The Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights

[Kobi]

Ok I did not see this type of rationale coming.

Virginia used concerned for the health and well being of the women involved.

The US House Judiciary Committee is using protection of civil rights of women and POC.

Hm. Interesting.
--------------------------------------------
I cannot find anything on what professional health care organizations are doing yet. The AMA had an article about how Planned Parenthood has filed suit in a number of states as has the Center for Reproductive Rights. Two of the three doctors who perform abortions in Kansas have filed suit as well.

[Kobi]

Published: 02.11.12| Updated: 02.14.12

Rallied by the approval last fall of a state law banning so-called "partial birth" abortion, Michigan abortion opponents are pushing for more in 2012 — from a "Choose Life" fundraising license plate to a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Those proposals are among a number that could gain traction in a state Legislature where nearly two-thirds of the lawmakers have been endorsed by Right to Life of Michigan.

"We have a strong contingent of pro-life legislators seated right now in both chambers," said Ed Rivet, legislative director for the state's Right to Life organization. "There are more bills introduced that we have an interest in than we've ever had before."

Pro-abortion rights groups say the measures are part of a national attempt to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the federal court decision that makes abortion legal.

"We see a lot of these bills session after session after session," said Sarah Scranton of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan. "This time around we are seeing them move more than we have in the past, which certainly worries us."

Scranton said lawmakers should focus on measures to help prevent unintended pregnancies instead.

The anti-abortion proposals' success will hinge on how the Republican-led Legislature and GOP Gov. Rick Snyder balance social issues with their stated top priorities — the state budget and improving the state's jobs climate.

Spokespeople for Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville and House Speaker Jase Bolger each said there's time for lawmakers to debate some social issues while staying focused on economic issues. Snyder also is geared toward economy-related measures, but governor's spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said he will evaluate abortion-related bills as they move through the legislative process.

Snyder in October signed a state-level ban on a late-term abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth" abortion. Critics said the state-level ban was not needed because the procedure already is banned in federal law. But supporters of the state ban say it's necessary in case the federal law changes and to make it easier to prosecute potential cases in Michigan.

Now many lawmakers say they're prepared to take up more anti-abortion proposals.

"I sense a lot of interest in getting this done," said Rep. Eileen Kowall, a Republican from Oakland County's White Lake Township and sponsor of the proposal that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks, with an exemption for when the mother's life is at risk. "This is one small measure to do the right thing towards human decency."

Kowall's legislation, modeled after laws approved in a handful of other states the past two years, is based on the premise that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Opponents dispute that claim and also say the proposals are a departure from Roe v. Wade, which lets states limit abortions in cases where there's a viable chance the fetus could survive outside of the womb. That's generally considered to be 22 and 24 weeks.

A measure pending in the Senate would tie into federal health reforms that call on states to set up health insurance exchanges for individuals and small businesses to buy health coverage. The Michigan measure would prohibit a health plan offered through the exchange from covering elective abortions. It's not yet known if Michigan will set up such an exchange, because some lawmakers — particularly in the House — are waiting to see what happens with legal challenges opposing the federal health plan.

The Senate has approved bills dealing with the handling of fetal remains that result from an abortion. The bills are pending in the House.

Other bills are aimed at screening before an abortion to make sure a pregnant woman isn't being forced or coerced to have the abortion against her will. Separate bills are aimed at requiring that a woman seeking an abortion is told she has an option to view an active ultrasound image and hear the fetus' heartbeat before having the procedure. Opponents call that a particularly intrusive proposal and an example of government trying to get involved in personal decisions.

"They are trying to find every possible avenue to frustrate women and to frustrate providers that are in a position of dealing with this difficult choice and this difficult time in their lives," said Rep. Jeff Irwin, a Democrat from Ann Arbor.

A bill that would create a "Choose Life" license plate is awaiting a vote in the Senate after winning unanimous, bipartisan approval in the Senate Transportation Committee. The plate, similar to those approved in many other states, would raise money for abortion prevention projects.

The plates have run into legal challenges in some states, notably North Carolina, where a federal judge late last year issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from distributing them. The order came after the American Civil Liberties Union sued, saying the plates violate the First Amendment because there's no specialty plate for supporters of abortion rights.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ress-38801.htm

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Ok I did not see this type of rationale coming.

Virginia used concerned for the health and well being of the women involved.

Well apparently the U.S. Supreme Court did in 1973 because they clearly stated in the Roe vs. Wade decision that the state is not allowed to promote its interests until the second trimester and even then only in regards to the health of the mother.

FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN. The state has no right to interfere in this at all, in any way, with the exception of making sure the physician is licensed in the particular state where the abortion is to take place. The decision of the woman's physician as to what is necessary is final. So the state can take its concern for the health and well-being of the women involved and save it for the second trimester, where they have already shown their deep concern for the health of women when they banned the IDX procedure.

