apsies

apsies:

Obama’s Affordable Care Act does not pay for abortions. In Massachusetts, Romney’s health care law does. Obama favors, and included in the Affordable Care Act, $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion. This support will make abortions much less likely, since most abortions are economic. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s budget, which will cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the federal plans that support poor women. The undoubted effect: The number of abortions in the United States will increase.

pantslessprogressive

pantslessprogressive:

Eight female state senators in Georgia walked out of the Senate chambers on Wednesday to protest two bills that hinder access to abortion and contraceptives. All eight female democratic senators left the chambers together after two bills they oppose passed the Republican-led Senate. From Atlanta’s WXIA, the legislation:

  • Prohibits state employees from using state health benefits to pay for abortions
  • Does not allow employees of private religious institutions to demand that their insurance policies pay for contraceptives

“We stood together to protest what we feel is absolutely a war on women here in Georgia and we want to sound the alert to Georgians,” said Sen. Nan Orrick.

Republican state senator Joshua McKoon said of the legislation, “What I would say is the war that’s being waged is on a religious minority in this country that has strong beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment.”

The bills now heads to the House, where both are expected to pass.

The senators who walked out: Sen. Gloria ButlerSen. Gale Davenport, Sen. Nan Orrock, Sen. Freddie Powell SimsSen. Donzella James, Sen. Miriam Paris, Sen. Valencia Seay and Sen. Horacena Tate. Looks like I’ll be spending my Friday night emailing these senators to thank them for taking a stance on an incredibly important issue.

cancerninja
cancerninja:

theatlantic:

Symbolic Legislation to Nowhere: Why Statehouses Fail in Governance

The fact that Virginia lawmakers evidently didn’t understand what their law would mean to women, and what it would require of doctors, didn’t stop the legislators from pushing forward with the measure anyway. Ignorance of the law may be no legal defense to you and me, but ignorance of the law among those who are passing the law surely is the definition of bad governance. For the politicians now scrambling away from Virginia’s measure, however, pleading ignorance perhaps is easier today than confessing the truth, which is that the pols who supported the measure probably didn’t care in the first place if its mandated procedures offended women. That was the whole point, wasn’t it?
At a minimum, the barely-averted disaster in the commonwealth raises questions about whether the same intellectual disconnect is happening in New Hampshire, where the Republican-dominated legislature is pressing ahead with anti-abortion measures over the objections of medical experts. Or in Iowa, where a GOP lawmaker recently introduced a bill that would ban abortions and generate potential life sentences in prison for doctors who perform what the law calls “feticide.” Or in Nebraska, where legislators are considering a bill that would create a legal defense — justifiable homicide, it’s called — for the murder of a doctor who intends to harm a fetus.
[…]
America, sadly, has grown accustomed to “symbolic” legislation which is designed not to advance the public good, or even to become sustainable law, but rather to appease particular interest groups. The campaign promise becomes the pending measure; the donor’s crusade becomes the subject of public hearings. And what is squeezed out of the legislative process as a result of such pandering is the more moderate legislation, the more practical measures, which do stand a chance of passing constitutional muster and which do solve real problems in sensible ways. That’s no way to run a country — or even a state.
When public outrage forced them into a choice this week between appearing stupid about the ultrasound law or appearing venal toward it, Virginia’s Republican lawmakers, and the Commonwealth’s governor, chose to act stupid. It’s a choice that zealous lawmakers all over the country would be forced to make if their own senseless, unlawful legislation ever made it to the Supreme Court. But chances are those bills never will. Instead, America’s pet legislation will continue to whistle to all the political dogs out there while wasting everyone else’s time and money.
Read more. [Image: Associated Press]


relevant.

cancerninja:

theatlantic:

Symbolic Legislation to Nowhere: Why Statehouses Fail in Governance

The fact that Virginia lawmakers evidently didn’t understand what their law would mean to women, and what it would require of doctors, didn’t stop the legislators from pushing forward with the measure anyway. Ignorance of the law may be no legal defense to you and me, but ignorance of the law among those who are passing the law surely is the definition of bad governance. For the politicians now scrambling away from Virginia’s measure, however, pleading ignorance perhaps is easier today than confessing the truth, which is that the pols who supported the measure probably didn’t care in the first place if its mandated procedures offended women. That was the whole point, wasn’t it?

At a minimum, the barely-averted disaster in the commonwealth raises questions about whether the same intellectual disconnect is happening in New Hampshire, where the Republican-dominated legislature is pressing ahead with anti-abortion measures over the objections of medical experts. Or in Iowa, where a GOP lawmaker recently introduced a bill that would ban abortions and generate potential life sentences in prison for doctors who perform what the law calls “feticide.” Or in Nebraska, where legislators are considering a bill that would create a legal defense — justifiable homicide, it’s called — for the murder of a doctor who intends to harm a fetus.

