Completely Unnecessary

At least one ward of the Mormon church is activating against Illinois’ HB 2234, which would provide civil unions in the state (h/t Paul). Such unions would be available to hetero and homosexual couples, ad would provide the same rights and responsibilities as marriage.

An email sent around to ward members encouraged them to call state legislators because the bill would, ‘create grounds for rewriting all social mores,’ amongst other evils.

The bill passed out of committee yesterday despite the church’s input.

As they recommend, however, it’s a good idea to call your legislators and express your support for HB 2234.

While you’re at it, also tell them to support HB 2354, the Reproductive Health and Access Act.

The bill mandates that state and sub-governmental agencies cannot deny women contraception or abortions before fetal viability (with an exception for the health of the mother); ensures funding for reproductive health for low-income/medicaid patients; and mandates that public schools provide medically-accurate comprehensive sex ed.

All lovely things.

You can find your state legislators here.

In national news, after Vitter’s amendment to block Title X money to Planned Parenthood, Sen. DeMint offered an amendment that would block a rule re-allowing pharmaceutical companies to provide low-cost birth control to universities and health clinics. DeMint complained it was an ‘earmark’, despite the fact that it offered no money from the federal government, just re-allowed companies to offer cheap bc at their own cost.

The Wicker amendment sought to limit US funding to the UN Population Fund, which provides family planning for women around the world. Republicans continue to argue that the UNPFA provides funds for coercive abortion in China, when even Bush’s own investigators found that it does no such thing. Wicker’s amendment was defeated.

Ugh.

I mean, yay, but ugh that we have to keep having these kind of debates over legal medications and family planning programs that reduce abortions. Hard to argue that pro-life Republicans are really interested in preventing abortions.

In international sad news that really has nothing to do with any of this, Zimbabwean PM Morgan Tsvangirai was injured and his wife killed in a car wreck today.

The truck driver that hit their car (in the middle of a convoy) said he fell asleep whilst driving.

The MDC will investigate independently, especially after their videographer, who rushed to the scene, was arrested and his camera confiscated.

My heart goes out to Tsvangiai, who continues to stand strong after a year of unbelievable tragedy.

Vaguely Related

• Zimbabwe Election Redux
• Today in Lady News

I am a dork because I get excited about pieces of legislation.

The Prevention First Act - introduced in both the US House (H.R.463) and Senate (S.21) - is giddily awesome and covers everything from emergency contraception and comprehensive sex ed to assistance for rape survivors and funds for positive life education.

Things like this are why I heart my Democratic Congress (today):

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through any federally funded sex education, family life education, abstinence education, comprehensive health education, or character education program shall be medically accurate and shall include health benefits and failure rates relating to the use of such contraceptive.

No more ‘condoms have tiny holes’ if you wants the federal dollars, friends.

Hospitals receiving federal funding would be required to provide free EC to victims of sexual assault as well as providing them with the medically accurate information that EC does not cause abortion.

Also:

Use of Funds- Funds received by an entity as a grant under this section shall be used for programs that–

`(1) replicate or substantially incorporate the elements of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven (on the basis of rigorous scientific research) to delay sexual intercourse or sexual activity, increase condom or contraceptive use without increasing sexual activity, or reduce teenage pregnancy;
…
`(f) Relation to Abstinence-Only Programs- Funds under this section are not intended for use by abstinence-only education programs…

Which is redundant since abstinence-only programs are not scientifically shown to significantly delay sexual activity (much less to promote safe sexual activity), but I like to see Congress covering its bases.

What else? Ah yes, funding can go to a program that:

(1) is age-appropriate and medically accurate;

(2) does not teach or promote religion;

(3) teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases;

(4) stresses the value of abstinence while not ignoring those young people who have had or are having sexual intercourse;

(5) provides information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means to prevent pregnancy and reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS;

(6) encourages family communication between parent and child about sexuality;

(7) teaches young people the skills to make responsible decisions about sexuality, including how to avoid unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances; and

(8) teaches young people how alcohol and drug use can effect responsible decision making.