Since the number of abortions performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are relatively miniscule and the debate over late-term and the banned IDX procedure (politically not medically named partial-birth abortions) has to do with abortions performed for emergency medical reasons, not elective abortions, it is increasingly frustrating for anti choice people. They have banned a procedure but since the abortion itself is medically necessary the only thing they have done is to force the woman into having a more difficult procedure. It is clear to the anti choice faction that the only way to stop a woman's right to choose is to eliminate first trimester abortions. These are where the abortions of choice exist. However they are at the moment protected by the Supreme Court, albeit not by the Supreme Court in its present configuration.

So anti choice people have found a plethora of ways to make exercising one's constitutionally protected right to a first trimester abortion a very difficult thing to do.

According to the N.Y. Times in 2004 "Immediately after taking office, Bush eliminated U.S. funding to any international family planning organization that provided abortion counseling or services -- even if they did so with private funds. The lengthening string of anti-choice executive orders, regulations, legal briefs, legislative maneuvers, and key appointments emanating from his administration suggests that undermining the reproductive freedom essential to women's health, privacy and equality is a major preoccupation of his administration - second only, perhaps, to the war on terrorism."

And the anti women sentiment of his administration lives on in a very busy republican controlled House. If they should regain control of the senate it will be very bad for the reproductive rights of women. Worse case scenario, and I'm talking Armageddon here, if they should control the White House as well it will be like living in a time warp.

This may not be the time to challenge the constitutional legality of the laws being passed by various states because it is a very right leaning supreme court, however, there may not be a better time. It is possible that the republicans in the very near future will control the house, the senate, the white house and the supreme court. The only option at that point will be to emigrate.

[Cin]

I posted this on the breaking news thread yesterday, but I think it belongs here.

To My Mother
Saturday 18 February 2012
by: William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

Dear Mom:

First of all, I want to wish you a happy birthday, and tell you how much I love you. For as long as I can remember, it has been you and me, in the world and for the world, even when that world has been against us. You taught me everything I know that is worth knowing. You are the strongest, smartest, bravest, most moral person I have ever known. You are woman, and boy howdy, have I heard you roar.

I grew up watching you pursue your career in a working world dominated by powerful men, and I remember all the times they tried to break you with their misogyny and sexism and belittling attitudes...and I remember you bulldozing them right out of the road: blade down, eyes flashing, talent ablaze and strength overpowering. That was you, is you, will always be you.

I know you pride yourself on being up on current events - it must be in the genes - but I wanted to make sure you are fully up to speed on what The Bastards have been up to lately, because they have been busy in a way I have never actually seen before in my life. Every part of what has been happening in American politics of late is entirely familiar, the stuff of old nightmares, but I have never experienced such a barrage of unrestrained hatred, filth and nonsense to compare with this. It's as if The Bastards took 100 years worth of anti-woman sentiment, condensed it into a dense nugget of hate-crack, and hit the pipe. Hard.

The only way to do this right is just to show you. The best place to start is
Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women From Testifying

This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration's new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration's rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.

Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that "As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration's actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness."

And so Cummings, along with the Democratic women on the panel, took their request to the hearing room, demanding that Issa consider the testimony of a female college student. But the California congressman insisted that the hearing should focus on the rules' alleged infringement on "religious liberty," not contraception coverage, and denied the request. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) walked out of the hearing in protest of his decision, citing frustration over the fact that the first panel of witnesses consisted only of male religious leaders against the rule. Holmes Norton said she will not return, calling Issa's chairmanship an "autocratic regime."

A photograph of the witness table at this hearing has gone viral.


You will note the utter and complete lack of women. As for Rep. Issa's decision to bar that one female witness from testifying, her name is Sandra Fluke, and this is what she would have said, had she been allowed to speak. (Tremendously awful and controversial stuff, as you'll see)
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCPU0Qsv9wM&feature=share"]The Testimony Chairman Issa Doesn't Want You to Hear - YouTube[/nomedia]

The GOP's sudden deranged desire to ban contraception in all its forms would usually be enough to occupy one's attention, but there has been a hell of a lot more going on this week. For example, a republican Senator from Iowa named Chuck Grassley has blocked the reauthorization of a bill protecting women from domestic violence because he doesn't want fags, immigrants and Indians to enjoy the protections offered by the law. My apologies for the vile language I just used, but I'm channeling Chuck here, and I'd bet my wallet, watch, warrant and word that "fags, immigrants and Indians" is exactly how they talked about this within the inner sanctum of his Senate offices.

Chuck Grassley hates gay people, people from elsewhere, and people who have always been here so much that he has blocked a bill that protects women from getting beaten and stomped by their husbands, partners or boyfriends. God bless America.

Don't think this kind of idiocy is restricted to Washington DC. Virginia is all set to pass a pair of anti-abortion bills that will require women to be subjected to what is called a "trans-vaginal ultrasound," but only if the "egg-is-a-person" bill doesn't pass first.

The GOP-dominated Oklahoma state senate just passed Bill 1433

The bill would define life as beginning at conception, effectively banning all abortions and many forms of contraception. The bill would also ban women from getting an abortion if they are raped because there are no exceptions in it. The bill would also prohibit women from obtaining life saving abortions from their doctors if the pregnancy threatens their lives. The language of the bill is so broad and encompassing that a woman may be forced to die in a hospital because her doctors would be powerless to save her.

