Update: Women’s Health Rights at Risk

Remember when I told you about the Bush administration, through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, attempting to rewrite the rules on women’s healthcare, making it possible for any woman to be denied contraceptives at the whim of her healthcare provider? And in that post I included a link to a petition to sign opposing this change?

Well now I have something else for you – a link to send your thoughts straight to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on this issue. NARAL has a quick online form you can fill out to tell the HHS directly that this change of the rules is unacceptable.

As a reminder, the proposed change would give all healthcare providers who works in facilities that receive federal funds the right to deny any woman access to not only an abortion (healthcare providers already have that right), but to the birth control pill and Plan B (the morning after pill), if they happen to personally believe that life begins at conception and therefore birth control is abortion.

This proposed change would put healthcare providers individual ideologies above patient rights and limit women’s choices when it comes to our own healthcare.

Please take a moment to CLICK and tell the HHS that this regulation undermines women’s rights and needs to be stopped.

No he did not.

John McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his VP. Let’s get right to it…

McCain and Palin have met approximately one time. The McCain camp has criticized Obama for being young and inexperienced – but Palin is a 44 year old, second year Governor of a state that ranks 47th in terms of population (only Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota have less residents). Palin’s views on foreign policy are unknown.

Hear what my fantasy girlfriend Rachel Maddow has to say about Sarah Palin here:

That Rachel is always so cheery – “A laugh out loud choice” – for me, it was more of a rant and yell choice.  McCain’s pick is truly insulting to female voters everywhere.  This pick reeks of the same old Bush administration tactics of completely discounting the intelligence of the American people.  Does the McCain camp really think that we don’t see this choice for what it is?  Do they really think voters will believe that McCain thinks Sarah Palin is the next best choice for President after him?

It is 100% clear that McCain made this choice to woo disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to his side.  Check out Palin, a self-described “Pro-Life Feminist,” playing up the female empowerment angle in her acceptance speech today:

Interesting how Palin now thinks Hillary Clinton had “determination and grace,” when she used to think Clinton was a whiner (which of course fits right in at the McCain camp, where they think the American people on the whole are a bunch of whiners).

As a feminist, it is very disturbing for me to hear Palin speak as she did in her acceptance speech – yes, it is a great thing to have a woman as a Vice Presidential candidate, but she is running on the ticket of a man who, in 2008, does not support equal pay for equal work, and also does not support insurance companies covering birth control for women. I’m not sure how women can manage to break any glass ceilings when we are still not being paid as much as our male counterparts. I’m not sure how women can break any glass ceilings if we are denied choices regarding our own reproductive health.

And don’t be fooled by Palin’s seemingly feminist message – this woman is NOT a progressive.  She supports teaching creationism in schools, discounts global warming, is a hunter and life-long NRA member, is against putting polar bears on the endangered species list, opposes stem cell research, supports drilling for oil in Alaska (even McCain doesn’t support that!), does not support LGBT rights, and is 100% anti-abortion rights.

Sarah Palin is like the poster woman for the right wing, and is sure to please the religious base of the Republican party (seemingly the only other reason for McCain to have chosen her).

In closing, I would like to share with you a passage from Dorothy Snarker, a Hillary Clinton supporter, who expressed her feelings on the Sarah Palin selection very eloquently in her blog:

Women are not interchangeable. We aren’t paper dolls with removable heads and pantsuits. We’re individuals. We have brains. We even like to use them. Yet with his selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick, John McCain has shown us how he really feels about women. We’re dumb and fickle and will vote for anything in a dress. Am I glad that another woman has a shot at the second-highest seat in all the land? Of course – more opportunities for women to enter the upper echelons of power are always welcome. But does it also make me angry? Of course – this isn’t a sign of McCain’s newfound belief in the intrinsic equality of women. This is a joke.

It’s insulting, condescending, infuriating that McCain would think we women vote as a monolithic block controlled solely by our ladyparts. We do not, sir. Nor are we amused by the sexism that will no doubt be leveled Palin’s way (and already has been…um, VPILF.com, classy). I disagree with Palin based on her record. Pro-life. Pro-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Pro-teaching of creationism. Pro-National Rifle Association. With only 20 months as governor and the mayorship of a town of less than 9,000 people on her resume, why was she selected when other much more experienced Republican women were passed over? This is not what feminism is about.

