Women, Know THY Doctor Well
Posted: March 15, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights | Tags: wrongful birth 7 CommentsThere are so many things that worry me about the current war against women waged by religious fanatics that I don’t know where to start. Some reasons are philosophical, political, and scientific. Others are quite personal. I am a woman and a mother of two daughters. I’ve had one very dicey pregnancy that had a good outcome. It could’ve turned out differently, however. I am also the mother of an ob/gyn living in a state that wants to make shooting abortion doctors justifiable homicide. I’m certain my daughter’s practice will never be based solely on provision of abortions, but I’d like to think she could provide the service when needed without any state interfering with patient/doctor privilege or her medical opinions.
The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the procedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
“In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that’s something that’s unprecedented in our society,” Melissa Grant of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland told the Nebraska legislature’s judiciary committee on Wednesday. Specifically, she warned, it could be used to target Planned Parenthood’s patients and personnel. Also testifying in opposition to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, “We share the same fears…that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers.”
Baker’s concern is well-grounded: Abortion providers are frequent targets of violent attacks. Eight doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists since 1993, and another 17 have been victims of murder attempts.
When my second pregnancy looked to be a very difficult one, I got a nice Jewish neonate–who is now working with my daughter–and delivered in a Methodist Hospital. I freaked when I thought I was going to have to deliver at a Catholic Hospital and sent my husband off to Mutual of Omaha to get the insurance to give us an alternative. Like I said, everything went well in the end but there were lots of complications and issues.
You have to have a doctor you can trust to tell you exactly what they know these days. Michelle Goldberg–writing for The Daily Beast— provides some really incredible stories of women whose doctors withheld vital information from them to ensure they’d give birth. Many of these women eventually sue for wrongful birth. These stories are like reading one pregnant woman’s nightmare after another. You’d like to think the doctor would be on the side of the woman giving birth but evidently you cannot depend on it in these days of religious fanaticism and laws that basically reward medical malpractice.
Cases in which doctors deliberately deceive their patients to stop them from getting abortions aren’t common, but they do happen. Abbott Brown, a lawyer who has been trying wrongful-birth cases for 34 years, says he had one case in which an anti-abortion family doctor overseeing a woman’s pregnancy never performed an ultrasound; the child was born without arms. Speaking to The Washington Post in 2009 after the murder of George Tiller, a doctor who performed late-term abortions, his colleague LeRoy Carhart described a case in which a woman learned, very late in her pregnancy, that her fetus had no brain. “Her doctor knew the problem all along but just never told her,” he said.
Kansas’s bill would mean that such a doctor would have the right to keep such crucial, devastating information to himself. “It’s explicitly about preventing women from getting the information that they need to make their own personal and private decisions,” says Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “Does this incentivize people to act in a particular way? For the vast majority of physicians, the answer is going to be no. The question is, what about those few cases where it does?”
The concerted effort to remove the ability to make health decisions from women and place them with the state–in many cases giving the doctor the ability to lie or withhold information–comes from the party that supposedly supports small government. Kansas and Arizona–two hellhole states–have decided that the doctor should be held free from liability for doing this and are legislating away the right to sue doctors for ‘wrongful birth’.
In some states, though, anti-abortion activists are pushing legislation to protect doctors who don’t give women all available information about their pregnancies. Arizona and Kansas are considering bills that would ban lawsuits in cases where doctors fail to warn their patients about birth defects. The Arizona law, which is similar to legislation that exists in a handful of other states, would apply only when doctors make a mistake. But the Kansas provision, part of a sweeping, 69-page anti-abortion bill, would allow physicians to lie to women who might otherwise terminate their pregnancies. It is similar to a law in Oklahoma passed two years ago—in concert, ironically, with mandatory ultrasound legislation
We’ll likely see more such laws in the future, spurred in part by widespread conservative outrage over a recent so-called wrongful-birth case in Oregon. Indeed, to understand the reasoning behind the push to disavow a woman’s right to know about her pregnancy in certain circumstances, you have to understand the tricky, ethically ambiguous legal concept of wrongful birth. A type of legal claim, it allows parents to sue when they aren’t given information about a pregnancy that would have caused them to abort. In the Oregon case, Ariel and Deborah Levy sued after a botched chorionic villus sampling test failed to reveal that their daughter had Down syndrome, something they learned only after she was born. On Friday, a jury awarded them $2.9 million.