In-vitro fertilization could be defined as mass murder since the process involves placing many fertilized eggs into a woman to increase the chances of her getting pregnant, because some, or all, of the zygotes could die. This will essentially prevent doctors from performing the procedure altogether, meaning many women will lose their last hope of having a child.

But wait, there's more

(Rush) Limbaugh was indignant about the hype around the issue. "Why is contraception so important that it must be paid for by somebody else?" he demanded to know. He asked why contraceptives are "a must-have" in comparison to toothpaste, hotel rooms or a car. "Why are so many people afraid of birth?" he wondered.

Limbaugh then asked why the Democratic Party would want to limit pregnancies, arguing that it makes money from abortions. He alleged that Planned Parenthood is part of "a money-laundering operation for the Democrat party" and that the organization "is rolling in dough" from providing abortion services. "So why would the Democrat party want to make sure that there aren't any pregnancies?" he challenged.

"Could it be that Democrats fear kids?" he wondered. "I mean, they are aborting their own people. The vast majority of people having abortions are Democrat voters."

But really...really...here is the bull-moose, brass-bound, gold-medal-winner of this whole madhouse eruption. This wasn't posted on some obscure far-right whack-ass blog...*this* aired on MSNB-fa chrissake-C on Thursday afternoon:
This whole contraception debate is just so new-fangled, says billionaire investor and mega-funder to the super PAC supporting former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) for President, Foster Friess.

In a simpler time, there were other ways to deal with female sexual desire. "Back in my day, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly," he said Thursday on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports, setting the host back for moment.

The general conversation was about Santorum's past statements about contraception, who once said that it was "harmful to women."

The thing is, Mom, I get the sense that a few different influences have been unleashed within the ranks of the Right as far as all this goes. See, when the allies of Planned Parenthood stomped a mudhole in the Komen Foundation for messing with cancer screening, it caused a massive reaction within the ranks of the penis-firsters. How dare those abortionists tell us what for? WHAAARGARBLE!!!

That's part of it, but I think there's some deep-seated racism involved here, too. These people want to ban contraception because they want white people to breed prolifically, so as to overcome what they see as an onslaught by the Brown Ones against All That Is Right And True In America. After all, one of those shady, shaded dudes already sits in the White House, and he doesn't even have a proper birth certificate, right? Right?

Or something.

Beyond that is some nascent Taliban-esqe hatred of women that goes back to the Old Testament, something that is rooted in a deep-seated sense of insecurity these people feel that drives them to try to subjugate half the voting population in an election year. For the record, I have seen plenty of stupidity in my time, but this latest upheaval absolutely takes the cake.

I think they might be desperate...desperate to try and steer the national discourse away from the economic issues they can't possibly win on, and towards the social warfare they have deployed with so much success over the years. Choosing birth control as the battlefield, however, strikes me as a tactical error so great as to put Hitler's decision to open a second front in deep shade.

It could also be simple ignorance. After all, a fair portion of these knuckleheads don't believe in dinosaurs because they aren't mentioned in the Bible, don't believe in science generally, and have come to believe that the best thing for America is to revert to some "Leave It To Beaver" fantasy about gender roles in society.

You and I know better, don't we, Mom? You went to work when I was knee-high to a grasshopper, and carved a swath through your chosen profession by dint of your superior skills and intellect...but you left a lot of pieces of yourself on that battlefield, because too many men thought you were getting above your place, ahead of yourself, and tried to kick you back down to where they thought you belonged. You won - you always do - but it cost you dearly. I remember. I will never, ever forget.

I have to admit to being stunned, in shock with all this, because of all the things I ever expected to deal with, take on and overcome, it never occurred to me that fighting the war you already won all over again would be something I would have to contend with in this brave year of 2012...but here we are. Part of me wants to lay back and let these dunderheads crash around in a frothing fury, wants to let them destroy themselves...but no.

No.

Now is the time to rise up, point at this mess, and say in a voice too loud to ignore, "This is why these people are not to be trusted with power. This is why they must go."

You fought this war and won it, Mom. The Bastards want to try and re-take the battlefield. I will not let it happen, and I am not alone.

I love you with all of my heart, Mom.

Don't worry. We got this.

Your loving son,

William

[Cin]

Santorum: Prenatal testing is to ‘encourage abortions’

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday suggested that “Obamacare” required free prenatal testing coverage because President Barack Obama wanted to see more disabled babies aborted.

The former Pennsylvania senators had told supporters on Saturday that the Affordable Care Act just created the requirement “because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”

“You sound like you’re saying the purpose of prenatal care is to cause to have people to have abortions, to get more abortions in this country,” CBS host Bob Schieffer told Santorum on Sunday. “I think any number of people would say that’s not the purpose at all.”

“That’s simply not true,” Santorum replied. “The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero, and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions.”