States can also receive money for programs that teach positive male sexuality and preventative domestic/partner violence techniques, amongst other things.

I’m pretty much over the moon about these bills (before they are inevitably stripped of everything meaningful).

Have a gander at the House bill and the Senate bill.

If you like what you read, contact your Rep about H.R.463 and your Senators about S.21. Make sure to note that you are a constituent and specifically ask them to support the bill.

I’ve already called Burris and Durbin, though ‘The Honorable Vacancy - IL05‘ was not available. (Click the link; that was the actual output for my query.)

Links:
Louise Slaughter Seeking To Destroy America Through Accurate Sex Education [Jezebel]

Vaguely Related

• Today in Lady News
• Bush Administration Pushes Through New HHS Rule

I’m thinking of renaming my blog - ‘Girl Stuff as the Newspapers Died’. I am just a broken record these days.

Anyway, another day of ups and downs in Lady Land. Good news first.

The final version of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill passed the House today, and is on its way for President Obama to sign. If you haven’t read the backstory of the Ledbetter case, it’s insane.

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for nearly two decades. She discovered, near retirement, that she made far less than men in her same position and sued for discrimination.

In May 2007, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that Ledbetter’s case was invalid, since she had to sue within 180 days of the original violation (the first unequal paycheck). Of course, Ledbetter had no idea that she was being discriminated against for all those years, so that would have been impossible.

The new legislation extends the statute of limitations by making every paycheck a new act of discrimination, the 180 days extending each time a new check is issued. Huzzah!

But President Obama is going to need that feminine good will to forgive him for caving to Republicans on women’s health.

Obama and Pelosi have agreed to cut $200 million for low-income contraceptive and sexual health services in the stimulus package.

Aside from being a grand total of .024% of the stimulus (math thanks to Jezebel’s Megan), the money was going to fix a costly and time-consuming wavier that states have to get in order to use their own money to cover contraception.

Unfortunately, John Boehner (R-OH) has the soundbite of the fight:

“How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives how does that stimulate the economy?”

His argument against the contraception money has allowed a cavalcade of other conservative voices to fight the culture wars with this procedural money. For example, James Pethokoukis [via USA Today]:

This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the ‘wrong people’ as economic burdens rather [than] gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. [Pelosi]sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow.

Notice the anti-abortiony-speak going on here. That’s not at all what was being suggested, but the Right to Life crowd has done such a good job of moving the abortion debate onto the birth control debate, that the language is now interchangeable. Running this google search brings up plenty of links arguing that Obama’s stimulus plan will fund abortion.

Many are arguing that the ‘war on abortion’ has now turned into the ‘war on sex, by way of the war on contraceptives’. It’s hard not to see that in Boehner’s objection to the contraception money (one of several items in the bill not directly tied to stimulating the economy, but somehow generating the most outrage).

The point was to save the states money by eliminating a federal hoop (which, if you’re a states’-rights, low-tax Republican should seem like a good thing…), but if it’s about limiting access for women, Boehner’s all about federal oversight. Sex is for marriage and procreation.

Which brings me to my last (possibly NSFW) point. Georgia’ s Coweta County has banned, “any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.”

Notes the Newnan Times-Herald:

The county’s old ordinance specifically exempted condoms from being considered as a stimulation device. The new ordinance makes no such distinction, and would appear to apply to items such as ribbed condoms and various lubricants marketed as having a “warming” or “tingling” sensation.

Hmm, to whom are those products generally directed? Ah yes. Jezebel’s Tracie comments:

…we’re fairly certain that the holy rollers and misogynists that are so concerned with regulating how women stimulate their genitals aren’t nearly as strident when it comes to the sale of Viagra and other drugs that treat erectile dysfunction.

[I assume that, like me, Tracie tried to check on that for sure and got stymied by the unholy number of Viagra links that were not about Georgia's laws regarding the product.]

