tagged w/ Pro-Life
-
The Cornwall Alliance calls environmentalism "one of the greatest threats to society."
A conservative religious organization with ties to the oil industry is lashing out at health-conscious evangelical leaders for supporting new federal rules on mercury. They assert that protection of the unborn from toxic pollution cannot be called pro-life because the term does not mean “quality of life.”
The Cornwall Alliance is a group of conservative evangelicals devoted to spreading disinformation about climate change through its mission of “free-market environmental stewardship.” In its Declaration on Global Warming, the organization says “we deny that carbon dioxide … is a pollutant” and that “we deny that alternative, renewable fuels can … replace fossil and nuclear fuels.”
Think Progress conducted a lengthy investigation of this pollution-pushing evangelical group in 2010.
Responding to a new video and radio ad campaign from the Evangelical Environment Network that encourages lawmakers to support new mercury standards in order to “protect the unborn,” the Cornwall Alliance issued a statement explaining its view that being pro-life does not denote “quality of life.”
The term pro-life originated historically in the struggle to end abortion on demand and continues to be used in public discourse overwhelmingly in that sense. To ignore that is at best sloppy communication and at worst intentional deception. The life in pro-life denotes not quality of life but life itself. The term denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies. (Bold not our emphasis.)
This doesn’t mean we should ignore environmental risks. It does mean they should not be portrayed as pro-life. Genuinely pro-life people will usually desire to reduce other risks as well—guided by cost/benefit analysis. But to call those issues “pro-life” is to obscure the meaning of the term.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the new mercury rules will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks each year. And the impact of high levels of mercury in unborn children are well documented:
For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury is impaired neurological development. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.
Outbreaks of methylmercury poisonings have made it clear that adults, children, and developing fetuses are at risk from ingestion exposure to methylmercury. During these poisoning outbreaks some mothers with no symptoms of nervous system damage gave birth to infants with severe disabilities, it became clear that the developing nervous system of the fetus may be more vulnerable to methylmercury than is the adult nervous system.
A growing number of religious leaders — including the U.S. Conference of Bishops — has come out in favor of reducing mercury emissions because of their impact on the health of children.
“A new national standard to reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants is an important step forward to protect the health of all people, especially unborn babies and young children, from harmful exposure to dangerous air pollutants,” said the U.S. bishops’ domestic policy chairman in response to the proposed rules on mercury emissions.
In stark contrast to mainstream religious leaders, the fringe Cornwall Alliance has called the environmental movement “one of the greatest threats to society and the church today.”
Perhaps they are referring to the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI? Dubbed the “Green Pope,” Pope Benedict has been a vocal supporter of strong environmental standards, renewable energy, and action on climate change in order to protect “the whole of creation.”
Watch the video ad campaign from the Evangelical Environment Network below:
Update
The Evangelical Environmental Network continues to defend its ads from political attacks against prominent politicians, including Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe. “We believe protecting the unborn from mercury poisoning is a consistent pro-life position. An issue that impacts the unborn – that’s where we resonate as a pro-life organization,” said Alexei Laushkin, an EEN spokesman, in an interview with The Hill Thursday.
More at the linkThe Cornwall Alliance calls environmentalism "one of the greatest threats to... more
-
-
That an organization supposedly dedicated to science and curing women’s cancer is playing footsie with the anti-choice, anti-women GOP is nothing short of disgusting. Reversal notwithstanding, the fact that Komen for the Cure would cut funding for so many women in need flies in the face of it’s mission. Handel’s resignation is not enough. Eve Ellis, a member of Komen’s board for six years, has called for a complete purging of the foundation. She states that Nancy Brinker should resign and the entire board should be replaced...
http://veracitystew.com/2012/02/10/let-susan-g-komen-off-the-hook-fat-chance/That an organization supposedly dedicated to science and curing women’s cancer... more
-
-
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has commented on the emotional testimony of a man who explained how Dr. Paul came to his rescue when know one else would purely because his wife was white and he was black.
The video, released this week not by the Paul campaign but by independent supporters, features James Williams explaining how close to forty years ago Ron Paul was the only physician who would help him when his pregnant wife became sick.
