Restrictive TX Abortion Bill Struck Down!

A crowd of chanting, singing, shouting demonstrators effectively took over the Texas Capitol and blocked a bill that abortion rights groups warned would close most abortion clinics in the state. This was after Senator Wendy Davis's 11 hour filibuster was halted by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Texas lawmakers had to vote on the bill before a 12:00 a.m. deadline. The combination of Davis's filibuster and the subsequent "people's filibuster" effectively prevented a vote on the bill. Democracy in action, folks!

Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, left, who tries to filibuster an abortion bill, reacts as time expires

Gender Traitor

Sometimes (okay, almost all of the time) I just want to renounce my U.S. citizenship and become an expat someplace where the lawmakers aren't total jackwagons! Some of the statements and proposals made by our elected officials are so blatantly ridiculous and offensive that I am truly embarrassed to admit that I live in this country. Example? New Mexico GOP Representative Cathrynn Brown's recent bill in the State House of Representatives that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion. Why? For "tampering with evidence of a crime" that could land them up to three years in prison. Yes, that's right-prison! For the rape victim!

Even setting aside the question of whether an embryo or fetus can be considered "evidence," proving that a rape victim is pregnant is totally irrelevant to proving that a rape occurred. One does not need to be raped to be pregnant; conversely, one does not need to be pregnant to provide evidence of a rape. The reasoning behind this proposed legislation implies that if a woman does not become pregnant, then no rape has occurred. This bit of insanity even contradicts another great GOP thinker, Senate nominee Todd Akin of Missouri, who recently stated that "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy! (How can so many blithering idiots be allowed to govern? Just asking.)

Representative Brown has defended her bill by suggesting that it is intended to punish the perpetrator of the rape who then assists or coerces abortion to destroy evidence of the crime. We all know that the majority of rapists are keen to "assist" their victims in obtaining abortions. They just love to hang around after the crime to see if their victim becomes pregnant so they can coerce her to tamper with evidence. Rep. Brown claims that "by adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.” I see. The state will be protecting women by prosecuting them for a felony and threatening them with prison. I, for one, am glad I do not have New Mexico's law protecting me! I would like to be able to make my own reproductive decisions without worrying about whether or not I'm destroying evidence!

This assbackwards law would not only criminalize victims of a crime but would most likely prevent rape victims from coming forward to report the crime at all.  Why would a women risk reporting a rape when she would then be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term? This law is just one more example of the twisted thinking of the GOP and their assault on women. The fact that it was a woman who concocted this mess of a law astounds me even more. Rep. Brown should be tossed out of office for this offensive piece of legislation. Then she should have her status as a woman revoked as well.

Why Women Need the GOP in the Exam Room

Ladies, it may be time to start stockpiling birth control pills for the lean times a-comin'. The GOP is waging a war against women, and one of its main strategies is to keep us pregnant. The ability to decide when, or if, we will have a child is vital to our personal, social, financial, and vocational freedom; it is precisely this freedom that we will lose if we allow our country to continue on its same course.

In February of this year, the Virgina Senate passed a bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. This was the first of several measures expected to dramatically alter abortion law in that state. Republicans, who are now in control of both the House and the Senate in Virginia, are considering laws that will ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require that insurers that cover abortions also offer policies that do not, and give rights to a fertilized egg at the moment of conception.

The ultrasound bill requires that before an abortion, a woman must have an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the fetus and be "offered" the opportunity to view the images. If she declines, she must sign a statement saying that she refused to view the ultrasound. The statement and the ultrasound images then become part of her permanent medical record. Opponents of the bill say that this violates a woman's autonomy and privacy, while supporters claim it is a "legitimate health  issue."

Virgina is not unique in this regard. Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to require ultrasound as a part of the abortion procedure despite it not being considered medically necessary. Of those, some require that the woman be offered the "opportunity" to view the images. The state of Texas has taken this mandate to preposterous levels. Under Texas law,  physicians must perform a sonogram before performing an abortion. The woman then has options to view the sonogram images and to hear the fetal heartbeat. She is required, however, to hear the medical explanation of the sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. That's right, required. The Texas legislature knows better than individual women or their physicians what information they need to make a medical decision. Wouldn't you feel better having the lawmakers of Texas in the exam room with you?

Governor Rick Perry called this legislation "a victory for Life." He stated that "this important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-ending decision." He can try to dress it up as an informed consent procedure all he wants, but a pig in lipstick is still a pig. This is clearly an attempt to dissuade women from abortion and is insulting and degrading to those women who wish to have a legal medical procedure.

In what other circumstance do we encourage an unnecessary medical procedure prior to performing the service sought? (I'm not referring to cases where an ultrasound may be necessary before an abortion for medical reasons but in cases like the majority of those in Texas or Virginia where it is mandated regardless of medical necessity.) Do men have to get a digital rectal exam or cystoscopy before they get Viagra? Should they be required to see the images and hear the description in detail?  In what other circumstance would Republicans claim a "victory" over increased medical costs? It seems to me that a woman seeking an abortion is deemed unable to give informed consent without a sonogram because if she had actually understood the matter, she wouldn't be seeking an abortion. The aim of these laws is to keep throwing more obstacles at her until she changes her mind.

Given the GOP opposition to abortion, one would think that they would support birth control, since using birth control regularly decreases the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus, the number of abortions. Make access to birth control easier and more women will use it. Easy, right? Oh no, not in GOP thinking. They want to make access to birth control more difficult. The Republicans consistently vote to cut Title X funding, which makes family planning funds available to low income families.

