Things on my mind

1) Obviously the Amelia Kagan hearings. She's not liberal enough (I'm actually not even sure if by any definition other then Glen Beck's definitions if she could really be called a "liberal" - too much into war) to be my first choice, but wow, she's really smart. We could use a little more really smart, and a little less political on the court.
1a) How little Race is discussed in this election. I mean seriously, won't being a white woman influence her on the court just as much as being a Latina would influence Sotomayor?
1b) How much sexuality has to play a role. Regardless of Kagan's sexual orientation, it showcases the fact that if you are female and not married, your sexuality will be questioned. If you are a woman who is in power, your sexuality will be questioned regardless of your own claims.
1c) I wonder how many single people have ever been on the Court. And single in all its variations, single never married, single divorced, single widowed, single because not legally allowed to marry.

2) The woman in Iran who got lashed for being accused of having an affair is apparently getting the death penalty. As a queer woman, I am often confused about how it seems like issues impacting sexuality get more air time than those impacting women. I'm not entirely sure if this is real or my imagination, but I have noticed Vanguard doing a piece on women and they did do one on the Ugandan homosexuality bill. This intrigues me on so many levels, but also because of how much anti-homosexuality often seems to be deeply entwined with controlling women's bodies.

3) The lawsuit in Washington over whether pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. So many issues with this - but above all else, if you aren't willing to fill a prescription, don't pursue that career. Get your morals out of people's access to health care. Stupid people.
It's a lot harder for women to have access to safer family planning options than men (on so many levels, tying your tubes versus vasectomy, costs of female condom vs male condoms, burden of the pill and other methods failing on females fiscally, despite limited access and the fact we make less than men).
But beyond all that it gets to the heart of what the anti-choice movement is about. It's not a movement about life, it's a movement about controlling women's reproductive options. We need to keep mindful that the women's movement started in large part to just trying to get accurate information out about the possibility of family planning (seriously look up the life of Margaret Sanger who went to jail just for distributing handbills about family planning). There was a span of about three years between the Supreme Court declaring birth control access had to be allowed to married people, then single people, and then abortion.
If pharmacists are allowed not to dispense the morning after pill, then why can't pharmacists who don't believe in sex outside of marriage refuse to provide the birth control pill? To think they are different it's splitting hairs on a very small level.