Two! Two! Two New Hitched Columns! On Grooms and Disasters.

I’m too busy with wedding bullshit to write my wedding blog (58 days to the wedding, holyfuck) but I’m still writing my Hitched column for the Frisky, so I’ve got two new ones for you: first, there’s my take on the obnoxious “reluctant groom” myth, wherein men supposedly have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar:

If men actually were forced into marriage against their will, it wouldn’t be a cute cake topper, because nobody would put a rape joke on top of their wedding cake. Funny thing is, I can think of a group of people who, for pretty much the entirety of human history, have been denied agency and as a result, sold or coerced into marriages as a way to solidify political gains, make money and secure property, and guess the f**k what, guys? That group isn’t “men.” It’s women. After all, the question “Who gives this woman in marriage?” isn’t rooted in tender father-daughter tradition. It’s a sales transaction.

And on a more light-hearted note, my recurring wedding nightmares led me to ask my now-married friends about their own wedding disasters:

Hoping to exorcise some pre-wedding demons, I asked my hitched friends: did you experience any wedding disasters? The best response? From my musically gifted friend Mikal: “Does being knocked up at your wedding count?” But seriously, folks. I wanted to know: when even the best planning goes awry, does it actually matter, or will we all look back later and laugh? The consensus seems to be: both.

Missed some Hitched? Here’s the whole archive at the Frisky.

Breaking News From The Mo’Fuckery And Bullshit Desk

Sarah Weddington, original defender of Roe v. Wade, speaks at Planned Parenthood lobby day in Spring 2011.

I don’t know, I guess all women’s health news should just be reclassified through the Mo’Fuckery And Bullshit Desk. Emily Ramshaw at the Texas Tribune reports that Texas has now officially banned Planned Parenthood from receiving federal women’s health funds because they’re an “affiliate of an abortion provider,” even though, and I can’t believe I’m saying this again except I can totally believe it, Planned Parenthood’s NECESSARY and VALUABLE and TOTALLY LEGAL abortion-providing operations are wholly fiscally and operationally separate from the Planned Parenthood that provides cancer screenings, well-woman exams and contraceptive services.

The rule, signed by Commissioner Tom Suehs on Thursday, takes effect March 14.

“Under federal law, states administer Medicaid and have the right to set the criteria for providers in the program. That is what Texas is doing,” said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the agency. “We have a state law that our Attorney General says is constitutional, and it clearly bans abortion providers from taking part in the Women’s Health Program. We can’t violate a perfectly valid state law just to appease Washington. We hope CMS will reverse its position and allow the program to continue.”

Unless some last-minute agreement is brokered, the program, which receives $9 in federal funds for every $1 in state funds, will be either phased out or cut off by the end of March. At least 130,000 poor Texas women will lose access to cancer screenings, well-woman exams and contraception.

Ramshaw adds: “The stalemate appears unbreakable — Republican lawmakers have made clear they’d rather forgo the program and the federal money than allow Planned Parenthood to participate.” To be clear, this means: Republican lawmakers have made clear they’d rather make sure poor and uninsured women will not have access to one of the largest providers of necessary women’s health care than to, uh, do that.

The Plight of the Married Lady

[Ed. note: This post by contributor Nan originally appeared "In honor of Valentine's Day," on her blog, Behind the Times. She's graciously allowed us to repost it on Hay Ladies! Thanks, Nan.]

Dallas’ public radio station, KERA, recently ran a pledge drive, and I finally pledged. I’ve been a regular listener for a while now — in fact, I consider popping in a CD every once in a while, but I have a panic attack at the thought of what I might miss if not listening to NPR. It’s kind of nuts, considering I’ve started having panic attacks due to some of the things they regularly talk about on NPR (a running series seems to focus on people who’ve been unemployed FOR YEARS — my poor heart can’t take it). Alas, however, I’m probably doomed to panic attacks over some such thing for the rest of my life. I deal. And I gave to my local NPR station because I listen all the time. They finally guilted me into it.

And then they promptly shat all over my good graces.

I filled out the donation form using my name — Nan Kirkpatrick — as the primary contact. Actually, I was technically the only contact. And I gave them my personal checking account information. Sean (my husband) and I do have a joint checking account, but he was donating from his own funds. We’re modern like that. So, so far I’ve given them my name and my personal checking account information. Then I saw a small, not required space for “Name of Spouse.” I put “Sean Kirkpatrick.” Looking back, this was my big mistake. At the time, however, I thought nothing of it. I’m a good test taker, I guess — I don’t leave anything blank.

A couple of weeks went by, and I got my membership information in the mail. What I saw turned my blood to ice. The envelope was addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Sean Kirkpatrick.

I was livid. Absolutely aghast. Completely at a loss for words. I’d taken the time to give those…those…assholes my hard earned money — money that I, NAN Kirkpatrick, put in a lot of effort to obtain — and I didn’t even receive recognition except as a “Mrs.” Heck, Sean received first-name recognition, and based on my knowledge of the world, my paycheck, personal bank account, and time do not belong to him. He didn’t have anything to do with the giving of that money. He was a not required blank. He was, in this instance, an afterthought.

He also seemed a little at a loss when I was ranting about the situation. I know. This is not something that on the surface seems like a big deal to dudes, and I cannot say that I blame them. They walk through life knowing that if they put their spouses name in the not required blank, the envelope will always come addressed to them…and some unnamed other. They know that if they give THEIR MONEY to an entity, the entity will not then treat them like a possession, a mere Mr. to someone else’s Mrs. And that reminds me…I always fill out forms as “Ms.” Those jerks couldn’t even get that part right.