Additionally, when President Obama included contraception is his health care mandate, Republicans were quick to characterize as an "attack on religion" his failure to initially exempt Catholic church based organizations.  Personally, I think that once Obama opened himself up for compromises concerning contraceptive coverage, he made a mistake. If there is a federal law, ALL employers should be required to follow it. If church based agencies can opt out, what about the private employer who is opposed to birth control? What if an employer is opposed to blood transfusions based on his religion? Should he be allowed to offer insurance that doesn't cover it? Contraception is basic primary care, and it should be treated as such.

One last thought- since the GOP has decided that women are clearly unable to think for themselves, I offer my own informed consent procedure to make sure we don't make any rash decisions. Before deciding to continue a pregnancy, a pregnant woman must receive information from her physician about labor and delivery, including pain, mess, and episiotomies.  In addition, she must have the opportunity to view photos of sagging breasts and stretch marks and to hear the incessant wail of a baby with colic. She must be "offered" the opportunity to view photographs. If she refuses, she must sign a statement, which will then become part of her medical file. It is, after all, a legitimate health issue."

Shame on you, Susan G. Komen!

NEW YORK (1/31/12) – Planned Parenthood Federation of America today expressed deep disappointment in response to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast cancer prevention, screenings and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood to provide these lifesaving cancer screenings and news articles suggest that the Komen Foundation ultimately succumbed to these pressures.

It's time to rethink those pink ribbons, y'all. I am saddened and disgusted to learn that the Susan G. Komen Foundation, one of the most recognizable organizations for breast cancer research and support, has caved to political pressure. This rift will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams, which Planned Parenthood provides at its sites. Although the Komen Foundation claims that the withdrawal of funds is the result of Planned Parenthood being under investigation by Congress for using federal money for abortions, Planned Parenthood says the move is due to Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists, who have been targetting Komen since 2005, when it partnered with Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, this Congressional probe was launched by a conservative Republican (Rep. Cliff Stearns) at the urging of anti-choice zealots. Do I smell a rat here?

If we need any more evidence, just look to Komen's recent naming of Karen Handel as Senior Vice President for Public Policy (2011). Ms. Handel is clearly anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood. In a 2010 statement while running for Governor of Georgia, she said the following:

First, let me be clear, since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood. During my time as Chairman of Fulton County, there were federal and state pass-through grants that were awarded to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as a “Healthy Babies Initiative.”...  Planned Parenthood was the only eligible vendor approved to meet the state criteria.  Additionally, none of the services in any way involved abortions or abortion-related services.  In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws.  Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor.

Let's sum this up: Planned Parenthood was the only place available in the state to provide breast and cervical cancer screening (generally for poor women). None of the funds for provided for this service were used for abortions or anything other than these screenings. As Governor, Ms. Handel planned on eliminating this funding, thus, cutting off the only access to cancer screening many women in Georgia had. Now that she's in charge of Public Policy at the Komen Foundation, she can wield her axe on a national level and cut off access to cancer screening for thousands, if not millions, of poor women. Way to show your pro-life colors, Karen!

This blatant political ass kissing has got to stop! Cancer strikes liberals and conservatives. Cancer doesn't care if you're pro-choice or pro-life. Cancer doesn't care if you have health insurance or don't. We cannot allow the organizations that are supposed to be fighting for women's health to cave to partisan politics on either side. Whether or not you believe in a woman's right to choice, you should believe that women have the right to get cancer screenings, and Planned Parenthood does cancer screenings. They are about much more than abortion.

Tell the Komen Foundation that they should be ashamed. Tell them that saving women's lives should trump politics. Much as I love the color pink, I refuse to wear it until this is reversed.

Sign the petition here and tell Komen not to succumb to Right Wing attacks.

Women Are People Too

The anti-choice zealots have reached a startling new low in their bid to outlaw abortion in the United States, and if you think that this issue doesn't affect you or anyone you may know, think again. Their new strategy is called "Personhood," and instead of going after abortion directly, it seeks to define "persons" in such a broad manner that every fertilized egg will be considered a person and thus be protected under U.S. laws.

According to their website, which may have been edited for grammatical correctness by an embryo,

"The Primary Mission of Personhood USA is to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child. We serve by starting / coordinating efforts to establish legal "personhood" for pre-born children through peaceful activism, legislative efforts and ballot-access petition initiatives.

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!

 They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!

This then also begs the question, is every human being a person?

There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity.

If you look up the word "person" in your average dictionary (we'll use Webster's), you'll find something like this: "Person n. A human being." http://www.personhoodusa.com

This would all be rather humorous if it weren't being seriously considered by the voters in numerous states. This November, voters in Mississippi will decide on a ballot measure that defines the term "person" in the State Constitution to include fertilized human eggs and would grant them all the rights and protections of other persons. This would not only outlaw abortion in the state, including rape and incest cases, but would also outlaw any form of contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from developing, such as IUDs and birth control pills.

Similarly, fertility clinics would be closed, and doctors could be prosecuted for providing medical care to a pregnant woman if it endangered the life of her unborn child. Indeed, it would be illegal to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life if the "Personhood" Initiative passes, as an unborn baby would have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

If all of this seems too much like Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale for comfort, it's because it is. In that book of a dystopian future, women were hardly more than receptacles for growing babies, which were a valued resource in society. Women had no autonomy over their own reproductive decisions and were punished for interfering with their intended purpose of being baby incubators. Perhaps the women of Mississippi should read the book before they go out to vote in November, that is, if they aren't already ordered to be on bed rest to make sure they don't jeopardize any preborn persons they might be carrying.