Mr Williams of Matagorda County, Texas, says he believes no one would come to his aid and deliver the couple’s child “because of the difference, me being black and her being white”.
Mr Williams then explains how Ron Paul stepped in and took care of his wife and even dealt with the medical expenses after the baby was tragically stillborn.
Appearing on the Jan Mickelson radio show, Paul, was clearly emotional when the audio of the piece was played back to him.
Commenting on the video, Paul said “I’m amazed that they found that. If you’d have asked me to go back and find somebody like that I wouldn’t know.”
Explaining that although he does not recall the specifics of the incident, Paul added that he found it humbling to know how grateful Mr Williams is.
Watch the video at link:GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has commented on the emotional testimony of a man... more
-
-
Computer firm Apple has spoken out to deny claims that its personal assistant application Siri is anti-abortion.
The statement comes as bloggers and rights groups have noted that the voice-activated software fails to find nearby abortion clinics when users ask it to do so.
In its response to the complaints Apple said that the omission of this information was ‘not intentional’ and that any shortcomings of the software – currently still in its beta phase – would be addressed for later releases.
“These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone,” said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris, “It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to final product, we find places where we can do better and we will in coming weeks.”
However, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, said in a letter to Apple chief executive Tim Cook that she found it ‘disappointing’ that Siri didn’t provide this information. “I hope you agree that it is important that the women who are using this application not be misled about their pregnancy-related options,” she wrote.
Siri started out as an iOS application available from Apple’s App Store but was acquired by Apple in April 2010. It is now integrated in the iOS 5 operating system and is currently only available on iPhone 4S.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15982466Computer firm Apple has spoken out to deny claims that its personal assistant... more
-
-
Looks like Andrew Sanger is trying to rehabilate his grandmother's image after Herman Cain plays the race card in his anti-abortion stance.
****
Andrew Sanger writes:
"Cain could use a history lesson. When my grandmother started Planned Parenthood in 1916, her first clinic was in Brownsville, Brooklyn, then a mixed neighborhood of primarily European immigrants. Within a decade and a half, her nascent organisation received the endorsement of several prominent African Americans, including Mary McLeod Bethune, WEB DuBois and Rev Adam Clayton Powell Jr. At their urging, in 1930, Harlem's first birth control clinic was opened, in partnership with the New York Urban League. In years to come, African American leaders endorsed her efforts to bring contraceptives to poor, rural black residents – the same services Planned Parenthood delivered to poor, rural white residents.
To think that my grandmother was clever enough to enlist prominent black religious and community leaders to exterminate their own race is not only nonsensical; it's racist. Throughout her career, my grandmother's driving force was to ensure that every child was a wanted child."
***
I'm not defending Cain, and I know he is just playing up a wedge issue to distract from more important issues, but it appears that Andrew Sanger appears revise history lying by ommission. He forgot to include this quote from the elder Sanger regarding the Negro Project:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
This quote has been used by numerous Sanger detractors, including Angela Davis and the pro-life movement, to support their claims that Sanger was racist.[86] However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."[87]"Looks like Andrew Sanger is trying to rehabilate his grandmother's image after... more
-
-
Kevorkian was a courageous man who sacrificed a great deal to help our culture understand the value of allowing those in pain to die gracefully and on their own terms. We haven’t reached a point that’s as enlightened as the ancient Greeks or Romans yet, perhaps, but we’re much further along than we would be without Kevorkian’s tireless efforts.Kevorkian was a courageous man who sacrificed a great deal to help our culture... more
-
-
Succinctly and without a pejorative connotation, a fiscal conservative doesn't support subsidizing the cost of living for people who do not make enough at their current job(s) or do not work.
But by supporting legislation that limits women's access to, or information on pregnancy options and opposing government payments to an insurance group that covers the medical procedure of abortion, more children are being forced into that demographic. Herein lies the fiscal obligation of a pro-life vote: demanding unwanted children into this world means you're fiscally responsible for aspects of raising those children.