“And in fact, prenatal testing, particularly amniocentesis — I’m not talking about general prenatal care,” he added. “We’re talking about specifically prenatal testing, and specifically amniocentesis, which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it, and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies in the womb. And which in many cases — in fact, most cases physicians recommend — particularly if there’s a problem — recommend abortion.”

Santorum said that he had personal experience with the issue because his daughter, Isabella, was diagnosed with a fatal chromosomal disorder called Trisomy 18 shortly after her birth.

“I know you also had another child that was stillborn,” Schieffer noted. “Didn’t you want to know?”

“My child was not stillborn!” Santorum objected. “My child was born alive! He lived two hours. And by the way, prenatal testing was — we had a sonogram done there and they detected a problem. And, yes, the doctor said, ‘You should consider an abortion.’ This is typical, Bob. This is what goes on in medical rooms around the country.”

He continued: “And, yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does result, more often than not, in abortions. That is a fact.”

“Do you not want any kind of prenatal testing?” Schieffer wondered. “I mean, would we just turn our back on science?”

“Look, people have the right to do it,” Santorum admitted. “But to have the government force people to provide it free just has to me — is a bit loaded. … I think the president has a very bad record on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled, who are in the womb, and I think this is simply a continuation of that idea.”

Contrary to Santorum’s assertion, the Department of Human Services Office on Women’s Health says that “medical checkups and screening tests help keep you and your baby healthy during pregnancy.”


He talks about 3 minutes on the environment then prenatal testing.

[Cin]

Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control -- And Why We'll Still Be Fighting About it 100 Years From Now

What's happening in Congress this week, as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) bars any women from testifying at his so-called "religious freedom" hearings, is so familiar and expected that it hardly counts as news. The only thing surprising about it is the year: didn't we all honestly think that by 2012, contraception would be a non-issue, and Congress wouldn't make the mistake of leaving women out of conversations like this one?

Yes, we did. And the fact that we were wrong about that points to a deeper trend at work, one that needs a bit of long-term historical context put around it so we can really understand what's going on. Let me explain.

When people look back on the 20th century from the vantage point of 500 years on, they will remember the 1900s for three big things.

One was the integrated circuit, and (more importantly) the Internet and the information revolution that it made possible. When our descendants look back, they're likely to see this as an all-levels, all-sectors disruption on the scale of the printing press -- but even more all-encompassing. (Google "the Singularity" for scenarios on just how dramatic this might be.)

The second was the moon landing, a first-time-ever milestone in human history that our galaxy-trotting grandkids five centuries on may well view about the same way we see Magellan’s first daring circumnavigation of the globe.

But the third one is the silent one, the one that I've never seen come up on anybody’s list of Innovations That Changed The World, but matters perhaps more deeply than any of the more obvious things that usually come to mind. And that’s the mass availability of nearly 100% effective contraception. Far from being a mere 500-year event, we may have to go back to the invention of the wheel or the discovery of fire to find something that’s so completely disruptive to the way humans have lived for the entire duration of our remembered history.

Until the condom, the diaphragm, the Pill, the IUD, and all the subsequent variants of hormonal fertility control came along, anatomy really was destiny — and all of the world’s societies were organized around that central fact. Women were born to bear children; they had no other life options. With a few rebellious or well-born exceptions (and a few outlier cultures that somehow found their way to a more equal footing), the vast majority of women who’ve ever lived on this planet were tied to home, dependent on men, and subject to all kinds of religious and cultural restrictions designed to guarantee that they bore the right kids to the right man at the right time — even if that meant effectively jailing them at home.

Our biology reduced us to a kind of chattel, subject to strictures that owed more to property law than the more rights-based laws that applied to men. Becoming literate or mastering a trade or participating in public life wasn’t unheard-of; but unlike the men, the world’s women have always had to fit those extras in around their primary duty to their children and husband — and have usually paid a very stiff price if it was thought that those duties were being neglected.

Men, in return, thrived. The ego candy they feasted on by virtue of automatically outranking half the world’s population was only the start of it. They got full economic and social control over our bodies, our labor, our affections, and our futures. They got to make the rules, name the gods we would worship, and dictate the terms we would live under. In most cultures, they had the right to sex on demand within the marriage, and also to break their marriage vows with impunity — a luxury that would get women banished or killed. As long as pregnancy remained the defining fact of our lives, they got to run the whole show. The world was their party, and they had a fabulous time.

Thousands of generations of men and women have lived under some variant of this order — some variations more benevolent, some more brutal, but all similar enough in form and intention — in all times and places, going back to where our memory of time ends. Look at it this way, and you get a striking perspective on just how world-changing it was when, within the span of just a few short decades in the middle of the 20th century, all of that suddenly ended. For the first time in human history, new technologies made fertility a conscious choice for an ever-growing number of the planet’s females. And that, in turn, changed everything else.

With that one essential choice came the possibility, for the first time, to make a vast range of other choices for ourselves that were simply never within reach before. We could choose to delay childbearing and limit the number of children we raise; and that, in turn, freed up time and energy to explore the world beyond the home. We could refuse to marry or have babies at all, and pursue our other passions instead. Contraception was the single necessary key that opened the door to the whole new universe of activities that had always been zealously monopolized by the men — education, the trades, the arts, government, travel, spiritual and cultural leadership, and even (eventually) war making.