You can read Ms. Snarker’s excellent post in its entirety HERE.

Clinton supporters love McCain… When they don’t know who the #*&% he is.

You may have heard about this ad released by the McCain camp, in which a former Hillary Clinton supporter, Debra Barstovich, says that she is now supporting McCain.

Now, we already know how I feel about former Hillary supporters turning their allegiance to McCain, but there has been an interesting turn of events in this story…

The Republican party put together a little press conference yesterday with Barstovich, in which she was asked how she felt about McCain’s anti-abortion rights stance. Barstovich replied that McCain opposes overturning Roe v. Wade!  I’m not kidding!  Read the quote HERE!

Of course, we know quite well how John McCain feels about the right to choose – he has even said explicitly that he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It doesn’t get much plainer than that.

You’ll note that the McCain quote Barstovich referenced was from 1999; since then, McCain has changed his position on a myriad of issues, not the least of which being abortion rights.  So it seems that these looney-tunes turning from Clinton to McCain may not just be crazy, but grossly under-informed as well.

I like how my fantasy-girlfriend Rachel Maddow summed up this situation last night on MSNBC: It’s post-rational. That is the perfect way to describe this mess. It is completely post-rational that Clinton supporters would give their votes to a man who stands on the opposite end of nearly every single issue that Hillary Clinton ran on. There is no logic in what they are doing. It is completely post-rational, and yet it continues!

Here’s hoping that between now and November, these voters will, I don’t know…watch the news? Read a paper? Subscribe to Time magazine? GET A FREAKING CLUE?

My goodness, politics are exhausting.

Bush Plan: Destroy Women’s Rights by 1.29.09

With all the attention on the upcoming election, our still current President can slip under the radar from time to time.  But rest assured, his administration will not let its final months of power go to waste.  Oh no. 

The Bush administration, in the form of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, may now rewrite the rules of women’s healthcare by loosening the definition of “abortion” so that it may be twisted to include the birth control pill, the morning after pill, and various other forms of contraceptives.  Under this definition loosening, the HHS is going even a step further by proposing a little policy change that would require any hospital or health care provider which receives federal funding (in any way, shape or form) to sign “written certifications” that they will not refuse to hire any nurses, doctors or other providers who object to abortion, which now, under its shiny new definition, will include birth control.  These employees who object to “abortion” are then free to refuse to provide contraceptives to the patients who seek them.

How is this happening?  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is buying into the unsound beliefs of the religious right.  This terrific blog on Huffington Post outlines the basis of the belief that contraceptives are a form of abortion.  Anti-choice and anti-contraceptive religious fanatics insist that “life” begins at conception, when the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say it begins at implantation in the uterus.  There is no sound science that backs up the belief of these religious people, and yet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is choosing to give this belief credence.

[The HHS] now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there’s no test to determine if a woman’s egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she’s not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS’ new science.

You read it right: Any woman could be denied contraception. Including a married woman who has 4 children and simply cannot afford to feed another. Including a young woman who is not ready to be a parent.  Including me, a woman who is on the birth control pill not even for contraceptive purposes, but to ease severe pain associated with PMS.  Including a woman who is raped and goes to the emergency room in search of Plan B (the morning after pill).

And based on what? Speculation.  If a nurse or doctor thinks that life begins at conception and thinks that the birth control pill is therefore abortion, the patient is denied the care she seeks.  Lack of medical evidence doesn’t matter here.

This is unacceptable.

This change in policy would put the rights of the healthcare provider above the rights of the patient. This says that the belief of the ER nurse that Plan B is abortion and abortion is wrong is more important than the comfort and well-being of the rape victim who is horrified that she may have been impregnated by her attacker.

What ever happened to patients’ rights?  As patients, as women, as citizens, do our rights not matter at all?

You can read more about this here and here. Also check out this piece by Hillary Clinton about this incredibly important issue, and please follow the link to sign her petition to thwart this radical and dangerous change in policy.

McCain: Oh, it gets worse…

We already know that McCain’s record on reproductive rights is atrocious, but this little gem just seems to be the icing on the cake:

You can head over to Huffington Post for a full description of the exchange.

McCain cannot even answer a simple question about whether insurance companies should cover the birth control pill. He can’t even remember the times he voted against such coverage.