Personal beliefs on a woman's right to choose, the moment that life starts and the fight for the unborn child are not being debated here. Fiscal conservatives voting pro life should take a long look at your family and religious values vs. fiscal beliefs and ask if they are at odds with each other. Evaluate the long term costs of raising a child to maturity: financial, societal and emotional. Part of poverty is a societal cycle of children requiring the community to raise them.
Truly pro life is truly concerned with the life of the child. Accepting responsibility from child to functional adult, the first 18-25 years, is easily done by supporting appropriate socialist programs and public education legislation.
When fiscal conservatives take pro-life votes they demand that children be born to financially and/or emotionally unprepared parents. Conservatives then should also advocate for more social workers, school employees and an increase in government spending. The repercussions of this conservative social belief should lead to a long-term fiscal commitment.Succinctly and without a pejorative connotation, a fiscal conservative doesn't... more
-
-
I won't be offering any opinions, I just find this poll rather interesting.
***
By a 24 percent margin, 61-37 percent, Americans take the pro-life view that abortions should either be legal under no circumstances or legal only under a few circumstances. Although Gallup doesn’t specify those “few” circumstances, polling data has consistently shown that, when asked about cases such as rape, incest, or the life of the mother, a majority of Americans want all or almost all abortions made illegal — leaving only life of the mother or rape and incest as the exceptions.
“Americans are rather conservative in their stance on abortion, with 61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances. By contrast, 37% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances,” Gallup analyst Lydia Saad writes. “Over the past two decades, Americans have consistently leaned toward believing abortion should be legal in only a few or no circumstances, although less so in the mid-1990s than since about 1997, when combined support for these has averaged close to 60%.”I won't be offering any opinions, I just find this poll rather interesting.... more
-
-
In a move critics have attacked as a "circus" for the media, a nine-week-old fetus is set to "testify" in favor of a bill in Ohio that would outlaw abortions as soon as doctors can detect the first heatbeat.
Janet (Folger) Porter, President of Faith2Action, claimed that the fetus will be the "youngest ever to testify."
"For the first time in a committee hearing, legislators will be able to see and hear the beating heart of a baby in the womb -- just like the ones the Heartbeat Bill will protect," she said in a statement.
"When passed, the Heartbeat Bill will insure that once that heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected," Porter added.
The fetus will presented to the committee live via an ultrasound from the expectant mother.
Supporters of abortion rights indicated they were concerned about the idea.
"I think it's a stunt that trivializes women's health," Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, told The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
"It's obvious this committee is a lot more interested in making headlines than in giving women better access to health care or doing something to bring jobs to this state or trying to fix the state's budget mess."
"Instead, what Ohioans are getting is an absolute circus in the House health committee," she added.
Republicans appeared to have enough votes to pass the bill, The Plain Dealer noted.
If enacted, it would be the most restrictive abortion law in the country.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/02/in-pro-life-circus-fetus-called-to-testify-before-ohio-lawmakers/In a move critics have attacked as a "circus" for the media, a nine-week-old... more
-
-
South Dakota's proposed "justified homicide bill" has been withdrawn for the time being, but don't be surprised if it returns like cow flop on a South Dakota rancher's boots.South Dakota's proposed "justified homicide bill" has been withdrawn... more
-
-
As members of Congress roll out a host of anti-abortion legislation, African Americans on both sides of the debate say it's time to look beyond the old concepts of pro-choice and pro-life.
Looking Beyond Life and Choice
Pro-lifers are hoping that African Americans will take up their side of the battle. According to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey (pdf), 40 percent of African Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. From former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum expressing amazement in January that a black man (President Barack Obama) could ever be pro-choice, to billboard campaigns that liken abortion to black genocide, African Americans are now positioned at the center of the rekindled debate.
"What baffles me is how many political progressives will look at every institution in America and say there's racism in it, but somehow when it comes to the abortion industry, racism doesn't exist," Bomberger told The Root, "even though the entire history is predicated on the horrific pseudoscience that believes only certain people are fit to live."