[…]

America, sadly, has grown accustomed to “symbolic” legislation which is designed not to advance the public good, or even to become sustainable law, but rather to appease particular interest groups. The campaign promise becomes the pending measure; the donor’s crusade becomes the subject of public hearings. And what is squeezed out of the legislative process as a result of such pandering is the more moderate legislation, the more practical measures, which do stand a chance of passing constitutional muster and which do solve real problems in sensible ways. That’s no way to run a country — or even a state.

When public outrage forced them into a choice this week between appearing stupid about the ultrasound law or appearing venal toward it, Virginia’s Republican lawmakers, and the Commonwealth’s governor, chose to act stupid. It’s a choice that zealous lawmakers all over the country would be forced to make if their own senseless, unlawful legislation ever made it to the Supreme Court. But chances are those bills never will. Instead, America’s pet legislation will continue to whistle to all the political dogs out there while wasting everyone else’s time and money.

Read more. [Image: Associated Press]

relevant.

democratsaresexier
nomoretexasgovernorsforpresident:

It’s like an epidemic.
theatlantic:

Vaginal Ultrasound Measure Resurfaces in the Alabama Senate

Only four days after Virginia shot down a similar measure, the Alabama State Senate is moving forward with a law that would require women to go through an invasive vaginal ultrasound procedure in order the get an abortion.
More specifically, the bill requires a doctor “to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion” that includes the situation “in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.”

Read more. [Image: Wikicommons/Carol McKinney Highsmith]

nomoretexasgovernorsforpresident:

It’s like an epidemic.

theatlantic:

Vaginal Ultrasound Measure Resurfaces in the Alabama Senate

Only four days after Virginia shot down a similar measure, the Alabama State Senate is moving forward with a law that would require women to go through an invasive vaginal ultrasound procedure in order the get an abortion.

More specifically, the bill requires a doctor “to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion” that includes the situation “in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.”

Read more. [Image: Wikicommons/Carol McKinney Highsmith]

sarahchristine

Now because the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, if you’re going to get an ultrasound image, as the Virginia law requires, the law states, basically, that any woman seeking to have a legal procedure known as an abortion, whether she wants to or not, first lay back in a chair, spread her legs, (put her) feet in stirrups, and have an eight- to ten-inch wand put inside her — even if the woman in question is pregnant as the result of a rape.

I don’t really have a joke here. I just thought I’d tell you.

JON STEWART, on Virginia’s inhumane, inhuman and shameful “personhood” law that requires women wanting to get an abortion to, in essence, be subject to rape, on The Daily Show (via inothernews)

I’m still trying to figure what to do about everything going on in our country re: this shit. Like should we march on the capitol? IDK. Something needs to fucking happen though.

(via sarahchristine)

kohenari

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.

That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.

seriouslyamerica
In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first ‘legal abortion day’ I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, ‘How many children are you going to kill today?’ My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. ‘All I need to know’, I said, ‘is that SHE wants an abortion.’ Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, ‘Please don’t tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.’
Physician, Washington State, via The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion
(via seriouslyamerica)
seriouslyamerica
We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven’t given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does.

A physician at an abortion clinic (via fuckititsfriday)

This is from The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. If you haven’t read it already, READ IT RIGHT NOW.

-Jess

(via stfuconservatives)

seriouslyamerica

bebinn:

The Conference of Catholic Bishops is not technically a lobbying organization — churches are tax-exempt, and they don’t have to disclose publicly how much money they put toward lobbying. According to the IRS, a 501(c)(3) organization like the Conference can speak out on moral issues as much as it wants, but “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.” […]

[However,] the bishops were not only influential in swaying votes during health care reform debate; [Richard] Doerflinger said they actually helped Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) write the controversial anti-abortion amendment, which the House approved by a vote of 290 to 194.

“Those bishops were literally sitting in Bart Stupak’s office and, from what we could tell, instructing him all about the laws he should be supporting, and the text of the laws, and the strategy of getting them through,” said Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women. “It was absolutely appalling.”

The National Organization for Women has called for the bishops conference to lose its tax-exempt status over its lobbying activities[…]

“The bishops are entirely out of sync with the people they purport to represent,” said Donna Crane, NARAL’s policy director. “All the polling and public opinion research is very clear: Catholics are majority pro-choice. They hold that belief, they use the services and they just aren’t in agreement with the hierarchy on these issues.” […]

O’Neill finds it troubling that a group of men that has historically denied women the opportunity to participate in leadership positions is exercising so much power over such a broad range of women’s reproductive health legislation.

“Clearly there’s a problem when men take such an interest in the sexual function of women,” she said. “There’s something deeply off about it.”

As always, it is important to recognize that women are not the only ones who can get pregnant, and that in many ways, those who do not identify as women, yet can get pregnant, are in even more danger from the Conference and their political allies.