Point is, if you ladies would just stop having the sex (especially the unwedlocked, pleasurable kind), everyone’s life would be much, much easier.

Screw that. I say check your paychecks instead.

Vaguely Related

• Bush Administration Pushes Through New HHS Rule
• Bipartisan Action on the Stimulus Bill

I’ve been waiting to blog today because I was hoping that President Obama (not tired of saying/typing that yet!) would use the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade to reverse the ‘global gag rule’.

Also known as the Mexico City Policy, the rule was enacted under Reagan, reversed by Clinton and then reinstated by Bush II on this very day in 2001. Here’s the gist (PP also has a video on the site):

Under this Reagan-era prohibition, no U.S. family planning assistance funding can be given to organizations that provide abortion services, offer counseling and referral for abortion care, or advocate legal abortion access in their own countries — even if they do so with their own funds.

Obama has promised to re-reverse the rule, and many were hoping he’d take this anniversary to reaffirm America’s commitment to women’s health and his administration’s commitment to reproductive choice.

I mean the Gitmo thing was good, too, but I like my symbols big and brash.

One person who apparently got the memo about big and brash is the idiot that drove his SUV into a Twin Cities Planned Parenthood this morning. Pro- and anti-choicers were united in their agreement that this disturbed individual should not pass go on his way to jail.

In related news, an anti-choice nurse is being sued for ‘accidentally’ removing a patient’s IUD. Said the nurse (according to the plaintiff):

Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.

Um. Yeah, I’m thinking new career path for you…

But big thumbs ups to the legions of reproductive health workers and educators out there. Way to fight the good fight, ladies and gents.

Finally, some at DHHS seem to think that Bush’s ‘conscience clause’ HHS rules - that I’ve blogged about ad nauseam - might fall under the Obama’s executive order halting all Bush’s midnight rules.

Oh all right, maybe that new president isn’t so bad after all.

Update: Obama released a statement recognizing and supporting Roe v Wade.

Vaguely Related

• Bush Administration Pushes Through New HHS Rule
• Bush Admin Memo: Birth Control Equals Abortion

Poor blog - left to the side when I have better things to do.

But! Since I’m in vague study mode, now seems a good time to run down random crap.

Firstly, Roland Burris. I keep hearing things from non-Illinois talking heads about how qualified he is, etc. I admit that Burris is probably the most qualified person that would accept an appointment from Blagojevich, but that does not make him qualified for the senate seat, per se.

Four times the voters of Illinois said, “Meh, no thanks,” to Roland Burris. And that was for city and state office. If he’s so keen to be the junior Senator from Illinois, why did he never throw his hat in the ring before now? [Ed.- Sorry, I meant except for early in his career (1984) when he was Comptroller.]

Perhaps a resigned recognition of his popularity amongst voters had something to do with it.

Anyway, looks like Reid’s going to back down. But I guarantee that Burris will lose yet another statewide primary in 2010 if he chooses to run again. (Though I sincerely doubt he has any interest in doing that.)

Teen pregnancies are up in 26 states (for those of you doing the math at home, that’s over half). Some people are laying the blame at the feet of the $178mil we spend on abstinence only education in our schools.

For shame, you uterus-coddling liberals.

And finally, the reason the Obama’s couldn’t move in early to Blair House is… John Howard!

Everyone’s favorite slumming-it-on-YouTube former PM will be in town to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yes.

I nearly blogged about the medal the other day, but there was still a bit of spit up in my mouth. The combination of the medal plus the rejection of the Obamas earns my hair-trigger moral outrage.

Vaguely Related

• Support Smart Reproductive Health - Prevention First Act 2009
• Roland Burris - Ready to Serve in the Senate

The Bush Admin has released what Planned Parenthood is calling a ‘anti-choice parting gift’.

A new Health and Human Services ‘conscience rule‘ allows federally funded health professionals to refuse to perform or even provide information on procedures they find objectionable.