Bomberger is further frustrated by the pro-life movement being portrayed as consisting entirely of the white religious right. "The annual March for Life in D.C. is the most multiracial coalition that I have ever seen, with hundreds of thousands of Hispanic, black, white and Asian people. Of course, it's also the most ignored," he said. "The whole argument that white conservative people don't care about black people is so tired. What is worse: white conservative people who want to save black lives, or white liberal people who want to fund the killing of black lives?"
African Americans on the other side of the debate, meanwhile, remain unconvinced that, for example, conservative members of Congress pushing to restrict abortion have black interests in mind. "They say they're concerned about the black race but then don't support black children once they're here," says Loretta Ross, national coordinator of SisterSong, an Atlanta-based reproductive-justice group for women of color, who argues that the same conservative lawmakers ignore economic and educational inequalities.
"In our own collective history, black women know what it feels like when someone else controls our bodies and makes decisions for us," Ross continued in an interview with The Root. "We're fighting fiercely for our rights to be seen as adult human beings capable of making decisions for ourselves about these things. We know what happens when you become breeders for somebody else's cause. Even as strong as our religious feelings are, we don't play that."
Gaining Steam on Capitol Hill
Regardless of the debate among African Americans, members of Congress -- and not just Republicans -- are forging ahead with efforts to restrict funding and access for abortion. Ten House Democrats are among the 173 co-sponsors of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, striking a blow to the claim that abortion bills have no chance of passing the Democratic-held Senate.
http://www.theroot.com/views/beyond-same-old-abortion-debate?page=0,0As members of Congress roll out a host of anti-abortion legislation, African Americans... more
-
-
bambuu
-
added this
-
12 months ago
- |
-
To paraphrase the eminently quotable Barney Frank: the Republicans want smaller government -- small enough to fit into your uterus.
When the Republicans gained a majority with a 48-seat margin in the House of Representatives, they did so with the promise that they were planning to shrink the size of government, to reduce federal spending and to repeal health care.
Good job, so far, Republicans.
You've managed to do none of that.To paraphrase the eminently quotable Barney Frank: the Republicans want smaller... more
-
-
Meet the potential parents - Pete and Alisha Arnold, both 30. After three miscarriages they are expecting their first baby, unless you - the public - vote to have the foetus aborted. On their website Birthornot.com, they invite us all to make the big decision for them: "You can vote and choose whether we abort or keep our unborn child," the website states.So who are these people? Pete and Alisha are both 30-years-old, they have been married for 10 years, they own their own house, have two cats and both work for tech companies in Minneapolis. Since September, the couple have blogged about their expected child and posting health updates about the mother and the foetus (which will be 17 weeks-old tomorrow), adding ultrasound pictures and video.
At the top of the blog is a poll asking the question: "Should We Give Birth or Have an Abortion?"
Currently "Give Birth" has 48 per cent of the vote with "Have an Abortion" at 52 per cent. The poll closes on 7 December.They'll have two days to make a decision before the 20th week of Alisha's pregnancy ends, and, with it, her last chance to get an abortion. The poll will influence their decision heavily, the couple said, but it won't be binding. "It's kind of like Congress. They might vote for something, but the president has the final veto. If it's overwhelming one way or the other, that will carry a lot more weight."
So is this a prank or is it real?
It beggars belief that anyone in their right mind would give a bunch of cynical web users the power to make such a sensitive and personal decision such as this.
But when asked if this was a prank the Arnolds' said that it was not and they also deny that this is some sort of pro-life stunt.
Pete, who described himself as a Libertarian, framed the couple's majority-rule abortion as kind of an extreme civics lesson that he hoped would bring the abortion debate home.
"Voting is such an important part of who we are as a people," Pete said. Here's a chance where people can be heard about whether they are pro-choice or whether they are pro-life, and it makes a difference in the real world."There is an obvious flaw to this argument as people who are pro-choice aren't usually in favour of abortion over birth, but rather in favour of a woman's right to choose what of the two options she would prefer. Here at Current.com we can't help to think that this smells a bit like a dubious campaign for the pro-life camp rather than an attempt to encourage a nuanced debate about abortions. To add to our suspicions Pete said he's a non-practicing Catholic, while Alisha is a Methodist. And although the Arnolds describe themselves as political independents with Libertarian leanings, Alisha likes super conservative Fox newsman Glenn Beck on Facebook, and a Google search turns up an old pro-Bush comment Pete made on CNN. (Pete said he voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004.)
