In the latest christo-fascist-taliban-esque move, Bush wants to put his John Hancock on an Abortion Proposal that would guarantee the religious right of objection to a medical procedure or prescription of a person working for a hospital/clinic/pharmacy setting that would supercede the reproductive rights of a patient, (women), seeking medical care. Incredibly this proposal uses language that could or would include oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.
What this means in the real world is that if a woman comes into a clinic or hospital and needs emergency contraception due to being raped, she might, on top of all the indignities and life-altering horror she has already suffered, have to face down a ridiculous confrontation with some fanatically superstitious religious and ill-informed hospital employee who thinks he or she knows better what the patient needs because “God” says. It also means that hospitals may limit care to women due to legal complications. It also could mean that a woman could never know where she’s going to be able to fill her prescription for oral contraceptives because her prescription could be denied by the nut behind the counter.
Robert Pear, in an article in the New York Times, writes, “Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services…..The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing 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.”The article goes on to state, “Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s website states, “Most alarmingly of all, the proposed rule would redefine contraception as abortion. This is an intentional effort by the Bush Administration to confuse contraception, which prevents pregnancy, and abortion…..Here in Washington, this rule will undermine our state law (that pro-choice people like you worked so hard to pass) that requires emergency rooms to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims. And it means that any federally-funded women's health clinics in our state may be forced to hire doctors or nurses who oppose a woman's right to access abortion care and contraception…..We cannot let President Bush's anti-choice ideology trump our heard-earned pro-choice state laws…”
What I want to know is why the hell does Bush care so much about what goes on in American women’s vaginas? Why does Bush continue to put his nose where it doesn’t belong? Bush obviously cares nothing for the precious cargo residing in the wombs of Iraqi women and continues to allow these mothers and their unborn to be blown to bits, (much less the already born), and in fact can’t wait to do the same to the Iranian unborn, so why does he care so much about unwanted embryos or the un-implanted eggs of American women?
One explanation is that having government control over women’s bodies appeases the religious right, who unfortunately have far too much influence over our supposedly secular government, and it keeps them voting in the republican direction, and Bush can continue this false façade of being a “good Christian man” who is spoken to by “God.”
Who knows what lies in the deep dark recesses of Bush’s brain, all I know is that he and his religious buddies have no right making medical decisions for women, or withholding monies from institutions who medically and properly treat women. Bush also does not have the right to give inordinate power to fanatically superstitious religious and ill-informed health care employees and allow these nuts to make medical decisions for women. Yet Bush’s anti –women policies continue to move forward.
Bush’s program of denying women the right to birth control and abortion keeps going and going and going… who says Bush is a lame duck?
Nicely put. Blunt, right to the point and about time somebody said it that way. I'm emailing this to about a gazillion people that need to hear this. He may be a lame duck, but he is still a barnyard terror.
by
Ivan Hentschel (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 154 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 2:56:43 PM
I'm tired of playing nice and I'm tired of being politically correct and I'm tired of having to bend over and make room for or try to respect other people's fantastical beliefs, at least when it comes to this issue.
We're talking about health care rights for women, my gawd - we're in danger of reverting to the damn dark ages based on what? Someone's interpretation of a religious text?
No way! Never again!
by
Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 3:05:41 PM
Call me a dirty mind, but I have wondered sometimes about George's and Laura's sex life--or lack thereof. The distance, the coldness between them is palpable, you get the feeling they make an effort to look married in public, holding hands etc, but once they are out of sight, they won't even get close; and the twins are their only offspring .
Difficult to believe that, without contraception, they conceived only two kids in like thirty years of wedded bliss. And I have read that in his wild youth, GWB got some girlfriend pregnant and had to pay for her abortion ;
These absurd heights of hypocrisy have become GOP's trademark. I am pretty sure that McCain, who was cute and hot when he was young, got a few girls pregnant too and got rid of the problem the same way.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 295 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 3:20:09 PM
Hmmmmm, Cheryl, do you really think that there ARE “deep, dark recesses of Bush’s brain”? I think you are being very generous.
I’m flummoxed. It seems to me that the Religious Right should be just as much in opposition to government control of women’s bodies as anyone else – after all, it is a short step for any government that has that kind of control, to REQUIRE abortions (or use of contraception) of women who DON'T want them!
Go figure, maybe they don’t have any deep, dark recesses, either.
by
Meryl Ann Butler (41 articles, 30 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 5:22:44 PM
I have nothing else to say about bu$h that can be printed here. I absolutely hate what this corrupt, faux christian, neocon administration has done to the American people on so many levels.
