Presidential Election 2012

Straws are a pollin, people are debatin.

Presidential 'lection season is in the air. Take a deep breath in and get a whiff of the piping hot bullshit.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I am NOT looking forward to the election and all the fearmongering, lies, and general untruths that will prevail.

UGH.

Remember when John Kerry's campaign was basically derailed because a group of people MADE UP LIES about him and then had a well-funded ad campaign to disseminate said lies? And then most people seemed to believe them? WTF?

Or all that crap about Obama not being a citizen, or being Islamic, or whatever else?

FUN TIMES.

This batch of GOP candidates aren't really inspiring for those interested in women's reproductive health either.


Rick Perry, Governor of Texas

Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger: “Gov. Perry is proudly pro-life and successfully championed strong pro-life legislation in Texas including parental consent, this year’s sonogram bill and a budget that significantly defunds abortions in Texas,” she said. “The governor has long supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and would support amending the U.S. Constitution, with the backing of Congress and the states, to protect innocent life.”

Rick Perry said he believes abortion should be legal only in cases involving rape or incest or when carrying a pregnancy to term would threaten the woman’s life.

Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Representative in the House

Life is the first right; I'm 100% pro-life from conception.
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood.

“Part of our faith is standing for the area of life. and we are completely committed,” Bachmann said of herself and her husband. “After our second child was born, we became pregnant with a third baby, and it was an unexpected baby, but of course we were delighted to have this child. And the child was coming along, and we ended up losing that child. And it was devastating for both of us, as you can imagine if any of you have lost a child. At that moment we didn’t think of ourselves as overly career-minded or overly materialistic. When we lost that child, it changed us. And it changed us forever. And so we made a commitment that no matter how many children were brought into our life we would receive them, because we’re committed to life. And we didn’t know it at that time that we’d be foster parents and that one day we’d be parents of 28 children, but we are extremely grateful for that opportunity because you can get money wrong, but you can’t get life wrong. And I am committed to life.”

Also let us not forget Bachmann sponsored the incredibly fucked up redefine rape bill earlier this year.

And she voted for a Personhood Amendement in February 2009.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
Romney has an interesting background relating to his stance on this issue. Previously, he has stated he is "unwaveringly" pro-choice because he had a relative die from an illegal abortion back in the day. This was, of course, in Massachusetts which has a liberal stance on abortion. Later, when Romney was considering running for office in Utah, he wrote a letter to the newspaper stating "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (??) This "flip-flopping" continues depending on whether he is trying to get elected in Massachusetts or facing a broader, more national audience. He basically seems to say whatever he needs to depending on that audience. I suspect at heart he is not actually pro-life, but who knows. I don't trust him. Salon has a good piece on this.

So these three are considered the front runners thus far for the GOP nomination. The more I read about each of them, the more disturbed I am. Like Michele Bachmann, foster mother of 20-23 (depending on when you ask her), voted no on a parental leave assistance program for federal employees with new children. WTF?

Can't wait until this time next year when we are in full tilt 'Lection Season!

:(

Election Season is Nigh

We're entering the start of the presidential election season. With that comes talk of a whole host of issues, including everyone's favorite political topic - abortion! It's always interesting to read the opinions of candidates. They are trying to be conservative but not too conservative or progressive but not too progressive. This has to make you have to wonder how these candidates really feel about the issues they are taking a stand on.

Let's take abortion as an example. It's unusual for a Democrat to be anti-abortion, but I think it's even more unusual for a Republican to be pro-choice. Generally for a Republican or Democrat to even win their primaries, they need to have their respective anti-choice, pro-choice views. There are of course some exceptions, but the norm is the norm for a reason. These candidates need to reflect the views of their constituents, so it makes me wonder how many of them actually have these views or are just saying this to gain support.