First of all, I don’t buy it. Reproductive rights are a pretty hot button issue for right-wingers, making it incredibly hard to believe that McCain doesn’t remember where he stands or how he voted.

Secondly, he tells the reporter, “I’ll try to get back to you.” Sure, he’ll get back to you, after he talks to his team and finds out what his position should be because he clearly has no convictions of his own.

This is not the first time that McCain has had such a bizarre and troubling response to questions dealing with sexual health. Over a year ago, he stumbled similarly over a question about government funding for contraceptives and sex education in Africa to help in the fight against HIV/AIDS. He said, “I think I support the president’s present policy,” (referring to W’s abstinence only policy) he thinks.

When pressed further and asked if condoms prevent the spread of STD’s, McCain had this pearl of wisdom to share: “I’ve never gotten into these issues or thought much about them.”

Ah yes, how wonderful! I want a president who hasn’t really thought much about sex education or reproductive and sexual health. That is really the person who I want making decisions about these issues for the rest of us!

And wait, there’s more! McCain’s birth control befuddlement was not his only problem this week – check out this blog from Huffington Post (Arianna, I heart you!) outlining 10 – that’s right, TEN – serious McCain gaffes that happened just this week.

What’s truly amazing to me is how little attention all of these missteps are getting in the mainstream media. Where is the outrage? Why is Barack Obama’s every move dissected and debated on CNN and MSNBC on the regular, while outrageous flip flops and ignorant comments from McCain go almost completely unnoticed?

This morning I emailed the Huffington Post blog to some of my friends and family. I just couldn’t sit on the information knowing that it might end with me – I had to pass it along, and I hope you will do the same.

McCain: No Friend to Feminists

 

I told you I’d talk about why Hillary Clinton supporters turning to McCain are crazy, so let’s get to it!

It’s no secret that there are a number (what number, we know not) of former Hillary Clinton supporters turning to McCain.  There are polls, blogs, articles, etc, etc telling us so.  And somewhere along the lines, I heard a reason some of those who consider themselves feminists are turning their support to McCain is that they are angry with Obama for not coming to Clinton’s defense when she was a victim of sexism during the primaries. At first, this doesn’t sound that bad – they’re mad at Obama and are going to hold that against him. But there are two very serious holes in this logic:

1. Hillary Clinton did not come to Barack Obama’s defense when he was the victim of racism and blatant lies during the primaries.
2. These voters say they are feminists, yet will cast a vote for the most un-feminist candidate in the race.

Regarding Point #1- If Barack should have defended Hillary in the face of sexism, then HIllary should have defended Barack in the face of racism.  Period.  What did Hillary say when the rumors of Barack being Muslim spread like wildfire? She basically said that she didn’t know, but would take Obama’s word on matter, and left it at that. Major cop-out. She fed the fire by being so nonchalant and vague. She should have stated very plainly that it is a lie that Barack Obama is Muslim, and that she refutes the idea completely. And furthermore, (though this would only happen in my fantasy world) she should have pointed out that “Muslim” DOES NOT EQUAL “terrorist” in an effort to end the obscene fear-mongering that the American people are too often victims of - but I digress.

Regarding Point #2 – McCain has been issued a ZERO rating by Planned Parenthood. His voting record on women’s issues and reproductive rights is just that bad. He has consistently voted against choice, comprehensive sex education, and health benefits for women (such as requiring insurance companies to cover birth control). I myself was curious to know how bad McCain’s voting record really is, so I did a little research and found the following helpful list of wrongdoings on Planned Parenthood’s website:

McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.

McCain opposed legislation requiring
McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.

McCain opposed Title X, the nation’s family planning program.
In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.

McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.
In an interview aboard the “Straight Talk Express,” McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported “the president’s policy” on sex education.

McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception.
“Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don’t know,” McCain said about contraceptives.

McCain opposed repealing the “global gag rule.”
In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the “global gag rule,” which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.
In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, ‘I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.

McCain says Roe v. Wade was a “bad decision.”
In May 2007, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. McCain reiterated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade, saying, “I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the, the rights of the unborn.” He went on to say, “My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record.”

McCain would have signed 2006 South Dakota abortion ban
In February 2006, the Hotline reported, “According to a spokesperson, McCain ‘would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.’” As the New York Times’ Paul Krugman points out, “That attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shock waves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.”