That one fact, that one technological shift, is now rocking the foundations of every culture on the planet — and will keep rocking it for a very long time to come. It is, over time, bringing a louder and prouder female voice into the running of the world’s affairs at every level, creating new conversations and new priorities in areas where the men long ago thought things were settled and understood. It's bending our understanding of what sex is about, and when and with whom we can have it -- a wrinkle that created new frontiers for gay folk as well. It may well prove to the be the one breakthrough most responsible for the survival of the human race, and the future viability of the planet.

But perhaps most critically for us right now: mass-produced, affordable, reliable contraception has shredded the ages-old social contracts between men and women, and is forcing us all (willing or not) into wholesale re-negotiations on a raft of new ones.

And, frankly, while some men have embraced this new order— perhaps seeing in it the potential to open up some interesting new choices for them, too — a global majority is increasingly confused, enraged, and terrified by it. They never wanted to be at this table in the first place, and they’re furious to even find themselves being forced to have this conversation at all.

It was never meant to happen. It never should have happened. And they’re doing their damndest to put a stop to it all, right now, and make it go away.

It’s this rage that’s driving the Catholic bishops into a frenzied donnybrook fight against contraception — despite the very real possibility that this fight could, in the end, damage their church even more fatally than the molestation scandal did. As the keepers of a 2000-year-old enterprise — one of the oldest continuously-operating organizations on the planet, in fact — they take the very long view. And they understand, better than most of us, just how unprecedented this development is in the grand sweep of history, and the serious threat it poses to everything their church has stood for going back to antiquity. (Including, very much, the more recent doctrine of papal infallability.)

That same frantic panic over the loss of the ancient bargain also lies that the core of the worldwide rash of fundamentalist religions. Modern industrial economies have undermined the authority of men both in the public sphere and in the private realms; and since they're limited in how far they can challenge it in the external world, they've turned women's bodies into the symbolic battlefield on which their anxieties over this play out. Drill down to the very deepest center of any of these movements, and you'll find men who are experiencing this change as a kind of personal annihilation, a loss of masculine identity so deep that they are literally interpreting it as the end of the world. (The first rule of understanding apocalyptic movements is this: If someone tells you the world is ending, believe them. Because for them, it probably is.)

They are, above everything else, desperate to get their women back under firm control. And in their minds, things will not be right again until they’re assured that the girls are locked up even more tightly, so they will never, ever get away like that again.

If you’re a woman of childbearing age in the US, you’ve had access to effective contraception your entire fertile life; and odds are good that your mother and grandmother did, too. If you're a heterosexual man of almost any age, odds are good that you also enjoy a lifetime of opportunities for sexual openness and variety that your grandfathers probably couldn't have imagined -- also thanks entirely to good contraception. From our individual personal perspectives, it feels like we’ve had this right, and this technology, forever. We take it so completely for granted that we simply cannot imagine that it could ever go away. It leads to a sweet complacency: birth control is something that’s always been there for us, and we’re rather stunned that anybody could possibly find it controversial enough to pick a fight over.

But if we’re wise, we’ll keep our eyes on the long game, because you can bet that those angry men are, too. The hard fact is this: We’re only 50 years into a revolution that may ultimately take two or three centuries to completely work its way through the world’s many cultures and religions. (To put this in perspective: it was 300 years from Gutenberg’s printing press to the scientific and intellectual re-alignments of the Enlightenment, and to the French and American revolutions that that liberating technology ultimately made possible. These things can take a loooong time to work all the way out.) Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will, in all likelihood, still be working out the details of these new gender agreements a century from now; and it may be a century after that before their grandkids can truly start taking any of this for granted.

That sounds daunting, though I don’t mean it to be. What I do want is for those of us, male and female, whose lives have been transformed for the better in this new post-Pill order to think in longer terms. Male privilege has been with us for — how long? Ten thousand years? A hundred thousand? Contraception, in the mere blink of an eye in historical terms, toppled the core rationale that justified that entire system. And now, every aspect of human society is frantically racing to catch up with that stunning fact. Everything will have to change in response to this — families, business, religion, politics, economics…everything.

We're in this catch-up process for the long haul. In the meantime, we shouldn’t be surprised to be confronted by large groups of well-organized men (and their female flunkies, who are legion) marshaling their vast resources to get every last one of Pandora’s frolicking contraception-fueled demons back into the box. And we need to accept and prepare for the likelihood that much of the history of this century, when it’s finally written, will be the story of our children’s ongoing struggles against the organized powers that intend to seize back the means of our liberation, and turn back the clock to the way things used to be.

What we’ve learned these past few weeks is: the fight for contraception is not only not over — it hasn’t even really started yet.