As some one who has gone through a life threatening pregnancy followed directly by life threatening cancer, I can’t even imagine what it would be like to know that your doctor is not on your side and is deliberately feeding you lies. Just about the time I think these legislators have sunk to some new low, these scum suckers find a newer one. Warn every one you know with a functional uterus about these developments and tell them to interview their doctors carefully. That’s about all I can say at this point.
Friday Reads
Posted: March 9, 2012 Filed under: Economy, Global Financial Crisis, House of Representatives, investment banking, Mitt Romney, morning reads, Regulation, religious extremists, Rush Limbaugh | Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Dump Rush, FED, SEC 36 Comments
Good Morning!
Well, we’ve always known Pat Robertson was a little off. Reconcile all his throw back ideas about women and the GLBT community with his views on decriminalizing marijuana, I dare you!!
“I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”
Mr. Robertson’s remarks echoed statements he made last week on “The 700 Club,” the signature program of his Christian Broadcasting Network, and other comments he made in 2010. While those earlier remarks were largely dismissed by his followers, Mr. Robertson has now apparently fully embraced the idea of legalizing marijuana, arguing that it is a way to bring down soaring rates of incarceration and reduce the social and financial costs.
“I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” he said.
Rush has lost at least 50 advertisers after his horrendous, personal attacks on a university student exercising her first amendment rights. Just what kind of advertisers does the big blowhard have left? Well, he’s picked up an online dating service for married people interested in extramarital relations. There’s your family values for you!!!
Advertisers learned something about Rush Limbaugh’s demographic this week.
“Here we thought lots of pleasant, upstanding people were listening to and enjoying the rational things Rush had to say,” dozens of companies said. “Apparently not.”
It turns out that people who really, truly still enjoy Rush Limbaugh’s show are — how do I put this? — jerks.
At least that’s what the new advertisements moving into the vast empty lot of Rush Limbaugh, Inc., implies. “Ah,” you say, as a rat runs over your foot and several people offer payday loans and try to sell you watches from their trench coats. “This place seems to have gone downhill somewhat.”
So far, he’s picked up AshleyMadison.com, the site where you go to cheat on your wife, and another Web site that is explicitly for sugar-daddy matchmaking.
Republicans in the House have basically gone after finance regulators in a way that would basically change one of the major mandates of the Fed’s economic stabilization mandate and the SEC’s ability to police the markets for fraud. The FED suggestions are outrageous. They would completely stop the FED’s ability to stimulate the economy and would change the composition of the FED board from economists to the Bank’s District Presidents who are answerable to their member banks.
The bill, which will be formally introduced later this week by Congressman Brady, would eliminate the employment leg of the dual mandate, requiring the Federal Reserve to focus only on price stability.
The legislation would also restructure the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The bill would give permanent seats on the committee to the twelve regional Federal Reserve bank presidents, who are chosen by regional Federal Reserve Bank directors. Those boards are composed of private citizens.
Yesterday, SEC chairman Mary Schapiro begged Congress to increase the agency’s funding, arguing that “the rapidly expanding size and complexity of the markets presents enormous oversight challenges.” Representative Barney Frank, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, offered a bill to provide that funding—and Republicans voted lockstep to trash it.
Republicans on the committee offered the perverse argument that since the SEC has repeatedly suffered oversight breakdowns in the past, it’s not entitled to additional funding. Representative Jo Ann Emerson, a Missouri Republican and member of the House Appropriations Committee, echoed this argument in the hearing with Schapiro yesterday:
“I think this body is reticent to throw more money at the SEC until ya’ll have proven that you have addressed the structural problems from within…in a comprehensive way,” [Emerson said]. “Since 2001, SEC’s budget has increased over 200 percent. Despite this tremendous growth in resources over the past decade, the SEC failed to detect Ponzi schemes such as Madoff and Stanford, the U.S. financial system nearly collapsed, and judges continue to question SEC settlements and regulations.”