Insanity - the inmates are currently in charge of the asylum.
by
AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 6:02:26 PM
though I think there is alot of invisible deep magic in the yoni, whereas the Bushbrain seems more like a vacuum. And we all know that nature abhors that, LOL.
by
Meryl Ann Butler (41 articles, 30 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 7:43:09 PM
1) A woman should have the right to control her own body, no exceptions, no apologies, no explanations, period.
2) Why did you miss one of the main points of this article and that is that even oral contraceptives could become unavailable to women under this plan?
3) Why should any one else's religious beliefs or beliefs not based on science have any power over what all women decide to do with their own bodies along with the advice of their doctor?
4) Abortion being used as a contraceptive method by women is a urban myth, and if there really were any cases of it then it would be extremely rare.
5) What kind of world would we have if there were no unwanted children?
6) Why do you believe embryos are "innocents"?
7) If men were the ones with wombs there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner and the morning after pill would be sold in the candy isle.
8) If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
by
Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 7:02:18 PM
My answer: Yes, you make the final decision in this matter. But... the reality
is that there is another life within you and that life wants to live.
2) " Why did you miss one .....
My answer: I believe that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is asking for trouble and morally wrong. So personally it wouldn't bother me in the least.
3) " Why should any one else's religious beliefs or beliefs.... My answer: They shouldn't... but again, who speaks for the innocent life
within? If someone wants an abortion they will get one regardless of the law.
4) "Abortion being used as a contraceptive method by women is a urban myth.....
My answer: Beg to differ. A relative of mine got pregnant twice outside of
marriage. Neither pregnancy was wanted or convenient and
2 abortions were performed. It happens all the time.
5) What kind of world would we have if there were no unwanted children?
Answer: The end doesn't justify the means . Are you implying that abortion is a good way to get rid of unwanted children?
6) Why do you believe embryos are "innocents"?
My answer: They are as innocent as can be. I think you're real question
is why do I think they are living human beings, right?
Gee... when I see that beating heart, the head, the nose,
the legs, etc. I can't help to feel some empathy for this innocent. If it's life inside or outside the womb, what does it matter?
Even if the life is a small embryo it still has the potential to be
born. I look at life as gift, not a problem. 7) " If men were the ones with wombs there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner and the morning after pill would be sold in the candy isle."
My answer: Not worthy of a comment
8) "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one."
My answer: Good point.... but again, who speaks for the innocent inside.
Conclusion:
What are your priorities in life?
To me the highest priority is life. This is why I believe abortion should be
rare and done only under the most extenuating circumstances. That is why
I abhor the war in Iraq and just about any war. You dig?
by
Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 909 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 7:37:01 PM
We should stop killing viruses or bacteria. Are they not also innocent cellular life?
Sorry - I just had to.
When does the embryo become a child? Scientific and theological debates differ.
The argument is a moral issue, not one for the courts to decide. Don't take us down the Shiavo path again.
Just for the sake of argument -
What if the family is strapped already beyond the point of being able to feed the already born children?
What if the addition of another mouth to feed endangers the rest and one or more of them becomes dangerously ill because of lack of food or necessities - including housing?
What if the child is born and given to an adoption agency? I don't see any of these lawmakers or pro-lifers scrambling to adopt or give aid to these children. Listen to the religious right on this topic ... they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop whining for any kind of aid.
This is the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.
by
AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 8:01:39 PM
I also abhor the war on women's reproductive rights.
To believe that an embryo is worth outlawing a woman's right to choose is either a religious belief or a personal belief and has no place in dictating what is correct for every woman.
Sex is as natural as air, it doesn't require marriage to make it special or good. Again your belief that there is some morality attached to the sex act is either a religious one or a personal one and has no place in dictating what is correct for every woman.
Your relative was either irresponsible in allowing herself to become pregnant twice with an unintended pregnancy or had limited birth control access or both. Either way if she did not want to have a child it is her right to end those pregnancies.
Abortion is one way of ending unwanted pregnancies - free and easy access to birth control and sex education is the best way of preventing unwanted pregnancies.
How about feeling some empathy for a woman forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want and cannot afford to raise?
I'm perfectly at peace with regards to my priorities, thank you.
by
Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 8:09:05 PM
There is a line of people waiting to adopt children.
Why not give the child up for adoption?
My daughter is adopted, her birth mother was 18 years old when we adopted.
She got pregnant again and wanted us to adopt again. We thought about
it, but no way could we afford it. She lost the baby through natural means.