It’s clearly a shot at abortion, except that laws protecting doctors from having to performing abortions have been on the books for 30 years.

Why the rule changes then?

Well, the wording is so ambiguous that it could be read to include objections to emergency contraception, birth control, IUDs and sterilizations.

The Obama team plans to overturn these and other anti-women/choice/take your pick rules, but these things take time to undo.

You know what the biggest dickhead move is about all this?

They’re releasing the rule tomorrow and it kicks in 30 days later  - i.e., they go into effect the day before the inauguration.

PP has a petition to make sure the rule’s repeal doesn’t get lost in the onslaught of activities for the new president.

The Bush Administration never misses a chance to turn the screw. I hope they have some kind of cleansing ritual for the White House.

Vaguely Related

• Today in Lady News
• Bush Admin Going Ahead with HHS Rule Changes

In  September, the Bush Administration proposed new rules for Health and Human Services. These were an update from the previous rules they tried to push through in July. I wrote about it earlier, so I’m not going to rehash the whole thing.

The upshot is that it would radically change the list of procedures that health care providers are allowed to opt out from due to ‘conscious objections’.

Or rather, it obscures the definitions so as to make them both meaningless and so broad as to include everything from birth control to sterilization to IUDs.

In September, Planned Parenthood - among others - collected protest signatures and the Admin stopped moving forward. As they’re not supposed to make any new rule changes after Nov 1, it seemed as though they had given up on the rule changes.

Not so much!

Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.

To avoid the usual rush of last-minute rules, the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The “provider conscience” rule missed both deadlines.

Under the White House directive, the deadlines can be waived “in extraordinary circumstances.” Administration officials were unable to say immediately why an exception might be justified in this case.

Unable to say ‘immediately’ or just unable to come up with a reason that might legitimately excuse this craven, 11th-hour move?

These 63 days until inauguration are seeming longer and longer.

How I miss the days when transition pranks consisted of Amy Carter leaving a two week old, half-baked cake in a White House oven for the Reagans to find.

Rather than, you know, fucking over women in all 50 states.

Vaguely Related

• Bush Administration Pushes Through New HHS Rule
• Today in Lady News

Yeah, it didn’t go so well.

According to CNN’s little worm thingie, women didn’t like McCain so much generally, but he really failed in two key areas:

The first was vouchers. It’s a pretty standard conservative talking point, but he might have played it differently.

The vast majority of public school teachers are women (74.5% in 1999-2000 and likely higher since), and they don’t tend to like vouchers much.

Whilst probably striving to draw points of difference between himself and Obama, McCain still might have played up his support of charter schools instead. They’re a bit more palatable from a teacher standpoint.

McCain started out well. In my liveblog, I thought he’d hop right into vouchers, but hit charter schools first. That was a good approach, supporting both and leading with charters.

And then he got wrapped up in Obama’s opposition to vouchers and banged on about how well DC charter schools are working.

But maybe a lot of Clinton supporters aren’t teachers; maybe they weren’t affected by the voucher stuff.

Well, I’m sure the uterus stuff got them on the Straight Talk Express:

I would consider [any judge] in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
…
Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it’s got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who’s facing this terribly difficult decision.

Okay. McCain used to hold a sensible anti-choice position (sorry to be all rhetoricy, but he doesn’t get to wear the pro-life moniker anymore as far as I’m concerned). He even tried to get the Republican Party to amend its platform to include exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother in 2000.

I just love the double-speak in the first part of that quote above.  It’s a little unclear what he’s saying, but I don’t think one could argue that he’s saying he would simply ignore a judge’s support of the Roe ruling. As I wrote yesterday, it seems like he’s saying, “I impose no litmus test, but [support of] Roe v. Wade means they are a bad judge.”

Still relatively reasonable. I don’t agree, but at least they were having a fairly rational discussion (about something that almost no one actually changes their vote on).

