WTF

Sharron Angle is running for the Senate in Nevada. Think Progress has unearthed what I would describe as a terribly chilling soundbite from an interview earlier this year:



Here is the key part:

Interviewer: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
Angle: Uh, not in my book.
Interviewer: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
Angle: You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Let me just get this off my chest:

A:LKREJ:LKRHSE$(*%&(*$%SDfHHDHFDF(*$%Y*(PHSF:IOSDFH:O

Anyway. So you’re telling me, that after a young woman has been violated in the most terrible way possible by, say, her dad, she has no right to an abortion? She just needs to buck up and have a little faith in God?

Dear God,

Last night Dad raped me again. I am getting sad that this won’t ever stop and I have nobody to turn to. I feel like this is all my fault and I want to die. To top it all off, there’s a good chance I’m gonna get pregnant out of this whole thing. I know it’s in your plan, though, for this to happen to me. LOVE YOU!

Xoxo
***CaRoL***

UM. NO. This is a perfect example of why we have a separation of church and state! Give me a break, people! What if you get in a car accident? And you need to have major surgeries to stay alive? I’d love to hear a surgeon say, “Well sir, we would operate… but it just looks like this is in God’s plan for you. Have a nice day.” Better yet, what if you were just walking down the street minding your own business and you got hit by car and needed to have a big operation afterwards? No way would someone say, "We'd love to help you out, but... it's just, this is a part of God's plan, so you just gotta roll with it, you know?" If someone running for public office said he/she supported that idea people would flip out! I despise the double standard for women seeking abortions.

Either way, if you live in Nevada make sure you get out to the polls! Sharron Angle should not be elected!

Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain

In case you missed it, some major shit went down in Oklahoma on Tuesday. The Legislature voted to override previous vetoes on two abortion bills.

The first states that women must have an ultrasound to have an abortion. Not so bad, right? That happens pretty much 100% of the time anyway. Additionally, the doctor or person performing the ultrasound must show the sonogram to the woman and describe the fetus in detail. I don’t support this requirement for ANY woman, but this is particularly offensive considering that no exception is made for rape or incest survivors.

Fun example:
Let’s say you were raped. Meaning you were just profoundly violated and will likely never be the same. And since most rape survivors know their assailant, let’s say it was your uncle. Since you were raped, you were not using the methods of birth control you might normally use. Then, you find out you are pregnant. You decide you must have an abortion because you cannot possibly carry the pregnancy to term. A pregnancy created in such hateful and terrible circumstances. You go to the clinic. While walking inside, some dude yells at you that you are “killing your baby” and mostly likely going to spend an eternity in hell gnashing your teeth. Once you are finally about to get the procedure done, you then have to listen to a description of the heart, limbs, and organs of the fetus. Have a nice day!

Linda Meek, director of Tulsa Reproductive Services, said that the new law has already been making patients emotional and upset. It is worth noting however, that no one has canceled her procedure. So, basically you are just getting women super upset. Good job guys.

THIS ISN’T EVEN THE WORST OF IT.

The second measure overturned by the Oklahoma Legislature on Tuesday is, for lack of a better term, totally fucked up.

From the NYT:

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb. Opponents argue that the law will protect doctors who purposely mislead a woman to keep her from choosing an abortion. But the bill’s sponsors maintain that it merely prevents lawsuits by people who wish, in hindsight, that the doctor had counseled them to abort a disabled child.

WHAT!? How is it okay for a medical professional to purposely withhold information that is extremely important to know about the fetus?!?! HOW IS THAT LEGAL? HOW IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL?

Fun example:
You are pregnant. You are not sure if you want to stay pregnant or have an abortion. Your doctor says the fetus is perfectly healthy and everything is fine. You decide to keep it. Spend 9 months carrying the pregnancy around in your body. You give birth. The baby is severely malformed and has multiple birth defects. Turns out Dr. Awesome knew all along, but didn’t want you to have an abortion, so he just decided to omit those pieces of information. Have fun with your baby that will probably not live past the age of one and will rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that you will go bankrupt trying to pay. Have a nice day!