We had great empathy for the birth mother.... we paid her living expenses
while she was pregnant, we paid her hospital bill, etc. (and we aren't rich by a long shot).
Again.... if she had waited until marriage there would have been less anxiety about the whole matter.
Yes, sex is natural, but we are more than mere animals driven by a powerful sex drive. We have a mind that can look into the future and see the consequences of our actions.
by
Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 909 comments)
on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 5:12:34 AM
Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now the Republican National Committee’s “Victory Chairman,” was discussing consumer-driven health insurance at a breakfast with reporters when she proposed “a real, live example which I’ve been hearing a lot about from women: There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice.”
NOTE:
McCain voted against a 2005 bill requiring health insurance companies to cover birth-control pills as well as Viagra.
by
AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 7:48:40 PM
In a perfect world, the outcome of a woman getting pregnant would be that a baby would be born and raised in a loving, caring, comfortable family. I think we all can agree on that.
Unfortunately, we do not now live in a perfect world, and even though we certainly can make the world far better than it is now, it may never be perfect. Therefore, we must resolve the conflict between Pro-Choice advocates who feel that women should have the right to abortion services if needed, and Anti-Abortion advocates who believe that abortion is utterly wrong and should be illegal. And to resolve the conflict, we need to be rational and realistic.
The fact is that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies do occur, as they always have and always will. Furthermore, sometimes the impregnated woman either cannot afford to raise a child, or for some other reason would face hardship or problems if she were to have to give birth to a child. So, the question is whether women who find themselves in that predicament should have a choice in the matter, or not.
We should all understand why Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. law which established a woman’s right to abortion, was enacted. Prior to that, abortion was illegal in the U.S., and part of the reason the law was enacted was to protect women from being maimed or killed by botched illegal abortions. The mortality rate for women had been growing, and many people felt that such procedures contributed to the increase in deaths of women. (You can watch the great movie starring Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen, Love With a Proper Stranger, which helped to make people aware of the problem).
Furthermore, another part of the reason for making abortion legal was to reduce the rates of child abuse and neglect. The law acknowledged that those rates were as high as they were in large part because most women felt they had no choice but to give birth when they got pregnant, even if they did not really want or could not afford to have a child.
Therefore, we need to face the fact that if abortion were to be made illegal again, deaths due to botched illegal abortions would once again occur, and child abuse and neglect would only increase, along with domestic violence. When parents have unwanted children, or cannot afford to sufficiently feed or clothe or house the children they have, it causes guilt, frustration and anger, and it creates many problems. Those are facts we must face, and they should mitigate any other considerations, if we are rational and realistic about this issue.
Of course, a small minority of people have claimed otherwise. But we should remember that the Anti-Abortion Crusade was begun in the late 1970s by sanctimonious leaders of the American Christian Right, because they thought they had found a cause and a fight they would win. They thought they would stand on high moral ground with this issue, but the record clearly shows otherwise. After all, many of their words and actions have been bigoted and hypocritical (as they have typically been regarding other issues as well), and they have caused a lot of conflict, division, anger, violence, death, grief, and suffering.
Fortunately, the most malicious and hypocritical of the so-called "Pro-Life" (Anti-Abortion) forces have stopped bombing medical clinics and stopped killing health professionals to try to impose their will and force their beliefs on the rest of us. But they certainly haven’t gone away. They are still causing grief and despair for many women, despite the fact that they are in a small minority.
Polls show that most of us still feel their anti-abortion crusade is misguided and wrong, because most of us feel that abortion should be legal. Most of us feel that the leaders of the anti-abortion forces are arrogant and offensive, especially since some of them still harass and harangue young pregnant women who have enough trouble as it is. Hard feelings still persist because of all that, and it is one of the main reasons people are so divided and polarized over this issue.
Of course, bigoted and hypocritical right-wing preachers like Pat Robertson are largely responsible for that. After all, he said things like this: "(Planned Parenthood) is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism...."
Robertson deceptively tried to demonize Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Choice Movement (along with all other liberals and progressives), and the whole anti-abortion movement was fueled by such deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric, spouting from the mouths of people who loudly and hypocritically claimed to be Christians.
The murder and assassination of doctors and medical clinic staff, the bombing of medical clinics, and the harassment and intimidation of troubled pregnant women in crisis were a very predictable result. After all, "religious" zealots seem to think they can do no wrong if they do it in the "name of God." And terrorists, whether they claim to be Christians or Jews or Muslims, have no problem with committing mayhem, murder and destruction of property if they believe it is destroying "evil" as they self-righteously judge it.
