President Obama met this morning with top Democrats and Republicans on the subject of his proposed Supreme Court nominee, to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. In attendance were Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Also at the meeting were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Judiciary Committee minority member. Vice President Biden also attended. via Washington Post

After the meeting, President Obama allowed a single question from reporters. Asked whether he would nominate a candidate who did not support abortion rights, he replied:

“You know, I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction. Obviously this has been a hugely contentious issue in our country for a very long time. I will say the same thing that every president has said since this issue came up, which is I don’t have litmus tests around any of these issues.”

President Obama then added these very important words:

“But I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights. And that’s going to be something that’s very important to me, because I think part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.”

The Absurdity of the Male Guidance Argument

These Glen Luchford photos of Stephanie Seymour, originally published in Pop Magazine, Spring 2008 seemed timely this morning.

Visually they symbolize the layers of male guidance heaped on intelligent, capable women trying to lead good, honorable lives as sensual creatures — as if can’t make wise decisions without them.

Perhaps it’s unfair to tie the statements of Iran’s senior cleric and Teheran’s Friday prayer leader Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi to the Pope’s commitment to ending women’s right to an abortion … but I will.

Women MUST understand what we’re dealing with, when the subject is fundamentalism — whether it’s Catholic fundamentalism or Muslim fundamentalism.

Iran is an earthquaie-prone area and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that a quake is certain to hit Tehran and that many of its 12 million inhabitants should relocate. via AP

Asked about earthquakes, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi said the following:

“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes.”

Thinking people must come to grips with the fact the fundamentalism is irrational, whatever robes it dresses in. My words aren’t a negation of spirituality and religion, which I embrace. They represent a revolt against the patriarchy and women who embrace it.

“What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon Friday. “There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes.”

Pope Benedict has essentially demanded the same course of action from Catholics worldwide. We’re not talking abstract concepts in foreign lands. These words sound appalling, but they represent the vision of a global, religious patriarchy that stands united against women’s rights on every continent.

Politicians and NGO people understandably must be more politically-correct in their dealings with the patriarchy. Writers, artists, and bloggers do not. We must be true to the power of our convictions, now more than ever. It’s time to stand up for women. Anne