In their bio you can see that they married at the age of 21 after only being engaged three months, something which is more common in a religious or conservative family than a liberal one.
And if they have actively tried to get pregnant but lost two children due to miscarriages, why would they even hesitate not having this child?
If they are not pro-lifers on a mission then one has to ask if they are fit to parent their son (recent scans show it's a boy) anyway? As if this child is born, he will one day be able to go online and see their (lack of) reasoning behind their decision of letting a bunch of strangers on the interment decide if he should have been allowed to live or not. Perhaps not the best start to a good parent-son relationship.
If this is just a media stunt for the sake of getting some attention, may we be the first to say congratulations - it worked, but also tell them that not all publicity is good publicity.
Meet the potential parents - Pete and Alisha Arnold, both 30. After three... more
-
-
Some people give lame reasons to be pro-life, but George W. Bush really has a pretty good excuse. While on his current “Say Anything To Get People To Buy My Book Nobody Would Read Otherwise” tour, Bush revealed to Matt Lauer the reason he dislikes abortion: His mother had a miscarriage when he was a teenager and liked to parade around her dead offspring in a jar. Holy hell, this family. “Junior, please pass sister fetus jar the mashed potatoes.” “Junior, please drive your brother the fetus jar to school.” “Junior, doesn’t your sister the fetus jar look beautiful in her prom dress? Pull her out of the goo and pin that corsage on her, wouldn’t you? Then give her a kiss goodbye. She’d best be going or she’ll be late!”
“She said to her teenage kid, ‘Here’s the fetus,’ ” the shockingly candid Bush told NBC’s Matt Lauer, gesturing as if he were holding the jar during the TV chat, a DVD of which The Post exclusively obtained.
“There’s no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life,” said the former president
But “the purpose of the story wasn’t to try show the evolution of a pro-life point of view,” Bush insisted to Lauer.
It was to scare children on Halloween?
“It was really to show how my mom and I developed a relationship.”
Oh Lord, did the two of them have sex? This almost excuses the whole torture thing.
http://wonkette.com/429674/young-george-w-bush-traumatized-by-barbara-bushs-fetus-jarSome people give lame reasons to be pro-life, but George W. Bush really has a pretty... more
-
-
ANCHORAGE — Alaskans on Tuesday approved a controversial voter initiative requiring parents to be notified before their teen age 17 and younger receives an abortion.
Ballot Measure 2 was one of the most fiercely contested items in the primary election, with total spending by both sides combined nearing $1 million.
Tuesday's vote marks the first time Alaska voters confronted the abortion issue at the polls.
Under the new law, a teen will be able to get around the requirement that her parents be notified if she appears before a judge or provides the doctor notarized statements attesting to abuse at home.
The law approved by voters gives doctors the job of notifying the parent. A doctor who failed to do that could be hit with felony charges and a prison sentence of up to five years.ANCHORAGE — Alaskans on Tuesday approved a controversial voter initiative... more
-
-
Abortion exists as one of the most controversial sociopolitical issues in the world today, with so many different opinions bombarding the airwaves and the internet it frequently seems overwhelming. This article uses the preferred terms each movement uses to describe itself – “pro-choice” and “pro-life” – in order to avoid as much bias as something penned by a fallible, flawed human possibly can.
link:
http://msndegree.com/25-very-frank-blog-posts-by-women-who-have-had-abortionsAbortion exists as one of the most controversial sociopolitical issues in the world... more
-
-
eva2
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
A nun in Phoenix, Arizona was excommunicated for approving a lifesaving abortion. Sister Margaret McBride’s career in the Catholic church came to an abrupt end after she approved an therapeutic abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital Medical Center, Robin Marty of RH Reality Check reports.