And then this happened:

I don’t know how you [Obama] align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America. And that’s his record, and that’s a matter of his record.

And then this, complete with ironic finger ‘quotes’ (video here):

Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.”

Before I fly off the handle - as I promise you I will do in just a moment - there was a better way to say this.

Some argue that stipulations for the health of the mother go too far in including things like mental health. They argue that this could be used to get around laws preventing abortion by claiming ‘mental health’ for a wide variety of reasons.

Quietly and reasonably arguing that point might not have totally lost him the rest of the (Clinton) women.

Palin is there to pick up (ostensibly) women and the base. Women appear not to have responded to Palin, but the base has. McCain didn’t have to come out swinging on this issue. The reponse, instead, seems to have come from frustration with Obama and the election.

And so, Vagina-Americans* got caught up in McCain’s downward spiral of poor polling numbers and increasingly bitter rhetoric.

John McCain might not have noticed, but those two things are connected.

My own brand of alarmist, hateful screed after the jump.

* - For the record, I might prefer Uterized-Americans.

(more…)

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.

Just finished watching the latest in the series of Palin/Couric interviews. You’d think at this point that Palin would just coldcock Couric anytime she saw her coming. But no.

Anyway, there was nonsense about gays (it’s a choice!), vague nonsense about feminism (everything’s equal!) and a fairly good explanation of her position on evolution in schools (she believes in creationism, but science is for science class - literally the best answer I’ve ever heard her give).

Things broke down a little bit during Couric’s question about Palin’s stance on emergency contraception (transcript from CBS):

Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?

Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and save [sic - safe], and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see …

Couric: And so you don’t believe in the morning-after pill?

Palin: … I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven’t spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.

Couric: I’m sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill.

Palin: Personally, and this isn’t McCain-Palin policy …

Couric: No, that’s OK, I’m just asking you.

Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.

Okay, so what we have here is Palin not understanding how the morning-after pill (and contraception, more generally) works.

Like many forms of birth control, EC can either block ovulation or prevent fertilization - but it can also prevent implantation. If you believe life begins at conception, odds are that most forms of birth control - including EC - aren’t for you.

Not to mention that she’s ‘all for [contraception]‘, but ‘would not choose to participate’ in EC.

For the last time - EC is just a megahit of birth control.

If you’re pro-contraception, it makes no sense to be anti-EC. If you’re anti-EC, it doesn’t really cotton that you’re pro-contraception.

And finally, contraception is, of course, just about the easiest way to lower abortion rates.

Jezebel has the video embedded and more quotes from the interview.

Vaguely Related

• Missouri Lawmakers Focus on Plan B
• Bush Administration Pushes Through New HHS Rule

The Bush Administration is proposing changes to the way Health and Human Services deals with definitions, abortion and access.

Specifically, the new rules would require anyone receiving federal funding for health care to allow employees to refuse services to which they object.

The obvious target here is abortion. Or is it?

Senator Clinton and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, point out in a NYT op-ed last week that the ‘obvious’ target masks the real concern.

Rules allowing medical professionals to opt out of abortions have been in place for 30 years.

The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

This document is the update from the July version, which defined birth control IUDs as abortificants, but the wording is no so vague as to be the same thing.

Health care professionals are allowed to decide what is meant by ‘abortion’ - and would be allowed to refuse care on the basis of their own definitions.

The rules would also allow federal funding for so-called ‘pregnancy crisis centers’, which are established for the specific purpose of keeping women from having abortions.

(You know how they functioned in Minnesota when I was working up there? At least one ‘clinic’ was showing women fake ultrasounds and telling them they were too pregnant to an abortion.)

Public comment on the new rules are open until 25 September at midnight. Please click this link and add your name to the petition.

Links:
Blocking Care for Women [NYT Opinion]
HHS Attack on Women’s Health Care [Planned Parenthood Action Center]

Vaguely Related

• Colorado Initiative Would Grant Personhood to Embryos
• Bush Administration Pushes Through New HHS Rule