Jul

9

Americans Broadly Support Abortion Coverage in Health Reform

Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, class and economics, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 2 Comments

You my have heard — or you may not, as it seems to be getting little mainstream media coverage — that health care reform is in trouble. With Republicans and blue-dog Democrats sensing that some sort of of government coverage is likely to be successfully created this time around, they’re shifting tactics somewhat from attempting to defeat mounting legislative efforts to attempting to gut them. And a big area where they’re focusing that gutting is reproductive health care:

Imagine our dismay to see the proposed amendments submitted to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee this week by Republican Senators Michael Enzi, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn:

  • Coverage for abortion would be banned;
  • Health providers and insurers would be protected against “discrimination” for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients including abortions, emergency contraception, aid-in-dying (such as in Oregon, Washington and Montana, where this is legal) or really just about any health service they find objectionable;
  • Federally-qualified health centers could not provide abortions and still get government grants;
  • Any independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include “professional ethicists…with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn.”

The really interesting thing is that while traditional wisdom suggests there is rather broad support for a ban on government subsidization of abortions, new research from the National Women’s Law Center suggests that it’s not actually true — not by a long shot:

  • Voters overwhelmingly support the broad outlines of reform and requiring coverage of women’s reproductive health services. Seven-in-ten (70%) favor a proposal that establishes a National Health Insurance Exchange with a public plan option. If the reform were adopted, voters overwhelmingly support requiring health plans to cover women’s reproductive health services (71% favor-21% oppose).
  • Absent coverage for women’s reproductive health services, majorities oppose reform. If reform eliminated current insurance coverage of reproductive health services such as birth control or abortion, nearly two-thirds (60%) would oppose the plan and nearly half (47%) would oppose it strongly.
  • Supporting coverage of comprehensive reproductive health services would benefit Members of Congress. A plurality (45%) would feel more favorably toward their Representative if they voted to cover reproductive services, while 24% would feel less favorably, and 32% said it would make no difference.
  • Voters would feel much less favorably about their Representative if they voted to cover services like Viagra for men, but excluded reproductive services for women. Voters overwhelmingly reported that they would feel less favorably toward their Member of Congress if they voted for reproductive services for men and not for women (71%), while only 9% would feel more favorably toward their Representative.

Read more

May

29

Reaction vs. Prevention

Filed Under Republicans, patriarchy, politics, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

Sometime recently — and I receive so many action alerts in my inbox that it’s impossible to remember when — I apparently emailed my congressional representative about the issue of funding for programs that prevent intimate partner violence.  Of course, I asked him to support for an increase in such funding.  My representative’s name is Chris Lee, and he, or rather someone on his staff, just responded with the following:

Thank you for contacting me in support of increased funding for programs that help prevent domestic violence. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

There can be no excuse for domestic violence, and I strongly support the important programs that provide support and counseling for victims of domestic violence and families affected.

Now it’s worth nothing that Rep. Lee is a Republican, and I voted for his opponent.  And sad though it may be, this is probably the closest I’ve ever come to agreeing with the man and one of his patronizing, non-committal form letter responses.

But does anyone else see the old switcheroo he played?  I see it all the time, and Lee is hardly the only culprit.  In fact, I’m pretty positive that I’ve seen Obama do it.  But in all cases, it bothers me like nobody’s business, and I think it’s about time to talk about it.

I wrote my representative, as he said, about programs that help prevent domestic violence.  He responded by acknowledging that, and telling me how much he supports services for victims of domestic violence that has already been perpetrated.

Which tells me that while he’s purportedly willing to tell victims, who are overwhelmingly women, that the violence committed against them is not their fault, he’s not willing to hold men, who are the vast majority of perpetrators, to higher standards and to work towards the goal of actually stopping violence before it starts.

Probably because it would involve admitting that such violence is rooted in misogyny and creating a world where women are, I don’t know, respected and considered equals.  Moreover, probably because it would require actually acknowledging that someone with responsibility exists — that domestic violence doesn’t just happen, it’s committed.  And while it’s relatively easy in today’s world, in fact probably expected, to at least say you support funding for women’s shelters, it’s a whole lot harder to commit to what it takes to create a more just world.

Contrary to how frequently you’ll see this bait and switch method used, and as important and vital and underfunded as victims services are — please dear god, can we have some more funding for these services? — reaction to domestic violence is not the same as prevention of domestic violence.  And until we learn that difference — hell, until we admit that one even exists — we’re not going to get anywhere.