The woman was 11 weeks’ pregnant when she developed a life threatening case of pulmonary hypertension according to Ms. Magazine. Sr. McBride approved the procedure after consulting with the patient, her family, and the hospital’s ethics committee, but the local bishop excommunicated her anyway.
Sr. McBride’s excommunication is the latest salvo in a national battle over access to reproductive health care in Catholic hospitals. Between a fifth and a third of all hospital beds in the United States are administered by the Catholic Church. Catholic hospitals provide health care services to the community at large and often receive public funding—but they are not required to offer treatments that conflict with their religious teachings.
Excommuniqué
Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix wrote in a statement, “”If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action.” Note that the Catholic Church doesn’t automatically excommunicate priests who sexually abuse children.
“We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care; not merely one. The unborn child’s life is just as sacred as the mother’s life, and neither life can be preferred over the other,” the bishop wrote.
This wasn’t even a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. An 11-week-old fetus is not viable. If the mother dies, the fetus dies with her. Evidently Bishop Olmestead would rather have seen the woman and the fetus die instead of saving the woman. How pro life.
Radical, even by Catholic standards
Amelia Thomson DeVeaux notes at Care2 that the bishop’s position is radical even by Catholic standards:
[N]ow, a dangerous precendent seems to have been established by Olmsted’s actions. Olmsted himself is extremely conservative, even by Vatican standards, and has been a strong critic of Obama. But [bioethicist Jacob Appel] claims that this is not really about Olmsted – instead, the decision is reflective of a general trend in Catholic heathcare. Competent adult women, Appel suggests, are no longer allowed to make their own decisions in Catholic hospitals, which comprise approximately 1/3 of medical services in the country.
Liliana Loofbourow passionately rebukes the bishop on the Ms. Magazine blog, “Catholics like Sister Margaret McBride are a ray of hope in the darkness. However, she is not a Catholic anymore. And as of this writing, neither am I.”
During the health care reform debate, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops flexed its political muscle to ensure maximally restrictive rules on abortion coverage for everyone. Reproductive rights groups fear that access to basic reproductive health care, and even lifesaving medical treatment in Catholic hospitals will be an ongoing point of contention.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
A nun in Phoenix, Arizona was... more
-
-
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Fifty years ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first birth control pill. Needless to say, the repercussions of this medical and public policy breakthrough are still being felt today.
Catherine Epstein of the Women’s Media Center thinks it’s significant that we celebrate the date a U.S. government agency approved the Pill, as opposed to the anniversary of its invention. The Pill has been at the center of a power struggle from the very beginning:
The pill has been under ideological fire since the first tiny tablet hit a woman’s palm. And the impact it’s had on women’s autonomy and freedom has been – as decades have passed – nearly equal to the fear (and subsequent restriction) it’s instilled in those who believe in curtailing reproductive rights.
Which came first?
Michelle Goldberg of the American Prospect takes up a longstanding debate: Did the Pill liberate women, or did it take a feminist revolution to make the Pill relevant? Call it a chicken and ovum problem: American women were able to use the Pill to wrest control of their reproductive destinies because they had a certain level of autonomy to begin with.
Women didn’t immediately embrace the pill when it came on the market because the stigma of divorcing sex and reproduction was still too great. Arguably, society’s attitudes about sex and reproduction had to evolve before the Pill could catch on. As Goldberg notes, oral contraceptives are widely available in Saudi Arabia, yet they pose no apparent threat to the patriarchy. I would argue that reproductive freedom is a positive feedback loop. Women who control their fertility are in a better position to push for even more autonomy through education, paid work, and social activism.
Reproductive rights and the Supreme Court
The battle over reproductive rights is far from over. With the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, all eyes are on President Barack Obama as he mulls the shortlist to replace the Court’s leading liberal. Interestingly, the reputed front-runners are all white women: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit, and Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm.
Paul Waldman of the American Prospect casts a jaded eye on the upcoming confirmation battle. He predicts a good, old fashioned culture war brawl. He notes that the Republicans are already preparing to paint Wood as an “abortion rights extremist,” if she gets the nod, according to early opposition research obtained New York Times.