Can you imagine? If I were a pregnant woman in Oklahoma, I don't know what I would do. If I go in for fetal testing and the doctor says, "Everything is fine!" I can't breathe a sigh of relief. What if he lying? What if this isn't true? How do I know my baby is healthy? If my baby isn't healthy I need to know that. Women need to know that. They need to make arrangments for caring for a special needs child and how the medical bills will be paid, etc. How can you trust your doctor in Oklahoma if you are pregnant? The answer is, you can't anymore.

Now, I am hoping that these will both be deemed unconstitutional, since they are. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit for the first measure. The Governor of Oklahoma, Brad Henry, said “both laws will be challenged and, in all likelihood, overturned by the courts as unconstitutional... I fear this entire exercise will ultimately be a waste of taxpayers' time and money.” Probably right. I’m glad all these anti-choice tea-baggers who are complaining about the government spending too much money are so gangbusters to waste it.

The real gem of this whole thing comes from State Senator Todd Lamb.

“The goal of this legislation is just to make a statement for the sanctity of human life. Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people, or will find a cure for cancer.”

Really? You earnestly believe that? You are willing to go against the Constitution, i.e., everything this country stands for, to “make a statement?” You are okay with women being PURPOSELY MISINFORMED so you can let everyone know you value human life? You couldn’t just put a banner in front of your office that says, “HEY I VALUE HUMAN LIFE”? Valuing human life means treating human life with respect and dignity. Lying to pregnant women and trying to make them feel guilty doesn’t strike me as particularly nice or respectful.

I’m not sure if the “babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people” statement even merits a response… BUT anyway, it is a terrible argument because, obviously, there is also a chance the baby could grow up to be a serial killer...or (GASP) an abortion provider.

Additionally, what if my baby is born without a brain? Or a head? Or vital organs it needs to survive? Is that child really going to grow up and cure cancer or create a new theory of relativity? Or even know what a "bad person" is? I mean, yes, it's possible, of course. But, let's be real: the babies that will be born to women who were intentionally lied to about birth defects and get a surprise in the delivery room are NOT going to be saving the world. As a matter of fact, they are probably going to require endless and extremely expensive surgeries and other medical procedures that the vast majority of women and families could never afford. Who will front the bill to keep these babies alive? I am guessing that the anti-choice, anti-tax Right will want nothing to do with THAT.

Of course, if a woman is informed of her pregnancy having birth defects, a fetal anomaly, etc, and she decides she wants to carry the pregnancy to term, has the emotional and financial ability to care for the child, etc., then that's fine. It takes a strong woman and family to be able to do that. And, of course, people who are born with special needs are people too -- I'm not suggesting they're less of a person or not worthwhile or unimportant. I am talking about women who are unwittingly carrying pregnancies to term that they would otherwise abort, because of financial reasons, emotional reasons, whatever -- they are the ones that we are talking about.

Moral of the story: don’t get pregnant in Oklahoma.

Have a nice day!

Oh, Colorado.

Great news for people who might get pregnant in Colorado -- Anti-abortion groups there say they have gotten enough signatures for a proposal to make abortion illegal in Colorado. They are hoping to get this measure onto the ballot this fall.

If you don't remember, back in 2008, Colorado put a personhood amendment onto the ballot, which defined personhood occuring at "the moment of fertilization," thereby criminalizing any and all abortions. This amendment was defeated by a large margin, with 73% voting against it.

You would think antis would get the hint after that, but apparently not. The new amendment defines personhood as "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Um.... what? Is it just me, or did they swap out the word "fertilization" for more vague terminology? A human is a human when it starts developing biologically??? What does that even mean?? Video killed the radio star??? Things that make you go hmmm.

Hilariously, a volunteer going around gathering signatures said, "This was harder. I don't know why, but people were more callous this time and didn't want to listen." I wonder why they didn't want to listen?? Could it maybe be because YOU ALREADY DID THIS TWO YEARS AGO?? AND THE VAST MAJORITY SAID NO THANKS? AND NOW YOU ARE AT THEIR DOORSTEP AGAIN?

