (It's true - Viagra is covered almost universally, but birth control often isn't, and if Stupak goes through, abortion never will be covered. Nobody is pushing an amendment through saying we don't want tax dollars funding erections though…hmm). She was asked to switch her sign out, and she obliged. But it raises good questions - Is erection an innaproriate word here? It shouldn't be - we're talking about abortions! And the sign-maker said to us "It's not like I said some word like 'boner;' erection is the clinical term." It raises the same questions as the Immigration sign.

• And then lastly, when we were entering the Senate building to see Senator Gillibrand, we were waiting on the stairs for some of our party to get through security. Two men and a woman walked by toward the elevators, and the woman said "oh look, the crazies are here!" to a girl from our party. Our girl retorted with "yep, that's us!" as the woman got into the elevator, but all of us were appalled that someone would say that to us IN the senate office building. How rude! And I don't know, I really don't feel like the crazy side of this argument. But I'm biased.


Any thoughts? Am I totally in the wrong?