Everything is not OK
Speaking of abortion rights, Rachel Larris of RH Reality Check reports that the Center for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging Oklahoma’s new law, which forces women to undergo ultrasounds prior to obtaining abortions. The Center argues that the law is unconstitutional because it violates a woman’s right to privacy by forcing unwanted information on her and impinging upon doctor/patient confidentiality.
Monica Potts of TAPPED floats the idea that, because these mandatory ultrasounds typically involve a vaginal probe, the Oklahoma law might violate the state’s rape laws.
WellPoint caves to House Dems
Finally, some good news on the women’s health front. Evan McMorris-Santoro of Talking Points Memo reports that health insurance giant WellPoint caved to political pressure from House Democrats and agreed to stop dropping sick customers.
WellPoint achieved nationwide notoriety in recent weeks when it was revealed that automatically reviewed the records of women diagnosed with breast cancer (and other ailments) to see if they had any unreported preexisting conditions that might justify terminating their coverage. This practice will become illegal when the health care reform legislation takes effect, but WellPoint has agreed to stop ahead of schedule.
Action Urged on Neglected Diseases
In the Progressive, Dr. Unni Karunakara and Dr. Bernard Pecoul urge the Obama administration tackle more neglected tropical diseases. Obama has already pledged unprecedented aid to fight five neglected ailments afflicting the developing world. Krunakara and Pecoul argue that this isn’t enough. The administration is fighting the good fight on malaria, but sleeping sickness, visceral leishmaniasis, Chagas disease and Buruli ulcer, which affect a billion of the world’s poorest people.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Fifty years ago, the Food and Drug... more
-
-
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Yesterday, Nebraska’s Republican governor Dave Heineman signed a sweeping new law that criminalizes almost all abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation and another bill that forces women to undergo extensive mental health assessment prior to obtaining an abortion before 20 weeks.
Intimidating providers
Monica Potts of TAPPED explains that the laws are meant to have a chilling effect on all abortion providers in Nebraska. In the wake of last year’s assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, Dr. LeRoy Carhart of Nebraska began providing late-term abortions. According to Potts, the new abortion legislation is probably designed to run Dr. Carhart out of town.
An anti-choice Catch-22
Robin Marty of RH Reality Check notes the glaring contradictions between the two Nebraska abortion laws: Before 20 weeks of gestation, the state is so concerned about a woman’s health that they will force her to seek a mental health assessment to spare her the trauma of an ill-advised abortion. It seems that Nebraska legislators think women are so fragile that they can’t decide on their own whether an abortion will be unduly upsetting. Yet, after 20 weeks, a woman is not entitled to a “life of the woman” exemption even if a doctor determines that she is likely to commit suicide if she is forced to continue her pregnancy.
The second round of debate was held [Monday] on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill created almost entirely as a vehicle for getting anti-choice legislation challenged and potentially reviewed by the Supreme Court. Unlike every other anti-choice law that has so far passed in this country, LB 1103 refuses to provide an exemption for a mother’s mental health, regardless of the fact that prior to 20 weeks a pregnant woman’s mental health was so valuable that the state wants to advocate mandatory screenings to protect it.
Vanessa Valenti of Feministing writes of the Nebraska law:
The blatant anti-choice and ableist implications in these bills are just atrocious. Not only will some women be forced to carry their pregnancies to term with no mental health exception, but doctors will be terrified to perform abortions in fear of not correctly adhering to obscure these screening rules.
A collision course with Roe?
Gov. Heineman vowed to defend the new laws against any legal challenges. The Nebraska law bans abortion based on the purported ability of fetuses to feel pain, not their ability to survive outside the womb. The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot ban abortion of pre-viable fetuses. According to the accepted legal reasoning, if a fetus is too immature to survive outside the woman’s body, the woman has the right to withdraw the support of her body by terminating the pregnancy.