As I was doing some googling tonight, trying to figure out what I wanted to write about, I kept finding articles about Donald Trump's views on abortion. If you weren't aware, Donald Trump is in fact an unofficial candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. I found an article on Life Site News (no I won't link to it) that stated Donald Trump had written a book in 2000 proclaiming he was pro-choice, although he was still uncomfortable with the procedure. Now he's coming out as anti-choice saying that he changed his views a few years ago. He cites a story about a friend's wife who was contemplating an abortion, ultimately kept the pregnancy, and now this child fills this man with unrelenting joy (he fails to note if the woman in this scenario is equally happy). In another interview he was asked about whether we have a right to privacy under the Constitution - he said yes. But then had no idea how that connected to his views on abortion (right to privacy was the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision) - maybe he hasn't thought this one through very well. I wonder if Trump believes what he saying now, if he believed what he said back then, or will just say anything to get people to like him and give him attention.

Not sure how I got on a Donald Trump tangent, but my point is that candidates will say anything to get us to vote for them. We have to think critically and try to figure out if they are saying what they believe or just what we want to hear. We have to make sure they are challenged and asked difficult questions that cause them to really think about what they are saying. Don't allow them to speak in sound bites but make sure they have thought through what they are saying, otherwise how do you know they are telling you the truth?

Friday Game Time

You know I love Highlights For Kids. Yep, it's that time again. Let's play a game! 

Ohio Bill Would Outlaw Abortion At Heartbeat

Beginners: Can you circle FOUR or more quotes or paraphrases in this article that are total BS? 

Intermediate: Can you draw TWO or more ulterior motives in the margin? 

Challenge yourself: If you are an abortioneer, can you think of THREE or more unwritten reasons that this idea is not connected with the realities of abortion care or women's lives? Talk with your friends and see how many you can think of together! 

"Schooling Chris Smith" on abortion's role in the UN's Millennium Development Goals

Good evening! Just wanted to let you know that Kelly, the brilliant and gracious creator of Schooling Chris Smith, is hosting a cross-post of sorts by yours truly.

Before I get ahead of myself-- do you know who Rep. Chris Smith is? Well, number one, he's a douchebag, and number two under-informed and number three not very good at rhetoric; let's just say all that up-front before you read his op-eds and injure yourself trying to understand what the fuck he's going on about.

Number four, he's also a member of Congress (R-NJ4), and among other things he's the ranking member (second only to the chair) of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs's Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health. What does all that mean? Well, as Schooling Chris Smith puts it, it means he gets "to be seen as a strong proponent of human rights despite his complete opposition to full human rights for women." To continue quoting Kelly:

Back in September, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Chris Smith urging activists not to sidetrack the U.N. summit on global poverty by talking about abortion (which is kind of hilarious, considering this is one of the guys who sidetracks women veterans' health care into abortion politics). His op-ed obviously speaks for itself by claiming all abortions cause psychological damage for women and implying that human trafficking and child soldiering are caused by abortion (I have to admit, that's a new one for me).

Some letters were published in response to this piece, but one wasn't. [That's mine! -PS]

So, yeah, being ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs's Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health (takeanotherbreath) also means he gets to say things about global health and international development policy and have them published in newspapers. Even though he hasn't done his research, doesn't know his facts, and can't string together a logical argument. (Am I bitter that I do ALL these things but don't get published in the paper? Not at all!) The Post published a couple responses that (rightly) pointed out Smith [a] was dragging abortion into the conversation from out of nowhere and [b] had glaringly omitted mention of the life-saving importance of contraception. But those responses themselves completely omitted mention of the many errors and false claims Smith made about the role of abortion in saving lives.

Even though it's well past September now, the inauguration of Schooling Chris Smith got me thinking that I shouldn't let a good letter die unread. (If I do say so myself.) Without further chitchat, here it is:

Re: "Abortion does not further children's health," Chris Smith, op-ed 9/19

Rep. Chris Smith's op-ed was long on claims, but short on facts. Having engaged in research, education and service provision in the field of reproductive health, I am left wondering on what evidence Rep. Smith based his assertion that abortion harms children's and women's health (the focuses of the UN's Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5). His attempt to exclude abortion from MDG efforts, discarding established medical evidence in the process, is the real threat to the health of women and the children they already have.

The statement that abortion is "by definition, infant mortality" is silly, as all abortions are, "by definition," performed before birth, which precedes infancy. Terminology aside, Smith's concern for embryo survival leads him to overlook the actual women who die when safe abortion care is out of reach: some develop severe pregnancy complications; some have ectopic pregnancies; others drink bleach, insert sharp objects, or jump from tall heights in an attempt to end pregnancy themselves. Each year an estimated 50 million women worldwide obtain abortions, half under unsafe conditions; worse, the vast majority (95%) of those unsafe abortions take place in the developing world where treatment for complications is harder to obtain. As a result, around 70,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortion, and millions more suffer nonfatal injury and illness. Yet abortion performed by a trained provider in a sanitary setting is one of the safest medical procedures in existence -- much safer than carrying a pregnancy to full-term delivery, as a matter of fact! Contrary to Smith's insinuation, repeated and rigorous cohort studies demonstrate the error in claiming that properly-performed abortion causes physical or psychological complications.

Disregard for the value of human life, as Smith calls it, is made manifest in the poverty, illness, and avoidable death experienced by families who cannot afford another mouth to feed or who lose a caretaker to eclampsia, hemorrhage or sepsis. If safe abortion is struck from the agenda, then unsafe abortion will simply continue to kill women and orphan their children.


placenta sandwich, A.D.D., I.B.S.
Vice-President of Irritated Blogging and Letter-Writing
The Abortioneers
Credentials Out The Ass

(Actually, I gave them my real name and my real credentials-out-the-ass.)

There was so much more I had wanted to say, but brevity is the soul of getting published, I was told. (Am I bitter that I chopped a bunch out but didn't get published? Not at all!) Like I also wanted to say that there's empirical evidence at the family level that maternal morbidity and mortality (for example from unsafe abortion) results in greater child mortality. Not a shocker. And also that anyone who knows anything about health infrastructure can tell you that women in Chile and Ireland survive (mostly survive) their countries' abortion bans because they have access to doctors trained to treat complications of illegal/DIY abortion, not because they've stopped having abortions! Anyone who thinks an abortion ban would not increase mortality in a country with poor health infrastructure and lots of remote rural area -- like, say, Ethiopia or Zambia -- would surely not qualify to be on anyone's Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, right?   Oh... wait. (Still not bitter!!)

I'll leave it there and ask you to head over to Schooling Chris Smith to discuss Kelly's question: What would your letter in response look like? What else has been left out?

Note to Self: DON'T MOVE TO MISSOURI

Or as a friend of mine would say, Missour-uh.

I'm not an angry person, but laws like this make me seethe, and I'm not talking about the strip clubs. ""The life of each human being begins at conception," according to Senate Bill 793" -- this is the name of the bill! I had no idea that becoming a state senator made you a qualified medical professional, allowing you to make such a statement. This bill mandates that abortion clinics give pamphlets to women stating this (religious agenda) and detailing fetal development, among other gems.

Due to the awesome foresight of the Missouri legislature, women will not only have to wait 24 hours to "think about" their abortion. Because they haven't thought long enough. Now they will also have to be given misleading information that, let's face it, is meant to make them feel guilty.

The Courthouse News Service had one of my favorite quotes. "State Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that this 'information' 'is not a religious statement; it's a scientific statement.'" Oh, it's a scientific statement is it? Ok, Sen. Jim Lembke, show me this scientific data that supports your claim. Sen. Lembke's bio on the Missouri State Senate website says nothing of any medical or scientific background, so I'm curious to know where he is getting this information.

Why do we let politicians control our lives?

Education Sunday.

I decided to post an excerpt from a paper I wrote. In case you didn't know the specifics, now you do.