[Cin]

The Abortion Wars: The Real People Behind the Restrictions
by Carole Joffe

The last ten days or so we have seen Republicans, and their religious allies, wage a war against contraception—and bungle it badly. With poll after poll showing that a majority of Americans support contraceptive coverage in health reform, and with the 98 percent figure (of American women who have ever used contraception in the context of heterosexual sex) endlessly repeated in the media, the Republicans nonetheless push ahead with this attack, providing a welcome gift to the Obama reelection campaign and much material to political artists and comics. I have lost count of the number of parodies that have been inspired by that now gone viral picture of five male clerics testifying at the Congressional hearing called by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). A picture that of course immediately brings to mind another image of a similar tone deaf moment on the part of social conservatives, the nine men surrounding President George W. Bush as he became the first president to sign a ban on a particular technique of performing abortion, in the case of so-called “partial birth abortion.” It’s no wonder that the term “patriarchy” has made a comeback in the blogs!

The well-publicized refusal of Issa to permit the testimony of a female witness put forward by the Democrats, Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student planning to speak to the health consequences of denied contraception at Catholic universities, only added to the disastrous p.r. of that event. And the “aspirin between her knees” remark of Rick Santorum’s major funder later that day didn’t help either.

But while the media is momentarily fixated on the second big story this month of a losing fight against family planning (remember the Susan G. Komen Fund fiasco?), less attention has been paid to a related war that is not going well at all. The assault on abortion that has resulted from the 2010 elections--the Republican takeover of Congress and many statehouses and governorships--has arguably produced the most serious threat to abortion access since the Roe decision in 1973. What we mainly have heard about this situation are the statistics, the unprecedented number of abortion restrictions introduced and eventually passed in state legislatures at a time when one might assume politicians’ focus would be on the economy.

But there are real people behind the numbers and details of the restrictions. And the enormous toll that the abortion wars take on individual women seeking the procedure and the providers who try to help them are insufficiently appreciated by the general public. Consider the case of Jennie McCormick, a destitute Idaho woman, a single mother of three, who, facing an unwanted pregnancy and unable to travel several hours to the nearest abortion clinic, ordered abortion medication over the Internet, and is now facing criminal charges. She has also been stigmatized in her own community to a degree to which the fictional Hester Prynne of The Scarlet Letter fame could relate. Here is a description of her daily life, as described in a British newspaper:

When Jennie Linn McCormack walks the streets of Pocatello, the town in southern Idaho where she was born, raised, and still lives, she attempts to disguise her face by covering it with a thick woollen scarf. It doesn't really work. In the supermarket, people stop and point. At fast-food outlets, they hiss "it's her"! In the local church, that supposed bastion of forgiveness, fire-and-brimstone preachers devote entire sermons to accusing her of mortal sin…."I feel like my life is over," Ms McCormack says. "I now stay home all the time. I have no friends. I can't work. I don't want to take my kids out in public. People can be really mean about what has happened."….

Consider as well the case of Amy Hagstrom Miller, who directs a number of abortion clinics in Texas, under the name of Whole Woman’s Health. Being an abortion provider in red-state Texas is always challenging, but especially in the past year. Hagstrom Miller has had to contend with implementing the state’s new sonogram law, which requires that women come to an abortion clinic at least 24 hours before their scheduled abortion, and receive a sonogram from the same physician who will perform their abortion. Additionally, the physician must give the patient a detailed description of her fetus’ development. The state has made it very clear to abortion facilities that it will enforce the law through inspections and will revoke the licenses of those doctors not in compliance.

It is not the fact of sonograms per se that is causing headaches for Hagstrom Miller. Rather it is the way the law is written. Patients at her facilities routinely receive sonograms. But the ultrasound used to be performed by a trained technician, the ultrasound was done abdominally and not through the more intrusive vaginal probe, and patients not have to make two separate visits.

So now Hagstrom Miller has to contend with the frustrations of many of her patients, who typically have to take additional time off work and pay for extra childcare. She also has to deal with the scheduling nightmare of making sure the same physician who performs the ultrasound is available to perform that patient’s abortion. Hagstrom Miller is convinced that this new rule achieves nothing more than putting more obstacles in the way of both provider and patient, and has not achieved its stated objective of changing women’s minds. “It’s had no effect whatsoever on our abortion census.”

But coping with the sonogram law is not the only thing that preoccupies Hagstrom Miller. For the past year, her clinics have been subject to an unrelenting campaign of harassment by the notorious anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. To give just one example, her facilities have been subject to no less than 13 surprise investigations by various state agencies, including the state health department, the Texas Commission on Environmental Equality, the state Pharmacy Board, and seven of the physicians associated with Whole Woman’s Health were formally investigated. All these investigations were triggered by “citizen complaints” made to various bureaucracies. Among the “citizens” making such complaints is Cheryl Sullinger, the OR operative whose name was found in the car of Scott Roeder, who assassinated Dr. George Tiller in May 2009, and who herself has spent time in jail for her anti-abortion activity.

To give a flavor of what Whole Woman’s Health has had to put up with as a result of Operation Rescue’s campaign, one of the complaints alleged that aborted fetuses were discarded in clinic dumpsters. So clinics’ staff and visitors were subjected to the bizarre sight of public health nurses in Hazmat suits pawing through dumpsters, routinely opening and photographing the content of every bag, on order of the state health department--and finding nothing incriminating.