The VP of Colorado Right to Life, Leslie Hanks, said "It's time to let the babies reclaim their liberty." Um, well, the use of the term "baby" is a bit deceptive, since it makes it sound like people are rounding up 2 year olds and putting them in front of a firing squad, but also, I am wondering what about the woman who is carrying the pregnancy? What about her? Neither the 2008 or current amendment appear to have exceptions for rape, abuse, incest, or the woman's life. So... to honor the "babies" liberty, we will be taking away women's liberty and LIVES in the process. What about the woman whose husband is physically violent toward her and won't let her use birth control? What about the woman who is mentally disabled and pregnant (Yes, that happens)? I mean, I could go on for days here with these examples.

It just baffles me how groups can be so passionate about saving "babies" and then so flippant about the women involved. She is simply a vehicle for the pregnancy to get to term and her life/ plans/ goals/ dreams/ wishes/ etc are expendable. Once her baby is born, I hope it is not a girl who lives in Colorado and one day gets pregnant.

Super Bowl Sunday

It's that time folks. Grab your corn chips, your salsa from a jar, and a good old American Bud Heavy and sit down to watch the Saints try to keep the American Dream alive and beat the Colts. And also to see the much talked about, much hyped Focus on the Family commercial.

For those of you blissfully unaware: Pam Tebow, Tim Tebow's mother, was pregnant when she was on a missionary tour in the Philippines. She became extremely ill and went into a coma. The drugs used to get her out of her coma and to treat her dysentery caused a severe placental abruption to occur. Basically, the pregnancy detached from her uterus. REALLY BAD. In fact, "fetal mortality rate of 20-40% depending on the degree of separation. Placental abruption is also a significant contributor to maternal mortality." So the doctors said that the baby was likely to be stillborn and recommended abortion. She was in the Philippines, where abortion has been criminalized and illegal since 1870, so I am not sure how great her doctor was since he was apparently ignorant of the country's laws?? Anyway, she said no, and carried the pregnancy to term. AND TIM TEBOW WAS BORN WOWOWOW MIRACLE OF LIFE.

This commercial is getting a TON of press, and my head is about to explode if I have to read another article talking about how IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL AND TIM TEBOW IS SO NICE AND WE LOVE HIM. (Note Revolutionary Vagina commented on this briefly a few weeks ago) Take for example, Roland S. Martin of CNN, who says

There is no rule anywhere in existence that says that the Super Bowl should be free of politics and social causes. None. So what's the big deal over Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother starring in a pro-life ad?

I agree with you, Mr. Martin. Whole heartedly. Expect that apparently there ARE rules, put in place by the Super Bowl, about what kinds of ads they air. In 2004 PETA wanted to run an anti-fur commercial and they were rejected. Moveon.org wanted to air a commercial about how much Bush is running up the deficit, and they were rejected. The United Church of Christ wanted to air a commercial letting the world know they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that EVERYONE was welcome at their church. They were rejected. Why? The Super Bowl peeps said they had to reject those ads because they were not going to “touch on and/or take a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance.” Even this year, a homosexual dating website wanted to air a commercial about the site and they were rejected as well. I am just confused how Pam Tebow's story is not a controversial issue? Abortion has been and seems like always will be a hot button issue in this country.

Oh wait! CBS has CHANGED THE RULES about what is "controversial" this year. So I guess a gay dating website is, but anti-abortion is not. Ohhhhhhhhhh okay I toadily get it. Thanks guys.

I guess what bothers me the most, besides CBS playing favorites on political issues, besides the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy being riddled with inconsistencies that don't add up, is that everyone is forgetting, as Revolutionary Vagina pointed out, Pam Tebow did have a choice. If she was really in the Philippines were abortion was 100% illegal, then not really, but the point in all of this is that she CHOSE to keep the pregnancy despite the risks to the fetus and to her own life. I know we are not getting the full story here in terms of what actually happened, but either way, she chose to carry a pregnancy that was dangerous to both her and her fetus and she was aware of this and made that choice anyway. That is a brave choice and I give her props for that. I do not give her props for making it seem like it was NBD and that we should always choose life. Unfortunately, carrying a pregnancy to term is not always choosing life because sometimes both the mother and the fetus die. Sometimes the mother dies but the fetus lives. Sometimes the fetus dies. There are a lot of risks and complications involved with that kind of stuff and it appears as if they are sweeping all that under the rug. Just not cool, you know?

And this is from Upright Citizen's Brigade, so, you know it's gonna be hilarious: