In a bit of good news the Virginia Governor, Bill McDonnell had an abrupt about face this week and recommended that the bill recently passed requiring any women seeking an abortion undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound be reversed.
Apparently the fetal image would have remained in a woman's medical file for seven years, and any doctor who failed to perform a pre-abortion ultrasound would be liable to prosecution and fines.
Both Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show with John Stewart satirized the bill and the original version- supported by McDonnell drew a large crowd of protesters to the state capital in Richmond earlier this week.
The reversal of McDonnell’s decision has been disappointing for the bill’s supporters. I find it really difficult to see how anyone could fail to see the problem with requiring a trans-vaginal ultrasound- you literally insert an 8-10 inch wand into the vagina. If the woman doesn’t consent to this incredibly invasive procedure, how can you interpret that as anything other than rape?
Even the pro-life Rutherford Institute - backers of Del. Bob Marshall’s personhood bill, which gives fetuses human rights - has expressed constitutional concerns over the ultrasound bill.
Virginia's House of Delegates by a vote of 65-32 approved the revised bill, which calls for women to undergo an abdominal ultrasound but not necessarily a more invasive internal one as required under the original measure. It is unclear if the State Senate is going to follow suit.
Ultrasounds are a regular part of Planned Parenthood's process when obtaining an abortion and it is done for medical reasons. To insist upon a mandate on the type of ultrasound isn't only unnecessary, it falls in line with the strategy for slowly eroding the legality of abortion as a procedure in all. To their credit, I imagine most women who want abortions do so with the understanding that an ultrasound is going to take place in some capacity, but you cannot mandate that and you certainly can't assume that the ultrasound would be an invasive trans-vaginal one.
I appreciate the backlash over the bill because it calls attention to the lengths that pro-life supporters will go to demand that if abortions are available legally than it has to be with as many hurdles or barriers as possible, regardless of what that means for the women actually affected.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
In the Name of the Father...oh wait
It's long over due for the Catholic Church to relax its position on contraceptives. Over and over the religious institution have shown that they don't understand the concept of women centric policies because there aren't any women present in religious hierarchies. Not a single women is among the ranks of Catholic leaders that cry foul when governmental policies insist that all women have access to birth control should they desire so.
Obama modified the policy last Friday to require insurance companies, and not the religiously affiliated organization itself, to pay for birth control-Not enough for the naysayers-
But the issue hear isn't even about the mandate by President Obama anymore-It's about the wholly male centered, male dominated, male run, ancient institution that refuses to acknowledge women's right to choose- period.
Obama modified the policy last Friday to require insurance companies, and not the religiously affiliated organization itself, to pay for birth control-Not enough for the naysayers-
But the issue hear isn't even about the mandate by President Obama anymore-It's about the wholly male centered, male dominated, male run, ancient institution that refuses to acknowledge women's right to choose- period.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Susan Komen-take back
The Komen foundation announced on Thursday that it was reversing its decision to cut funding from breast-cancer screenings done at Planned Parenthood. Three days after announcing it would eliminate grants to Planned Parenthood; the Komen Foundation, said Friday that Planned Parenthood would be eligible for future grants — but stopped short of guaranteeing funding.
So what was this all about?
Apparently this issue has been a long standing thorn in the Komen Foundations side. In an Article on The Atlantic website, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg reports that inside sources from the Komen foundation made it clear that new rules were adopted as an excuse to cut funding from Planned Parenthood.
The article from The Atlantic elaborates-
“The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion.”
An anonymous source told the author, "The cart came before the horse in this case, the rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary."
The speculation has only intensified since last week as to the overall conclusion of the entire debacle. The few things I mentioned above are only a handful of the information that's come out-and forgive me for not sharing more of it. In the past few days I have read articles tying this situation to every matter relating to abortion, breast cancer and women's health in general. I honestly cannot process it all fast enough to yet write about it critically.
What I do know is that the attacks on Women's reproductive rights aren't anything that's going to go away anytime soon.
Next up-Catholics and Contraception.
So what was this all about?
Apparently this issue has been a long standing thorn in the Komen Foundations side. In an Article on The Atlantic website, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg reports that inside sources from the Komen foundation made it clear that new rules were adopted as an excuse to cut funding from Planned Parenthood.
The article from The Atlantic elaborates-
“The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion.”
An anonymous source told the author, "The cart came before the horse in this case, the rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary."
The speculation has only intensified since last week as to the overall conclusion of the entire debacle. The few things I mentioned above are only a handful of the information that's come out-and forgive me for not sharing more of it. In the past few days I have read articles tying this situation to every matter relating to abortion, breast cancer and women's health in general. I honestly cannot process it all fast enough to yet write about it critically.
What I do know is that the attacks on Women's reproductive rights aren't anything that's going to go away anytime soon.
Next up-Catholics and Contraception.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Super Stupid
I really don't like Go Daddy.com
I really really can't stand their asinine advertisements.
More on this to come-or perhaps I won't even waste my efforts.
Also, the commercials during the Super Bowl have shown us that teenage girls don't like food.
Great.
I really really can't stand their asinine advertisements.
More on this to come-or perhaps I won't even waste my efforts.
Also, the commercials during the Super Bowl have shown us that teenage girls don't like food.
Great.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Susan Komen v.Planned Parenthood
Again and again women are the losers in the ridiculous political and hateful rhetoric behind reproductive rights.
Note that I didn’t say abortion and I almost didn’t say reproductive rights because in this case it is Women’s Health that takes the blow. Of course in this country at this time the three are not mutually exclusive.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation has long been a target of anti-choice advocates who vilify Planned Parenthood as an abortion mega-provider. The indication that breast cancer is anti-choice is so outrageous it is almost hilarious. Even more ridiculous is the statement made by a representative of the Komen foundation who rebuffed the suggestion that the decision was based on years of bullying and even uttered "grant making decisions are not about politics." Yeah, right.
Another stance by the Komen foundation is that an inquiry made by a Republican Rep. from Florida as to whether PP uses federal dollars to provide abortion puts PP out of the running.
Here is an excerpt from an article located on NPR.org
According to the AP, the Komen foundation says it has stopped sending money to Planned Parenthood affiliates — who used the funding to provide breast cancer screening and education programs to women — because of an inquiry initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., into whether Planned Parenthood has used public money to provide abortions. The Komen foundation's position is that it does not give grants to organizations that are under investigation
What I want to know is what kind of response the Komen foundation will have when PP is cleared of any wrong doing and said investigation is revealed as a wholly political tactic?
Who is hurt is this situation?
One more interesting coincidence; Komen’s foundation has long supported the claim that abortion increases your chance for developing breast cancer. While designing studies to extract empirical data linking the two together has prevented wide spread research, the American Cancer Society concludes: “Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
One would think with that frame of mind, the foundation would never have bestowed grants upon PP to begin with. But it did and now it won’t and yet we’re supposed to believe that politics have nothing to do with it?
By now women have long since figured out that it isn't only the "personal" that's political. In fact at this point there isn't anything about a women's body that isn't political.
Note that I didn’t say abortion and I almost didn’t say reproductive rights because in this case it is Women’s Health that takes the blow. Of course in this country at this time the three are not mutually exclusive.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation has long been a target of anti-choice advocates who vilify Planned Parenthood as an abortion mega-provider. The indication that breast cancer is anti-choice is so outrageous it is almost hilarious. Even more ridiculous is the statement made by a representative of the Komen foundation who rebuffed the suggestion that the decision was based on years of bullying and even uttered "grant making decisions are not about politics." Yeah, right.
Another stance by the Komen foundation is that an inquiry made by a Republican Rep. from Florida as to whether PP uses federal dollars to provide abortion puts PP out of the running.
Here is an excerpt from an article located on NPR.org
According to the AP, the Komen foundation says it has stopped sending money to Planned Parenthood affiliates — who used the funding to provide breast cancer screening and education programs to women — because of an inquiry initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., into whether Planned Parenthood has used public money to provide abortions. The Komen foundation's position is that it does not give grants to organizations that are under investigation
What I want to know is what kind of response the Komen foundation will have when PP is cleared of any wrong doing and said investigation is revealed as a wholly political tactic?
Who is hurt is this situation?
One more interesting coincidence; Komen’s foundation has long supported the claim that abortion increases your chance for developing breast cancer. While designing studies to extract empirical data linking the two together has prevented wide spread research, the American Cancer Society concludes: “Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
One would think with that frame of mind, the foundation would never have bestowed grants upon PP to begin with. But it did and now it won’t and yet we’re supposed to believe that politics have nothing to do with it?
By now women have long since figured out that it isn't only the "personal" that's political. In fact at this point there isn't anything about a women's body that isn't political.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)