When I asked Hagstrom Miller to reflect on her dual difficulties with both the new state sonogram law and the actions of Operation Rescue, she responded:

“This past year has been one of the most difficult of my career in abortion care. It is almost surreal to be constantly challenged for the very thing we have been recognized for doing well…The very state agencies that have licensed us have to take the word of people who have a stated goal of closing abortion facilities by any means necessary. Even when, time and time again, we are cleared of the accusations, they (opponents) are successful in that they have tied up our time, spirits, money and energy and distracted us from the good work we could be doing with women and families in our communities.”

Unlike Jennie McCormick, the young Idaho women mentioned above, Hagstrom Miller is not isolated and without resources. Indeed, she is a cherished member of the closeknit national community of abortion providers, and operates daily in a world of loving family and friends. But the situation of both of them reveal one of the greatest challenges facing the reproductive freedom movement: how to connect for the public the two reproductive wars currently being waged—the contraceptive one that that thus far seems a slam dunk victory, and the abortion one that we are losing, and about which the public is no doubt weary.

In the real world, these two issues of contraception and abortion exist on the same continuum. The use of both are affirmations of the belief in nonprocreative sex. At Whole Women’s Health, and at most other abortion providing facilities, patients are provided with birth control information and services. It is reasonable to assume that Ms. McCormack, only marginally employed, did not have access to reliable contraception. This connectedness of birth control and abortion is of course a major reason that social conservatives oppose the former. And it is a key reason why the 98 percent-ers should more vigorously support the latter.

[Kobi]

Tick, thank for posting both of these very pertinent articles. Both show how we need to look at how to define the problem so we have a clear understanding of the bigger picture and how it is manifesting itself i.e. keeping an eye on the forest while looking at individual trees.

They also helped to clarify a few things. In Texas, where one of the more offensive new laws was enacted, the new hoops have not interfered in women accessing and getting services. It has created hardship but hasnt affected the overall numbers.

It is also clear, the doctor doing the abortion is required to do the transvaginal ultrasound, not a tech. And, the only issues from one clinics perspective is a scheduling one.

There also doesnt seem to be a consent issue rearing its head yet either.

It is also a relief to see something, in print, from someone else, that brings us back to the bigger picture....revisiting the patriarchy.

It's not always comfortable, it is controversial, it is divisive but it is imperative.

Sometimes I think we, as women, feel we won the war, and all that was left was to work out the finer points of a new way of coexisting. We became complacent i.e "marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies."

In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John, "In the new code of laws, remember the ladies and do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands."1 John Adams replied, "I cannot but laugh. Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems."2

We have been fighting ever since. 1848, Seneca Falls, the push for the ERA started. It is 2012 and there is still reluctance in this country to pass a law that says simply - Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Simple concept. Multitude of implications. See history of ERA.

Funny how history keeps repeating itself.

[SilverStoneFemme]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

A photograph of the witness table at this hearing has gone viral.


You will note the utter and complete lack of women.

How in the hell can one convene a panel of people on contraception and not have a single woman in attendence? That fact alone should tell you how insidious the men's influence has become concerning women's uteruses. Or is it uteri? Doesn't matter, they can NOT contol our reproductive system. Didn't we fight this fight already in the 70s and 80s with the Woman's Movement?

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

(Rush) Limbaugh was indignant about the hype around the issue. "Why is contraception so important that it must be paid for by somebody else?" he demanded to know. He asked why contraceptives are "a must-have" in comparison to toothpaste, hotel rooms or a car. "Why are so many people afraid of birth?" he wondered.

Let Rush get pregnant ONE time AND give birth and he would be screaming for birth control.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

".....but I think there's some deep-seated racism involved here, too. These people want to ban contraception because they want white people to breed prolifically, so as to overcome what they see as an onslaught by the Brown Ones against All That Is Right And True In America. After all, one of those shady, shaded dudes already sits in the White House, and he doesn't even have a proper birth certificate, right? Right?

Or something.

I have been thinking this exact thought, back in the recesses of my mind, for some years now. Certainly since the 90s. It's good to read that someone else also has these thoughts and isn't as afraid to voice them as I am. It's good to think I'm not the "paranoid" kook I thought I was.

I mean, who would actually think the right-wingers would really be against the Pro-Choice folx because of some screwy ideology that not allowing women to gain access to abortions would increase the white population? And that not allowing women to gain access to birth control would increase the population of white people? Is it really that simple?

Well, if it quacks like a duck....

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I have to admit to being stunned, in shock with all this, because of all the things I ever expected to deal with, take on and overcome, it never occurred to me that fighting the war you already won all over again would be something I would have to contend with in this brave year of 2012...but here we are. Part of me wants to lay back and let these dunderheads crash around in a frothing fury, wants to let them destroy themselves...but no.

No.

Now is the time to rise up, point at this mess, and say in a voice too loud to ignore, "This is why these people are not to be trusted with power. This is why they must go."