McCain touts “pro-life” credentials at conference of FRC Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council.
At a speech at the FRC Action Voter Values Summit in October 2007, Sen. McCain said, “I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.”

In addition to these offenses, and stepping away from feminism as the main issue, here’s a little gem from over at the Huffington Post.  Arianna, who seems to be on a mission to expose McCain as no longer being the “maverick” he once was, was kind enough to compile this little summary of some of McCain’s biggest flip-flops:

The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn’t on the ballot in 2008. And the proof has all but jumped up and grabbed the media by the throat: the ring-kiss of “agents of intolerance” Falwell and Robertson; the decision to make permanent tax cuts he twice voted against, saying he could not “in good conscience support” them; the campaign finance reformer replaced with a candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists and fueled by loophole rides on his wife’s jet; the hard-line stance against torture replaced by a vote allowing waterboarding; the guarded-by-a-battalion stroll through the “safe” neighborhoods of Baghdad; the use of Karl Rove as an advisor.

 

It seems McCain’s commitment to being against choice and reproductive rights is the only consistent part of his platform!

It all boils down to a simple fact I have stated before:

Obama is more similar to Clinton than Clinton is to McCain.  If Clinton was your pick based on her policies and stances on key issues - Obama is the next best match.  No if’s, and’s or but’s.

Stop the insanity!!!!

Supreme Court Abortion Ban: Consequences

Thanks to Bint Alshamsa for sharing this link, which is a personal story from a woman who had an intact dilation and evacuation procedure, aka “partial-birth abortion.”

This story is one example of a time when the procedure is necessary; in this woman’s particular case, it was necessary to preserve her fertility.

The anti-abortion folks have demonized this medical procedure, which is actually less invasive, and less harmful to the pregnant woman, her uterus and her future fertility.

I think it is important to remember, also, that this is just one woman’s story. Imagine how many more there are, and will be.

Chipping Away at a Woman’s Right to Choose

Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” with a 5-4 vote. Here’s a little snippet from an MSN article:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld a nationwide ban Wednesday on a controversial abortion procedure in a decision that sets the stage for additional restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.

For the first time since the court established a woman’s right to an abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court’s liberal justices, in dissent, said the ruling chips away at abortion rights.

Basically, this bans a specific abortion procedure that is only performed after 20 weeks (5 months) of pregnancy (just as a reminder, a fetus has no chance of survival outside the womb until about 28 weeks of pregnancy).

The specific procedure that has been banned (dubbed “partial-birth abortion” by anti-choice activists) involves partially removing the fetus from the womb in order to abort it. It is still legal to have an abortion beyond 2o weeks of pregnancy, as long as this procedure is not used. An alternative procedure involves dismembering the fetus whilst it is still in the uterus, and then removing it.

The anti-choice side says that this will not change the number of abortions that are performed because doctors can simply use the alternative method. But doctors who spoke before the Supreme Court said that sometimes this procedure is necessary.

Possibly the scariest part, though, is that the ban provides no exception for the mother’s health. It does provide an exception for the mother’s life – but not her health.

So if the choice was to have this specific abortion method performed, or the mother will die — the abortion would be allowed. If, however, the choice was to perform this specific abortion method, or the mother could go blind, become paralyzed or have her health compromised in any other way — there would be no choice. The mother’s health would be in jeopardy.

The justification for leaving out an exceptions to protect a woman’s health was that doctors should not be forced to make that judgement. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Wouldn’t the doctor present the woman with her options and then she would choose what was best for her and her family/life/health???? This “We don’t want to put doctors in that position” bullshit is just covering the fact that they are taking the choice away from the actual woman who could benefit from this procedure.

What is particularly disgusting to me is how the anti-choice side has used rhetoric to frighten people to their side. They invented the term “partial-birth abortion” to scare people. In reality, the procedure is used rarely, and mostly in extreme cases. But the anti-choice-ers would have you believe that young women are just walking into clinics willy-nilly at 8 months of pregnancy having doctors “partially deliver” their babies and then “kill” them.

It is absolutely ludicrous, and it makes me sick to think how their rhetoric and lies are leading us down the road of stripping away the rights of women (and families!) to make decisions for themselves, with their doctors.