Completely Unnecessary

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

• Palin on Contraception
• Colorado Initiative Would Grant Personhood to Embryos

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 Admin Going Ahead with HHS Rule Changes

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 Admin Memo: Birth Control Equals Abortion

See, here’s what I like about Australia.

Despite the fact that the Labor and Liberal parties usually sit on opposite sides of the fence, both know that it’s time for abortion actually become legal in Victoria.

Abortion procedures have been de facto legal for years - your doctor is likely to accept any reason for a procedure - but having an actual law that guarantees the right of Victorian women is an important step.

No woman should have to justify her decisions to a doctor, the State or anyone.

That’s what’s missing from the that cavalcade of legislation that is currently making it more and more difficult for American women to exercise their right to medical procedures deemed legal by their government.

It’s comforting to see both Premier John Brumby and Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu behind this legislation. It demonstrates the depth of support behind Victorian women and the confidence in their ability to make rational choices.

More importantly, it exemplifies the ability of Victorian officials to get behind commonsense legislation, despite partisan politics.

This legislation has been brewing for years, and full support behind those who will vote for it next week.

Link:
New Law to Give Abortion Right [The Age]

Vaguely Related

• Bush Admin Memo: Birth Control Equals Abortion
• Quentin Bryce: Gender-Tagging the New Governor-General

Either leave office or leave us alone, Mr President.

A Bush Administration memo would expand the definition of abortion to include birth control pills and interuterine devices - which would bring them under the auspices of ‘conscience clauses’, allowing medical professionals to deny such items to women requesting them. Via Reuters:

“The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures — including the prescription 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,’” it said.

Since some pills and the IUDs prevent fertalized eggs from implanting, they would fall under this category.

I mean, I know I’m never going to get over the Bush Admin’s great idea of appointing a veterinarian as the head of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health. But seriously - can you just leave us alone? Less than 200 days. Just go to Crawford. No one cares anymore; we’re not going to complain that you’re not doing your job.

Just go.

Via Jezebel and Reuters

Vaguely Related

• Colorado Initiative Would Grant Personhood to Embryos
• Bush Admin Going Ahead with HHS Rule Changes

Dust off your virginity, and prepare to be creeped out all. over. again.

Besides the ostentatious religious displays and reliance on abstinence-only dogma, I could never really pinpoint what it was about purity balls that gave me such a massive wiggins.

Luckily, the NYT provided a picture gallery this year: aaand, it’s number 8 that provides the wig factor.

Let’s just run through the litany of terrifying quotes, shall we?

But after dessert, the 63 men stood and read aloud a covenant “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.”
…
“It inspires me to be spiritual and moral in turn. If I’m holding them to such high standards, you can be sure I won’t be cheating on their mother.”
…
“Something I need from dad is affirmation, being told I’m beautiful,” said Jordyn Wilson, 19, another daughter of Randy and Lisa. “If we don’t get it from home, we will go out to the culture and get it from them.”

Not content with making millions off taxpayers, abstinence groups are branching out:

The Abstinence Clearinghouse, an advocacy group, says it sells hundreds of purity ball kits annually to interested groups all over the country and abroad.

Luckily, study after study shows that these fine young ladies will almost assuredly be having sex within a couple of years (except hopefully for the two 9-year-olds one father saw fit to bring).

Granted, they probably won’t use condoms - since they’ve been told they don’t work - but at least they’ll have good relationships with their dads. Might help with the shotgun wedding part!

Links:
Dancing the Night Away, With a Higher Purpose [NYT]
Picture Gallery [NYT]

Vaguely Related

• Voyerism, Stealing from Gay Bashers, and Minors, oh my!!!
• Colorado Initiative Would Grant Personhood to Embryos

There’s no better way to say this than has already been said:

On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person. Voters will decide on the measure that would amend the state Constitution to extend a fertilized embryo equal rights and protections. It would define “any human being from the moment of fertilization” as a “person” for purposes of the state’s constitutional provisions “relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law.”

Mother Jones notes that such an amendment might ‘trigger governmental investigations into miscarriages, restrict in-vitro fertilization by couples trying to conceive, and could limit birth-control methods.’

Aside from its glaring, rage-inducing absurdity and almost certain unconstitutionality, this initiative raises some amazing questions.

One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers, for instance, asks if she can move to CO and receive Social Security benefits sooner.

Could a woman be charged with manslaughter or reckless homicide for a miscarriage? Or, better yet, what if the family carries Accidental Death insurance? Given how many zygotes self-terminate, you could make a pretty penny just claiming based on statistics.

And what do we do if the fetus kills the mother, in childbirth or otherwise? Is it incumbent upon the state to try the infant for manslaughter? Can the father sue his newborn or fetus for loss of consortium, wages, etc?

And perhaps the most obvious question - how on Earth can anyone know when the moment of fertilization is? Outside of a science lab, it’s pretty darn unprovable. And even if a test was developed, I’m pretty sure it would involve the government asking a woman to put her feet in the stirrups. So let’s hope Colorado for Equal Rights has something to nix the Fourteenth, as well.

As recent years have shown, however, this initiative is perhaps just crazy enough to pass.

I mean, a veterinarian was selected by the Bush Administration to head up the Office of Women’s Health in 2005. (Alderson was quickly removed after a number of groups justifiably lost their minds.) Minnesota’s Right to Know laws required doctors to provide state-scripted information on abortion that defied medical science. Missouri lawmakers are trying to get Plan B regulated as an abortifacient.

Anyway ladies, I suggest looking into Accidental Death insurance, just in case. If we move to Colorado, natural self-termination might be the new sugardaddie.

H/T: Andrew Sullivan via Mother Jones

Vaguely Related

• It’s Purity Ball Season!
• Bush Admin Memo: Birth Control Equals Abortion

Well, one of the most tangible differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appears to be flying out the Rotunda window:

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.

Well, I guess it’s back to deciding whether you’d like the white lady or the black man again. Good luck with that.

I think Wonkette put it best yesterday when they said:

A formerly “energized and optimistic” Democratic Party finds itself bored and frustrated with two candidates who can’t seem to win and can’t seem to lose.

Link:
Dems hedge on healthcare [The Hill via Wonkette]

Vaguely Related

• Russian TV Explains the Pennsylvania Primary
• Obama to Name VP

Hope it’s been worth it, right-wingers. I actually can’t state this better than the Orlando tv station that reported it, so I’m just going to quote it in full:

A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.

The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.

State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida’s abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.They are proposing a bill that would require a more comprehensive approach, the report said.It would still require teaching abstinence but students would also learn about condoms and other methods of birth control and disease prevention.The bill just passed its first vote in a committee, Local 6 reported.

I have nothing to add.

Link:
Survey: Fla. Teens Believe Drinking Bleach Will Prevent HIV [Local 6 - Orlando]

Vaguely Related

• Abstinence-only education, the choice of those with STIs
• Now We All Have STIs