Not only were staff and doctors who perform clinical abortions murdered, many other clinic staff and doctors were harassed and intimidated in a variety of different ways. Many have been given good and ample reason to fear for their lives, because their names have been posted on "hit lists" on the Internet. Moreover, in some cases, young, pregnant women in crisis, and even some who have desperately needed medically necessary abortions to protect their own lives, have been intimidated and harassed so mercilessly that they have been forced to flee to another state, and their lives have been jeopardized.
I believe we should face the fact that if abortion were to be illegal and against the law once again, as it was prior to 1973, women would still need and seek abortions. Consequently, many women would be cheated and taken advantage of, and, as I said, many women would be maimed or killed by botched amateur abortion procedures. Furthermore, if we were to again force women to bear children they don’t want or can’t care for or feed or clothe properly, many problems would only grow worse. The rates of child abuse and neglect would only grow worse, and domestic violence would surely increase.
A more sensible approach would be to ensure that all women of child-bearing age have ready access to safe and affordable birth control. That is paramount. And, in cases where birth control was not used or not effective and unwanted pregnancy is the result, women ought to have two easy options –– to either arrange for the baby to be adopted if they wish to carry the pregnancy to term, or to have the pregnancy terminated, preferably during the first trimester (the first three months), before the fetus is viable, unless it is absolutely necessary later due to medical emergency.
Whatever the case, abortion should not be undertaken lightly, and it really should not be used as post-pregnancy birth control because a woman simply preferred not to use safe and effective pre-coital birth control methods. Furthermore, abortion really should not be used by women (like some in India and China) who abort female fetuses just because they would prefer a male. That is a very short-sighted practice that could have disastrous future consequence for their whole society. It is one of the sexist, patriarchal traditions that has no place in the modern world.
In the final analysis, the main issue here is a woman’s right to plan her family, and to choose and use whatever is currently available to prevent and avoid pregnancy if and when she chooses. And, if an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy does occur, that right should extend naturally to using modern medical means to abort that pregnancy during the first trimester if she chooses. That should be a woman’s right and prerogative, and it should be her free choice.
To say otherwise would be to reduce a woman to the status of chattel and breeding stock. It would be telling her that her body is not her own, but the property of her father or husband or the state. It would be telling her that her body is meant solely to produce offspring, no matter what, even if and even when it would be against her wishes and against her will. It would be telling her that she has no rights and no choice in the matter.
That is why the Christian Right is so wrong about this issue, just as it is wrong about so many other issues.
Shelley Page The Ottawa Citizen Saturday, October 23, 2004
In a horrible irony, the U.S. policy, which was intended to decrease abortions, has instead resulted in a dearth of family planning counselling and contraception that has, according to activists, resulted in unwanted pregnancies and an increasing number of abortions. Mr. Bush ushered the policy into law on his first full day in office in 2001. Supporters of this act, including anti-abortion organizations such as Concerned Women for America, argued the U.S. does not pay for abortions in the U.S., and shouldn't overseas, either. Nor should family planning organizations counsel on abortion at U.S. taxpayers' expense.
Never mind that since 1973, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services. And since 1981, the use of U.S. funds for lobbying on abortion has also been prohibited. No violations have ever been found.
Most of the international family planning organizations that refused to sign the conditions of the 2001 policy did not, in fact, provide abortions, although many have used their own funds to lobby for liberalized abortion laws in the developing world, or counselled women on how to obtain abortion services, or provided post-abortion care. For example, International Planned Parenthood Federation -- the world's largest voluntary organization working in sexual and reproductive health care -- lost $12 million because of its refusal to agree to the gag rule. In 1999, only eight of IPPF's 156 member associations (Barbados, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Thailand and Uganda) carried out abortion-related activities -- mostly counselling and abortion care -- which amounted to .05 per cent of IPPF's total income.
But IPPF and other organizations, believing they are being "gagged" by the Bush administration and their rights to free speech threatened, forfeited millions in funding.
" The rule has absolutely led to more illegal abortions," says Dr. Solomon Orero, a prominent Kenyan gynecologist and reproductive rights activist. "It was like passing a death sentence on women who otherwise would have been saved."
A recent report, titled Access Denied, by Population Action International and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, investigated the effects of the U.S. policy in Ethiopia, Kenya, Romania and Zambia and found dozens of family-planning clinics have closed, reducing a broad range of services to women and their families.
Most of these clinics were located among the poorest of the society in slums and rural areas, and the populations depended on them for other heavily subsidized health services like immunization of the children, vitamin A supplements, malaria treatment, and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS.
[More at Link]
by
AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 8:24:37 PM