Further starving a regulatory agency that’s already clearly unable to handle its massive mission is not a terribly convincing argument—one would have to truly believe the SEC is completely capable of policing Wall Street but simply suffering from “structural problems,” as Emerson asserts. (To give a sense of the very real funding problems, JPMorgan Chase—only one of the 35,000 entities the SEC is tasked with regulating—spends four times the entire SEC budget on information technology alone). But it’s the only argument Republicans have—the SEC is funded entirely by fees from the financial industry, so Republicans can’t carp about the deficit.
None of these folks seem to have any idea about what caused the financial crisis nor how much the underfunding and disabling of regulators and regulators have played into all these problems It’s really disheartening.
Meanwhile, Romney has told a university student that students going to cheap schools they could afford would be better than government student loans. BTW, where are there cheap schools now?
Mr. Romney was perfectly polite to the student. He didn’t talk about the dangers of liberal indoctrination on college campuses, as Rick Santorum might have. But his warning was clear: shop around and get a good price, because you’re on your own.
“It would be popular for me to stand up and say I’m going to give you government money to pay for your college, but I’m not going to promise that,” he said, to sustained applause from the crowd at a high-tech metals assembly factory here. “Don’t just go to one that has the highest price. Go to one that has a little lower price where you can get a good education. And hopefully you’ll find that. And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”
There wasn’t a word about the variety of government loan programs, which have made it possible for millions of students to get college degrees. There wasn’t a word urging colleges to hold down tuition increases, as President Obama has been doing, or a suggestion that the student consider a work-study program.
And there wasn’t a word about Pell Grants, in case the student’s family had a low enough income to qualify. That may be because Mr. Romney supports the House Republican budget, which would cut Pell Grants by 25 percent or more at a time when they are needed more than ever.
Instead, the advice was pretty brutal: if you can’t afford college, look around for a scholarship (good luck with that), try to graduate in less than four years, or join the military if you want a free education.
Robert Scheer writes about Dennis Kucinich who will leave Congress after his term finishes. His district was merged with Marcy Kaptur’s and she won on Tuesday. It’s an interest profile for a quirky politician.
Kucinich never competed in that way. He has been a national symbol of resistance to excessive government power and waste. He also has been a champion of social justice. His has been a rare voice, and one way or another it must continue to be heard. Simply put, when it came to the struggle for peace over war, Dennis was the conscience of the Congress. And he was always at the forefront in defending the rights of unionized workers who once formed the backbone of a solid middle class and who are now threatened with extinction.
Kucinich will surely be back for another turn in public life. As he put it in our Playboy interview:
“I appreciate Woody Allen’s humor because one of my safety valves is an appreciation for life’s absurdities. His message is that life isn’t a funeral march to the grave. It’s a polka.”
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
In The Land Of The Delusional
Posted: March 2, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Austerity, double-speak, Economy, income inequality, Mitt Romney, religious extremists, Republican presidential politics, the GOP, U.S. Economy, War on Women, Women's Healthcare 16 CommentsIn the Land of the Delusional the Koch brothers are principled citizens who merely disagree with Democratic policy stands and are aghast at the
vindictive slurs leveled against them and all other sincere, freedom-loving Republicans. In the Land of the Delusional, the hate and rage on review is a product of pink-bellied Lefties, Alinski acolytes, looking to take down American virtue and reduce the country’s might and glory. In the Land of the Delusional bankrupt ideas, economic mayhem and privateering can be obscured by attacks on woman, gays and the down and outers.
March is living up to its reputation—coming in like snarling Lion. Rush Limbaugh exposed a full Monty of misogyny, his comments on Sandra Fluke provoking even House Speaker Boehner to suggest the diatribe was ‘inappropriate.’ What inspired the outburst? Several weeks of desperate frontal attacks on women’s healthcare issues, thinly veiled and wrapped beneath ‘religious liberty’ arguments.
Let’s not kid ourselves! This is little more than shifting the conversation from discussion over economic issues, for which the Republican party has no credible position. The US Budget Watch has reported that Republican plans to slash taxes on corporations and high-income earners would explode the national debt up to $3 trillion. And for all the ballyhoo by the Norquist group the Washington Post reported [as well as many other sources] that the country’s revenue-collection has eroded to a 60-year low.
From the WP report:
Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.
But why let facts stand in the way. Paul Ryan, the Republican’s designated ‘serious thinker’ certainly doesn’t.