You fought this war and won it, Mom. The Bastards want to try and re-take the battlefield. I will not let it happen, and I am not alone.

I was voting during the Woman's Movement of the 70s and the 80s and we defeated all this male-influenced nonsense over birth control and pro-choice at that time and we'll defeat them again.

However, history isn't always a sign of how things will go the next round. We women must, as a voting block, go to the polls with the viewpoint of stopping this madness just as we did back during the Women's movement. We must not get complacent as I guess the Republibans are going to try and shove the tenets of the right wing down our female throats over and over, again and again.

Many, many battles have been won on this front but I guess the war will go on.

.

.

[Kobi]

AUSTIN, Texas—Eight Planned Parenthood organizations sued Texas on Wednesday for excluding them from participating in a program that provides contraception and check-ups to women, saying the new rule violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association.

The groups, none of which provide abortions, contend in the federal lawsuit that a new state law banning organizations affiliated with abortion providers from participating in the Women's Health Program has nothing to do with providing medical care and is simply intended to silence individuals or groups who support abortion rights. Texas law already requires that groups receiving federal or state funding be legally and financially separate from clinics that perform abortions.

"The government cannot condition your participation in the health services on giving up your free speech," said Pete Shenkken, the plaintiffs' attorney, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The federal government has also cut funding to Texas over the issue, saying it violated federal law. It says the state law passed by conservative Republicans and signed by Gov. Rick Perry last year denies women the right to choose their health care providers.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which enforces the rule, issued a statement saying it believes the state was within its rights to pass the new law. Last month, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sued the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for cutting off funding for the Women's Health program because of the new affiliate rule.

"Federal law gives states the right and responsibility to establish criteria for Medicaid providers, so we're on firm legal ground," the statement said. "We'll continue to work with the Attorney General's Office to fully enforce state law and continue federal funding for the Women's Health Program."

Republican lawmakers made it clear during last year's legislative session that their aim was to shut down as many Planned Parenthood groups as possible. The new law says that a health care provider that shares a name, common ownership or a franchise agreement with any organization that provides elective abortions will be excluded from the program, regardless of whether the provider meets all medical standards.

Shenkken said the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution prevent states from punishing groups for their political views or associations by excluding them from programs in which they are otherwise qualified to participate.

The Planned Parenthood groups have asked the federal court in Austin to block the state from enforcing the law before April 30, when the clinics would lose funding.

Patricio Gonzalez, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Hidalgo County, said his organization currently cares for 6,500 women and would have to shut down two or three of its four clinics if the rule is enforced. South Texas is home to some of the poorest women in the nation.

"We are the largest health care provider for women in our region," he said. "We know there aren't any other providers in the region that can absorb 6,500 women as of May 1."

The Department of Health and Human Services has said it will try to recruit additional health care providers to make up for those lost under the new rule.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...--+Latest+news

[MsDemeanor]

None of this surprises me and all of this pisses me off. This shit is exactly why I am hating religion more and more each day.

[Kobi]

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on Thursday a controversial bill that bans most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, giving Republicans a win in ongoing national efforts to impose greater restrictions on abortion.

The measure, which state lawmakers gave a final nod to on Tuesday, would bar healthcare professionals from performing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of a medical emergency. Only a small number of these abortions are performed in the state.

"This legislation is consistent with my strong track record of supporting common sense measures to protect the health of women and safeguard our most vulnerable population - the unborn," Brewer said in a statement.

"Knowing that abortions become riskier the later they are performed in pregnancy, it only makes sense to prohibit these procedures past 20 weeks," she added.

With Brewer's signature, Arizona joins six other states that have put similar late-term abortion bans in place in the past two years based on hotly debated medical research suggesting that a fetus feels pain starting at 20 weeks of gestation.

Georgia lawmakers approved a similar bill in March that now awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal.

Cathi Herrod, president of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, said the passage of the law, was a "momentous victory for pro-life advocates."

"Abortion not only ends the life of a preborn child, but it also seriously endangers the health and safety of women," she said.

'EXTREME ASSAULT ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS'

Opponents of Arizona's new law, which will take effect this summer, said it set a "dangerous new standard for hostility to women, doctors and reproductive rights."

"To call this an extreme assault on reproductive rights would be a massive understatement. In its cruelty and its callous disregard for women's lives, it is downright appalling," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortions nationwide in 1973 but allowed states to ban the procedure after the time when the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, except where a woman's health was at risk.

Late-term abortions will still be allowed in Arizona in situations where continuing a pregnancy risks death or would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is to be determined by a physician's "good faith clinical judgment."

The law also requires a woman to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to having an abortion, instead of the one hour previously mandated under state law.

State officials are also required to create a website that details such items as the risks of the procedure and shows pictures of the fetus in various stages.

Bryan Howard, president and CEO at Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the law was part of a "harmful" nationwide drive by conservatives to curb not only abortions but other services affecting women's health.

"We're seeing the hubris overreach in states across the country, not just in the regulation of abortion but in mainstream Planned Parenthood services like birth control and cancer screening," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-govern...013515428.html