On March 24, 2010, President Obama issued an Executive Order that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion services (except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment of the woman).[1] This provision continues the ban on federal funding of abortion that was set in place more than 30 years ago by the Hyde Amendment. Proponents of the Hyde Amendment assert that it is their democratic right as policy leaders, to express their opinion and be able to exert their beliefs in the health care debate.

Currently, six million women of reproductive age obtain health care coverage through the Medicaid system.[2] Federal bands on funding for abortion services have severely restricted access to safe abortion care for thousands of low-income women who depend on the government for their health care. Poor women especially, are unable to exercise their constitutional right to choose abortion when public funding is restricted. An estimated 18-35% of Medicaid-eligible women carry their pregnancy to term because they cannot afford an abortion.[3] While Medicaid does not allow federal funding for abortion, it does provide funding for childbirth.[4] Medicaid insures one-fifth of the nation’s children and pays for one-third of all childbirths.[5]

Under current health care policy, the federal government is willing to pay for some of poor women’s reproductive health but not all. In turn, the Hyde Amendment is negatively impacting poor women’s lives on the basis of policy leaders moral and ethical beliefs about abortion. Should Congress members and policy leaders be able to put their moral beliefs above the health and well being of its citizens? Low-income women often face serious hardship when trying to raise funds for abortion services. Many women use money they should have spent on rent, food, bills and clothing for their children. A significant amount of women resort to pawning household items, and some resort to theft and prostitution in a desperate attempt to have a legal, medical procedure.[6] The 1983 AGI study found that Medicaid-eligible women wait on average 2-3 weeks longer than women with economic means to have an abortion. As a woman gets farther along in her pregnancy, the cost of the abortion starts to rise, and it becomes more difficult to raise the necessary funds, creating a vicious cycle.

The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory policy that targets poor women, who are disproportionately women of color. Women who are not covered under the Nation’s Medicaid system, are either not enrolled in the program, undocumented citizens, or not eligible under the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines. Women who can afford to pay for an abortion on their own, ranging from approximately $300-$500 for a first trimester procedure, are mostly unaffected by the Hyde Amendment’s restrictive policy. An estimated 18-35% of Medicaid-eligible women carry their pregnancy to term because they cannot afford an abortion.[7] There is a huge disparity between impoverished women and middle/upper class women. In 1983, AGI researchers found that “nearly 60% of Medicaid recipients said that paying for an abortion caused serious hardship, compared with only 26% of non-Medicaid-eligible women.”[8] Although Roe v Wade gave women the constitutional right to have an abortion, they are unable to exercise this right when access and affordability of services is denied. The Hyde Amendment makes real reproductive “choice” a privilege for those that can afford it, rather than a constitutional right guaranteed by the Supreme Court.[9]

---

[1] Raising Women’s Voices. (March 30, 2010). Health Reform and Reproductive Health: Positive and Negative Effects. Available: http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/storage/RWV%20on%20Health%20Reform%20and%20Reproductive%20HealthFINAL3.30.10.pdf.

[2] Boonstra, H., A. Sonfield. “Rights without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. April 2000: 8-11.

[3] Fried, M. (2007) “Hyde Amendment: The Opening Wedge to Abolish Abortion.” New Politics. 11(2): 82-85.

[4] Annas, G. J. “Abortion Politics and Health Insurance Reform.” The New England Journal of Medicine. December 31, 2009: 2589-2591.

[5] Weil, Alan, "There's Something About Medicaid," Health Affairs (Jan/Feb 2003).

[6] Boonstra, H., A. Sonfield. “Rights without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. April 2000: 8-11.

[7] Fried, M. (2007) “Hyde Amendment: The Opening Wedge to Abolish Abortion.” New Politics. 11(2): 82-85.

[8] Fried, M. (2007) “Hyde Amendment: The Opening Wedge to Abolish Abortion.” New Politics. 11(2): 82-85.

[9] Boonstra, H., A. Sonfield. “Rights without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. April 2000: 8-11.