Feb

28

Arizona Legislature Considers Numerous Abortion Restrictions

Filed Under Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, reproductive justice, women’s health | 10 Comments

Just as anti-choice, time-wasting nonsense gets cleared up in South Dakota, we find ourselves some more in Arizona.  Indeed, as Miriam and Ann note, anti-choicers seem to be going pretty wild all over the nation.

This particular piece of ugly Arizona legislation would impose a whole ton of restrictions:

Legislation to impose the first new restrictions on abortion since at least 2002 coasted to easy approval Wednesday in the House Committee on Health and Human Services.

Democrats, seeing they were going to be outvoted anyway, walked out, leaving their Republican colleagues to vote 5-0 for HB 2564.

Since 2002, abortion foes have managed to get various measures through the Republican-controlled Legislature only to have each vetoed by Democrat Janet Napolitano.

This bill mandates women be given certain information, in person, about their unborn child and their legal rights if they keep the child. It allows a wide range of medical professionals to refuse to provide abortions, allows medical professionals to refuse to provide the “morning-after” pill, and changes the regulations for minors getting an abortion without parental consent.

The article then goes on to say that there’s also a 24-hour waiting period included in the bill, along with requirements that the woman be told at the start of this period all about prenatal services available to her, as well as “the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics” of the fetus at her particular stage of pregnancy.

Read more

Dec

19

Anti-Choice DHHS Rule Finalized

Filed Under Republicans, abortion, action alert, anti-choice extremism, assholes, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sexism, social conservatives, women’s health | 5 Comments

At Feministe (where I originally intended on posting this until that jerk Jill beat me to it with a really good post), I’ve been relentlessly updating you on the proposed DHHS rule that aims to limit the availability of abortion and contraception by protecting anti-choice employees of Title X funded institutions from “discrimination” based on their refusal to participate in basic and proper medical care.  Well, it’s now my sad duty to inform you that the rule is finalized.

RH Reality Check has a good run-down.

The administration made almost no substantive changes to the regulation following the period of public comment, says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. “The 200,000 comments in opposition to the rule they dismiss,” says Sonfield. “They pretend to respond directly to them, but they actually don’t.”  The only major substantive change the administration made to the rule is to expand the definition of the workforce the rule applies to — for instance, it now includes contractors.

An early, leaked draft version of the regulation specifically suggested that providers who consider hormonal birth control to be an abortifacient should not have to prescribe it or refer patients for its prescription.  The regulation relied on arcane, non-medical definitions of pregnancy to suggest that the belief that pregnancy begins at fertilization is valid and that, a hormonal contraceptive, which anti-choicers claim block implantation of a fertilized egg, is tantamount to abortion.  The second, released draft, now published, does not conflate contraception with abortion, but in its broad scope nonetheless provides protections for providers who would like to do just that.  “The regulation confirms what we feared,” says Marilyn Keefe of the National Partnership for Women & Families. “HHS refused to allay any of the concerns raised in earlier iterations.  Contraception clearly remains a target.”

Great, eh?  In other words, the regulation is precisely what we feared; it’s ideological, non-medical bullshit that puts the religious and moral objections of doctors, nurses, receptionists, maintenance workers, etc. above the vital health care needs of women.

Congress has the ability to introduce a motion to disprove, which if passed in both houses and signed by the President would make the rule invalid.  Analysts believe it’s unlikely for obvious reasons (even though the period in which to introduce the motion extends into the 111th Congress), including the fact that everyone would have to go on record with their position on a controversial issue.

Planned Parenthood has a petition you can sign asking the Obama Administration to overturn the rule once it takes office. We have every reason to believe, so far, that they will, and RH Reality Check outlines their options.  But the fact is that if the rule is implemented at all, many women will become pregnant in the meantime and will pay a sore price.

One of the rule’s more disturbing provisions is the announcement that Title X family planning funding will now be open to grantees who refuse to counsel women on the availability of abortion.  Title X has always required that when a woman tests positive for pregnancy, she must be counseled on all of her options, including abortion, and given referrals based on what her expressed interest.  The regulations state that Title X funding will be granted “non-discriminatorily” to applicants, including those who refuse to provide counseling and referral for abortion.

In other words, women with limited access will have information withheld from them — often, since we tend to believe that our doctors are telling us the truth, without even knowing it.

Merry Christmas, Bush says to the anti-choice crowd. Clearly, he does in fact have only goodwill towards (rich, white, straight . . .) men.

Nov

5

The Good, The Bad, and The Downright Ugly

Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, LGBTQ, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, bigotry, discrimination, homophobia, human rights, legislation, politics, race and racism, reproductive justice, sex work, women’s health | 23 Comments

The Good

President Obama.  Of course.

The Democrats now have 56 seats in the Senate. Four seats are still undecided, according to CNN, but it looks like they’re all going to go Republican.  Our best shot to pick up one last seat is Al Franken in Minnesota — who, with supposedly 100% of the vote counted, is less than 600 votes behind.

The Democrats now have 252 seats in the House, which is a 16 seat gain.  Ten seats are still undecided.

Democrats have a majority in the NY State Senate for the first time since the New Deal. Wow.  Do you mean that we might actually get some shit done?

Kay Hagan got Elizabeth Dole out of office. Gotta love that.

The South Dakota abortion ban, Measure 11, was decisively knocked down by a 10 point margin. A huge congrats to all of my friends at SD Healthy Families!

Amendment 48, the so-called Human Life Amendment, was shot down by remarkable margins, with 73% voting No.

It looks like California has shot down Prop 4, the anti-abortion parental notification initiative, with 95% of the vote in and 52% voting No.

Michigan has voted to allow stem-cell research and possession of medical marijuana.

Anti-immigrant initiative Measure 58 was shot down in Oregon.

Read more

Oct

29

Strip Club Holds Sarah Palin Lookalike Contest

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, beauty myths, feminism, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, politics, pop culture, pornography, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming | 8 Comments

Via Sociological Images — a truly great blog I discovered recently — comes this story about a Sarah Palin lookalike contest held at Vegas strip club (oh, sorry, “gentleman’s club”).  Lots of bikinis, sexualized use of guns and sexism abound.  You can view more photographs of the event here.

The saddest thing is that it’s not the most offensive display of sexualized misogyny that has been directed a Palin.  The sex doll came close, but I’d say that award goes “Nailin’ Paylin,” the Larry Flint pornographic film starring yet another Palin lookalike, the existence of which all of us should have seen coming.

There are two problems with both the porn film and this strip club contest, and neither one of them is about porn and stripping in general.  The first issue is consent.  Sarah Palin did not consent to having her image used in this way.  Portraying her sexually like this without her consent is a violation — and contrary to what many people apparently think, existing as a woman in public is not the same as consenting to use of your body as public property.  This isn’t satire or parody; it’s just sexist and degrading.

Read more

Oct

25

McCain Doesn’t Seem Sure About Why McCain Should Be President, Either

Filed Under 2008 election, Barack Obama, Democrats, Republicans, politics | 4 Comments

It looks like even McCain’s arguments for why he should be president are actually arguments for why he shouldn’t.

John McCain kicked off a campaign swing in two Western states Friday with a new warning that electing Barack Obama could create unchecked Democratic control in Washington.

Republican incumbents and challengers are facing stiff battles in numerous congressional races, including in Colorado. Democrats expect to pick up seats in both the House and Senate and may reach a veto-proof majority of 60 in the Senate.

“The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington,” McCain told about 3,000 supporters in Denver’s National Western Arena. “We’ve already seen a preview of their plans,” added the four-term Arizona senator. “It’s pretty simple and pretty familiar: tax and spend.”

Is that seriously the only thing this guy has left? “My party sucks and has fucked up everything so badly that we’re being voted out of office at every turn. My friends, we’re going to get our asses handed to us all across America. So the last thing you want to do is vote for the presidential nominee of a political party you clearly favor.”

You go with that, McCain.  And remember, as you do, that up to this point voters have seen through the vast majority of your bullshit in droves.  Things aren’t looking good; you keep on reminding people that you don’t really have as single argument about why you would actually make a better president.

Oct

23

Palin Not Such an “Advocate” For People With Disabilities After All

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, class and economics, disability, human rights, legislation, politics | 2 Comments

It seems like Sarah “friend and advocate to parents of children with disabilities” Palin might, shockingly, not be such the ally after all. In Colorado, she opposed a ridiculously minuscule tax increase which would help state citizens with developmental disabilities by providing vital services.

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) is speaking against a Colorado ballot initiative designed to help the state’s developmentally disabled population by raising the sales tax.

Palin made the comments Monday in Colorado against Amendment 51 which seeks to raise the sales tax by one cent on every $10 spent in each of the next two years.

The money would go to help the roughly 12,000 kids and adults in Colorado who currently are on a wait list to receive state services such as home nursing care and job training. They suffer from autism, Down syndrome and mental retardation. Palin’s son has Down syndrome and she has campaigned as an advocate for special needs families.

“There’s got to be an alternative to raising taxes,” Palin said, while answering a question submitted by former Colorado First Lady Frances Owens, who describes herself as a “fiscal conservative,” a supporter of the McCain-Palin ticket and as one of the spokespeople in favor of Amendment 51. “It’s a matter of prioritizing the dollars that are already there in government. What I did as governor in Alaska is prioritize for a great increase in funding for students with special needs up there and I think Colorado can do that also.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean increasing taxes to meet those needs. It’s all a matter of prioritization,” said Palin.

Right. For example: if you silly Coloradans would stop paying for rape kits rather than passing the cost on to sexual assault survivors, just think of all the money you’d save!  It’s not fair to raise taxes for the purpose of helping vulnerable members of society when you’re placing such ridiculous “burdens” on taxpayers already!

But hey, maybe Palin is opposed to the increase because the funds would go to help people with disabilities themselves.  After all, she’s only a friend and advocate for parents of children with disabilities. No need to talk to people with disabilities directly like they’re people who might have an opinion about and stake in their own welfare, or like the challenges of living in our society with a disability don’t end with childhood. No need to actually address the very real concerns of people with disabilities and provide them with the services they need when you can talk about how very special and understanding your privileged self (who already has means to pay for services) is because you have a child with Down Syndrome.

You see, you don’t actually need to support people with disabilities in order to be a friend and advocate.  You just have to look very earnestly into the screen while making that claim.  Well, not really — but Palin certainly seems to think that people with disabilities are that stupid.

Seriously Coloradans, vote Yes on Amendment 51.  And for the love of god, vote Obama.

h/t F.R.I.D.A.

Oct

18

Irony

Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, Republicans, assholes, courts, politics | 2 Comments

Via Hoyden About Town comes this article about the latest Republican dirty election tactic (which should surprise none of us). But one sentence, well, really stuck out at me. Emphasis mine:

Republican John McCain is facing accusations of using a false crusade against voter fraud to suppress legitimate votes as battles over who ought to be able to cast a ballot in the November 4 election intensified.

The top lawyer for the Barack Obama campaign, Bob Bauer, accused Republicans of recklessly “plotting” to suppress legitimate votes and to “sow confusion and harass voters and complicate the process for millions of Americans.”

An estimated nine million new voters have registered for the hotly contested presidential election, and the Obama campaign says Democratic registrations are outpacing Republican ones by four to one.

The McCain campaign contends that an untold number of those registration forms are false and warned that illegally cast ballots could alter the results of the election and undermine the public’s faith in democracy.

We’re supposed to believe that Republicans, are worried about voter fraud and “undermining the public’s faith in democracy”?

Well there you go; sometimes I am left speechless.

Oct

16

John McCain: Openly Scoffing at Your Health

Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, media, misogyny, paternalism, politics, reproductive justice, women’s health | 14 Comments

I believe that I speak for many American women when I say in response to last night’s debate (video below) that I do not want Senator McCain’s brand of “compassion,” and I sure as hell do not want his kind of “help.”  I do not need him to help me have the “courage” to let him make my choices for me about my body.

When it comes to an unplanned pregnancy, the kind of “compassion” I want is not a paternalistic pat on the head. I don’t want to be told how hard this is as if I don’t already know, only to have it explained that for that reason, the decision has been made for me.  The kind of compassion I want is the ability to make the right choice for me regarding that pregnancy and any assistance needed to be empowered to make it.  It’s the same kind of compassion that I want for each and every woman on this planet, and it’s the kind that McCain is not willing to provide.

I’m tired of the condescension.  Do many women who would prefer to not have an abortion need to be provided with the tools and resources they need to feel as though they can carry a pregnancy to term?  Yes, absolutely, I’ve said as much and it’s the Democratic platform that is supporting such policies.

But providing resources to carry to term does not solve the problems of every unintended pregnancy.  A woman who does not want a child, who does not want a child with the particular man she became pregnant with or has even been raped, who does not want a child at her age no matter how much money she has, who is finished with her childbearing, or who is facing a mental or physical health issue is not “helped” by the McCain “compassion” which would eliminate their access to abortion. And in any case, McCain doesn’t support programs that would do the things he claims he wants to do; that kind of “redistribution of wealth” is for socialists.

Read more

Next Page →