Throughout history, women have been barred from financial independence. Actual laws kept women dependent on men for financial stability. I cherish my right to earn my own money and keep it where I please. And I don’t appreciate the societal standard trampling all over common sense — it should’ve been obvious that I was the one to be thanked based on my name being the primary contact alone — to keep from me what I am owed: KERA’s gratitude for my fucking money.

I sent them an email letting them know how I felt. I don’t remember the specifics, but I do remember that it ended with, “This is 2012. Get with the program.” They still haven’t responded. And I’m still livid whenever I think about it. I’m livid because it’s just a very obvious reminder that I am not even considered an equal partner in my own marriage by society, let alone as a complete and separate individual.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Backlash Against Forced Transvaginal Ultrasound Laws Gain Steam

Irin Carmon over at Salon addresses the increasing political and pop-culture backlash against forced transvaginal ultrasound laws, which we are all too familiar with now here in Texas. (Well, we’re familiar with the laws, less so the backlash, since ugh, we’re fucked.) Carmon addresses, in part, the question of why there seems to be so much more resistance to Virginia’s bill even though six other states, including Texas, are actually living the nightmare as we speak. I told her that I think it has a lot to do with influential political players living and working in Virginia, and also the epidemic-like spread of these bills that gain traction in one place and grow ever scarier.

As to why Virginia could be different than Texas, where the law is being contested in court but is already being enforced,  Grimes said, “In my experience as a Texas feminist, even progressive people just kind of expect that Texas is shitty and backwards and oh well, that’s just what happens there with those poor, ignorant Red Staters so what can you do? But now we’re seeing that Texas… isn’t just the ignorant, backwoods exception to the rule–it’s the inspiration for an increasingly well-organized push to take rights away from women nationwide.”

And Jacobson says, “There’s just this confluence of factors where people are beginning to wake up to what’s going on. Part of it is that people are aware that it’s not just a culture war — it’s a war on women, evidence, health, and science.”

By “Jacobson,” Carmon means Jodi Jacobson of RHRealityCheck.org, which has been doing bold and fantastic continuing coverage of these bills, and if you’re not already checking the site every morning, bookmark that shit.

Breaking News From The Mo’Fuckery And Bullshit Desk

First, the goodish news: ultrasounds don’t actually do shit to coerce women not to have abortions, they’re just a stupid hassle. From the American Independent:

But as more states inject mandatory ultrasound policies into their abortion laws, a group of scientists is attempting to influence the debate with new research showing that ultrasounds, while useful and informative, do not directly influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion, at least not in most cases. The research team has also found evidence of instances when anti-abortion pregnancy centers have misdiagnosed how far along a woman is in her pregnancy, potentially in an effort to delay or prevent an abortion.

BUT OH WELL Texas will keep requiring them anyway, because Judge Sam Sparks says his hands are tied by the anti-choice Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals. Via the Washington Post:

A federal judge in Austin said Monday that he couldn’t block a Texas law requiring women to have a sonogram before having an abortion any longer because an appeals court had ordered it to take effect.

District Judge Sam Sparks earlier ruled parts of the law unconstitutional, but his latest ruling said he’s bound to follow the direction of the New Orleans-based appeals court, which said last month it believed the law to be constitutional.

Sparks wrote in his ruling that the law is still some bullshit. I’m paraphrasing, via the Austin-American Statesman:

Sparks wrote that he remained convinced that the law violates the U.S. Constitution by infringing on doctor’s free speech rights and by impairing the exercise of their medical judgment.

But Sparks added that his hands were tied by a higher-court decision, issued last month by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that expressly found the sonogram requirement to be constitutionally sound and a reasonable regulation of medicine.

Hitched: What Does It Mean To Be A Wife?

In this week’s “Hitched” column for The Frisky, I wonder on the question, “What does it mean to be a wife?” For me, the term “wife” isn’t a necessarily positive one. And yet here I am on a one-way track to wifedom. Part of the problem is that I don’t ever intend to become a mother.

The word itself doesn’t have immediately positive connotations for me. You say “wife,” and what I imagine is a long-suffering Alice Kramden or permanently put-upon June Cleaver. A string of women in skirt-suits standing stoically next to their husbands during embarrassing adultery-related press conferences. I think of bland casseroles in the oven. I think of screaming kids in the yard. Picket fences and that kind of shit.

Read the rest here.

Hitched: My Maid Of Honor Hates Weddings

For this week’s Hitched column, I tackle lady relationships and wedding culture by addressing the fact that my maid of honor hates weddings. And yet, there she is at my side, shopping for wedding gear and reading a poem during the ceremony.

Susan’s been to four weddings in her life and she’s been in two of them. Neither were especially positive experiences — we’re talking bridal freak-outs, awkward confrontations, ugly dresses and everything every bride thinks her wedding is totally not going to be but sometimes is.

I wanted to have a sweet, fun, low-pressure wedding for my sake, and for Patrick’s sake, but also for Susan’s sake. And I was really scared that no matter what I did, she was going to hate it, and be mad at me, and we’d never get past the fact that I had a wedding and asked her to be my maid of honor. I didn’t want one relationship to fall apart just because another one was throwing a big party for itself.

Read the rest at The Frisky.