Conveniently, anti-choicers say that they have scientific evidence that pre-viable fetuses can feel pain. This dubious evidence isn’t just a pretext for banning abortion earlier, it puts the bill on a crash course with Roe. If the abortion issue is really about a woman’s right to control her body, then the fetal pain issue is a red herring. A woman can legally inflict pain on a full-grown person if she strikes in self-defense to protect her bodily autonomy. Nebraska is launching a full frontal assault on women’s rights. In Nebraska the pain of a non-viable fetus allegedly matters more than a woman’s freedom. We’ll see what the Supreme Court says about that.
How Justice Stevens’ retirement fits in
The wheels were set in motion just as the leading liberal on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, announced his retirement. In The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, the son of Stevens’ former law partner, recalls some of Stevens’ key pro-choice opinions over the course of his long career. For example:
In the 2000 Nebraska “partial-birth-abortion” case, Stevens stated: It is “impossible for me to understand how a State has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any procedure other than the one that he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty.”
As we look ahead to a Supreme Court confirmation battle, the Nebraska abortion bans illustrate why the stakes are so high. The Court is losing a leading champion of reproductive choice. President Barack Obama will face intense pressure from the liberal base to replace him with a nominee whose record on choice is equally strong. As Scott Lemieux argues in the American Prospect, only a strong liberal will be able to hold the line against the conservative cadre of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Yesterday, Nebraska’s... more
-
-
Lily Bixler is our new intern at Current News. She'll be blogging on the News Blog regularly.
Thirty-seven years ago the Supreme Court established a woman’s right to abortion. Over the years, the right has worked its way into the fabric of our society--so much that we tend to take it for granted. When this time of year rolls around we're supposed to commemorate the efforts of all the second wave feminists who worked their tails off for the ability to plan when and how to have our families. However, we often forget to challenge our government's slow infringement upon this constitutional right. But, wait, don't all look at once: they might catch on that we know. The fact is we're far from crossing this one off our collective “to-do” list. Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, according to NARAL Pro-choice, the reproductive rights advocacy group. What does it all boil down to? This basic human right is under attack on many fronts.
In the courts: Yesterday the trial began for a pro-life fanatic from Kansas City, Mo. named Scott Roeder for the premeditated, first-degree murder of Wichita physician Dr. George Tiller. Roeder told The Associated Press in November that he was driven by religious zeal to shoot Tiller in order to protect unborn children. For 33 years Dr. Tiller defended women's constitutional right to access safe abortion care. "Abortion is about women's hopes and dreams,” he said. “Abortion is a matter of survival for women."
In Congress: After four months of debate around health care reform, its still unclear if our leadership can stand up against Catholic Bishops and Congressman Bart Stupak whose efforts in health care legislation have worked to chip away at abortion rights. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as it's called, prohibits federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion."
Where does the president stand? The last few presidents have used the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to make a statement about their stance on abortion rights by flip-flopping America’s policy on the global gag rule. The “gag rule” denies American funding for HIV/AIDS clinics, birth-control providers and other organizations that council about abortion to countries that even mention abortion to women with unplanned pregnancies. This policy has become a political punching bag for incoming presidents. But last year, Obama broke the cycle and reversed the order several days after Roe v. Wade anniversary in an attempt to disrupt the political bantering.
Abortion protesters continue to rouse their dissent. This weekend March for Life activists marched the National Mall, the Supreme Court and Capitol Hill to promote anti-abortion legislative action. The pro-life advocacy group thinks the "life of each human being shall be preserved and protected from that human being's biological beginning," according to the organization’s Web site.
In the shadow of this year’s anniversary is the death of a leader of the reproductive rights movement. On Thursday, Ruth Proskkauer Smith died at 102 years old. Smith advocated for women’s access to birth control in the 1940s, and in the late 1960s she co-founded NARAL pro-choice, a reproductive rights organization that helped shape the kind of culture that led to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. It's easy to brush off abortion as a fixture among our reproductive options, because most of us don't remember a time when things were any different, but our political climate constantly drops little reminders that this right is as delicate as ever.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- The world's first suicide bomber comedy
- Hillary creates China kerfuffle over internet freedom speech
- How people are helping Haiti
- Supreme Court opens doors to corporate money
- China to start watching textsLily Bixler is our new intern at Current News. She'll be blogging on the News... more
-
