can governments and reproductive rights mix? should they?

Our discussion of reproductive rights and freedoms has elicited some passionate expression in our discussion boards. Most recently, we've expressed some pride at and happiness over our reproductive rights, particularly in light of governmental control, such as that demonstrated in the one-child policy of China.

But today I saw the following article in the New York Times (from 15 July -- this is what I get for not reading the news every day):
Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid
The policy demands that health care providers and organizations do not discriminate against (potential) employees who oppose abortion and/or other methods of contraception. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily problematic as a non-discrimination clause. However, this policy also offers a very broad definition of abortion. According to the NYTimes:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

The key terms in question here are the following: "the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This definition would then classify other methods of birth control, including oral contraceptives, emergency contraception (Plan B), and IUDs, as methods of abortion.

I am not drawing clear lines between this policy and that of China, but this is certainly a very specific move by the government into/onto women's bodies. This is also not a new move from this administration (see, for example, discussion of the Global Gag rule imposed on USAID -- a Google search offers a number of sources).

So...thoughts?

Here is a link to another article on the subject:
Salon.com -- Health proposal rankles Democrats

And one (very liberal source) to a report on other related moves by the Bush administration:
National Women's Law Center updates on the Bush administration's anti-reproductive rights record

dance dance revolution

This post is less gender-based (though we can of course draw some connections/conclusions), more comment on the global. I ran across an interesting article in the NYTimes this morning: "A Private Dance? Four Million Web Fans Say No", by Charles McGrath. This chronicles the popularity of a video simply called "Dancing," created by Matt Harding. Harding traveled the world doing an odd little dance, videoing his performance (solo and with others -- including a beach full of crabs) and publishing it for, well, the world to see. Read the article for more details on Harding and this creation.

I'm not usually swayed by such things, but decided to take a look. I concur with McGrath's summary of the piece: "it’s short, pleasingly weird and so minimal in its content that it’s open to a multitude of interpretations." And this, finally, is what I'm most interested in.

How do we interpret this? Is it a pleasing example of globalization? An apolitical "We are the World" for the 21st century? Is there something inherently problematic in an American traveling the world (with the help of Stride gum), capturing different cultures on camera in this way? Does the fact that this American is a white male make any difference (or, if this were a Native American woman, how might our interpretation change? would it?)? Are there issues of consent -- do the bushmen of New Guinea know in what they are participating? Does that matter? How does the technology, the new media, contribute to the equation? This has over four million views on youtube alone -- what does this tell us?

Clearly the questions can continue -- so let's discuss. But first, take a look:

**Just to complicate this a touch more, I found myself smiling throughout the video -- I do like dancing -- though I was also, at times, quite bothered.