They want to do what? How? Are you sure?

Friday, July 18, 2008

I've been trying to write about this for days, but I keep getting stuck because I don't know how to spell "ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHSSSSHHHTTTTTRRRRAAAAUUUGGHH!!!!!"...you know, that thing that Macauly Culkin did in Home Alone?

Because it seems that the Department of Health and Human services wants to change the labeling for contraceptives. They want to classify hormonal birth control as.....wait for it....wait for it....abortion!

Yes, the Bush administration's trained chimps, I mean minions, I mean idiots...oh well, I'll just go on...are trying to say that contraception is the same as abortion. "What thar fook?" You ask?
This same group, on its website today, released the results of study showing that the birth rate among teenagers is increasing. And yet they want to get rid of birth control.

I know, right, this sounds so ridiculous? Why on earth would they do such a thing?

The answer: So that they can remove contraception from the list of things that get federal funding. Among other things. Like making sure that pharmacists don't have to go against "their conciences" by allowing other people to live their lives the way they choose.

The other question is how. How on earth would they manage it?

The answer: By claiming that life begins at conception (fertilization) and therefore all fertilized eggs are people too.

Here's the thing. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both contend that pregnancy begins with implantation, that is, when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Basically, so does the rest of science. It's impossible to test when an egg has been fertilized, and not only that, but a large number of fertilized eggs never implant, whether or not contraception is involved. Something like 50% of all fertilized eggs never turn into pregnancies. Some studies say that as many as 80 % of all fertilized eggs never implant. Therefore, claiming that fertilization is the beginning of life is ridiculous, since in so many cases, fertilization doesn't lead to pregnancy.

That's kind of beside the point, though. The people supporting this argument don't care about science. The Bush administration has shown over and over that it doesn't care about science, and this is no different. It's something that affects so many of us, though, that we can't let it happen.

Here's the insult to add to the injury:
http://www.hhs.gov/faq/policies/civilrights/95.html
It's where the HHS tells you what to do if you think you've been discriminated against based on gender or sex!!! Um, you mean like your policy that screws over women and takes them back to the dark ages??

Here are a couple of links to letter writing campaigns against this decision:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/17/tell-secretary-leavitt-block-new-hhs-regulations-contraception

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/newsroom/press-releases/proposed-hhs-rule-would-compromise-womens-health-21514.htm


Here are some more coherent, better researched write ups of this horrendous plan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-dog-whistlers-the-on_b_75995.html

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion

And some information on how pregnancy happens (heheh...not that kind of info, silly!)
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/04/04/how-pregnancy-happens/

Got Hope?

Sunday, July 6, 2008

I just saw an Obama bumper sticker saying "Got hope?"

Increasingly, I don't. I want to. I want, more than almost anything, to get a Democrat in the White House. I want a president who's smarter than a 5 year old, who grasps complicated concepts, who cares about something other than winning the "I'm mightier" pissing contest.

Help us, Barack Obama, you're our only hope.

This week, though, he seems to have decided that kissing right-wing-nut-jobs' asses is somehow helpful. Either that or he's really a lot more conservative than anyone realizes. Or his inexperience is showing......or all 3.

Obama gave an interview for the Christian magazine Relevant. That in itself is pretty strange. Or would be, had Obama not said this week that he wants federal funds to go to religious "faith based" organizations.

"Relevant" magazine is "a multimedia company whose purpose is to impact culture and show that a relationship with God is relevant and essential to a fulfilled life."

So, in this article, Obama discusses abortion, specifically late-term abortion. Both the interviewer and Obama use the term "partial-birth abortion." This is not a medical term, and was invented by the pro-life extremists. That's the first sign that this interview is worrisome.

As if using the uber-right's terminology (rather than informed, medical terminology) isn't enough of a problem, Obama jumps into a totally worthless debate. He falls into the trap by even holding a discussion about late-term abortion. I'll get to that in a minute. This is what he has to say about late-term abortion. It's a direct quote, not a paraphrase:

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

Here are the problems with that statement:

1) He thinks that the government should define the occasions in which it's appropriate to perform a late term abortion. I don't see any way in which it's possible for the government to predict any or all of the instances in which such a procedure would be medically necessary.
2) He thinks that these reasons must be physically necessary. "Mental distress" doesn't count. Again, how can a government determine the mental distress? He's basically saying that "health" means physical health and that mental health is inconsequential. People have been working for years to get the medical community to realize that mental health is real and serious and that it impacts a life as much as physical health.

Here are the larger problems:

1) He's having this discussion in the 1st place. Why is that a problem?
This whole interview seems to be saying that late term abortions are happening all the time and that women are having them willy-nilly just for fun.

Total. Myth.

Anti-abortions activists will tell you that Roe v. Wade allows abortions right up to birth. Also a total myth. It states that after viability, abortion may only be provided "where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." Therefore, any additional ban or discussion thereof is redundant and useless.

The actual statistics say that late-term abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions. Furthermore, there are only 2 clinics in the US that will perform them, though I don't know if there are doctors in other hospitals that will do the procedure in an emergency. 3rd trimester abortions have only happened in wanted pregnancies, in cases in which maternal or foetal health are in serious jeopardy.

Since the procedure is already regulated, rare, and done only in such serious medical emergencies, it's ridiculous for a presidential candidate (or any half-way intelligent person) to frame the argument as if this is a pressing issue to be discussed and decided.

I'm frustrated that Obama fell into the trap. It's important to resist the framework set up by the Christian Right. Their framework is faulty, not scientifically based and illogical. If we continue to allow discussions that use their vocabulary, we'll never get anywhere.

I really wish that Obama had realized that and had supported the "change" he seems so fond of.

A few days later, Barack Obama felt the need to explain what he said. It's just as troubling as the original article:

My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is. I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case.

I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand.

Okay, let's dissect Obama's response:
A woman cannot choose on her own, but rather "with her doctor and her pastor." In other words, the little lady can only choose with the help of some strong, sensible men.....great.....

Next: "I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions."
You have, have you? Well, that's funny because we just determined that THE LAW already limits late-term abortions to instances in which life/health are at risk. Therefore a ban is totally unnecessary.

I will grant him that the middle paragraph is accurate. People do fear that those horrible murderous women are destroying foetuses for fun. Their fears are baseless, though, and we need to work to give facts and accurate information, not stock their anxiety.

Last paragraph: "It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue." What part of LIFE AND HEALTH IN JEOPARDY do you not understand???? Feeling blue? Are you joking? A woman goes to her doctor and says "doc, I'm 23 weeks pregnant and I'm feeling blue." The response is not going to be "okay, well, it's abortion time." Not by any stretch of the imagination!!!

I would really like to think that Obama can help steer this country in a new direction, away from the politics of fear, away from a secular government being run by religious extremists, and away from having leaders who don't understand simple concepts. I would really like to think that he can.

I hope he can. I think he's got to stop trying to kiss up to groups that will never vote for him, stop trying to please everyone by diluting his stances on things that he supports (or opposes) and think before he speaks.