Ryan also complimented Romney’s economic plan. The congressman’s stamp of approval has been important for Republicans since he earned praise last year for his ambitious budget — which would dramatically change Medicare— from strong conservatives.
“Very credible. They are talking about entitlement reform. They are putting specifics on the table on Medicare and Social Security reform. The president, knowing that these are the big drivers of our debt, is ducking it,” Ryan said of Romney’s proposals.
Ah, yes. The ideologically blind leading those blinded by ambition. That certainly gives me confidence.
But as Paul Krugman suggested a mere 10 ten days ago, Mitt Romney let slip a truism in the swirl of Michigan campaigning when he said:
“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.”
Over which the ideological purists set the dogs loose. The Club for Growth immediately denounced the Romney slip, insisting that it was a clear indication that Mitt was an imposter, not a ‘true’ limited government conservative [translation: not willing to drown all government in that Norquist bathtub].
What’s a candidate to do? Retreat, of course, in the same way Romney flipped on the Blunt Amendment, breaking all records, I would guess. In less than an hour, Candidate Romney twisted from ‘not going to go there’ to ‘of course, I support it.’ Enough to make your head spin. This is a political party in the death throes.
So, what’s the best way to distract?
Let’s pillory the women, start calling them sluts or suggest they film sexual exploits for the sake of some overweight, mean-spirited shock jock. Or let’s pretend that the perceived decline of the Nation rests squarely on the shoulders of the Gay Community and their screechy insistence that they too expect and deserve [can you believe the gall of these people] basic civil rights. And don’t forget the statistics on the ever-expanding numbers of Americans slipping into poverty. We tried calling them losers and moochers. How about we deny they exist, the way a North Carolina legislator recently announced. Yes sir, that’s the ticket!
In the Land of the Delusional schizophrenics rule the day, magical thinking replaces reason and bare-foot and pregnant is a very good thing. In the Land of the Delusional all things are possible.
Except the truth.
Thursday Reads: Happy Animals, Dickish Theocrats, Jurassic Fleas, and ET’s
Posted: March 1, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primaries, morning reads, religious extremists, Reproductive Rights, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Politics, War on Women, Women's Healthcare | Tags: Darrell Issa, Davy Jones, dinosaurs, GOP convention delegates, happy animals, Jurrassic fleas, Michigan primary, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), Super Tuesday, The Monkees, theocracy 85 CommentsGood Morning!!
I thought I’d start out with something upbeat. How about some photos of happy animals? Buzzfeed has 26 of them. Here are some of my favorities:
How can you not smile at those? Check out the rest at Buzzfeed, and don’t miss the joyful anteater!
Now let’s get to the news. I thought Michigan was a winner-take-all state, but I guess not. The Santorum campaign claims the result was really a tie, because Willard and Rick the Dick will each get 15 delegates from Michigan.
While there has been no final determination of who won how many delegates in Michigan on Tuesday, current results suggest both candidates won seven of the state’s 14 congressional districts, each of which award two delegates to the winner. In addition, Santorum adviser John Brabender said the state’s two at-large delegates are likely to be split between Romney and Santorum because the vote was so close.
So I guess it’s winner-take-all by district? I don’t understand the GOP delegate system at all.
“It’s highly likely this is is going to end up being a tie, based on the data that we have,” Brabender said. “I don’t know how you look at that as anything besides this being a strong showing for Rick Santorum and anything short of a disaster for Mitt Romney.
“If we can do this well in Romney’s home state, this bodes well for Super Tuesday.”
Romney won the popular vote in the state by about 3 percentage points, according to the latest tally.
The final delegate totals haven’t been determined yet, according to the WaPo article.
According to numbers whiz Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics, Odds of a Brokered Convention Are Increasing
We’re finally close enough to Super Tuesday to get a sense of how the overall delegate count might work out in the GOP primary. The end result: Assuming that none of the four candidates drops out of the race, it looks increasingly as if no one will be able to claim a majority of the delegates. The candidate with the best chance is Mitt Romney, but he probably wouldn’t be able to wrap up the nomination until May or even June. The other candidates will probably have to hope for a brokered convention.
Trende lays out the Super Tuesday math state by state. Check it out at the above link. Can you believe Super Tuesday is less than a week away? I can’t decide if I should vote on the Dem or Repub ballot. I guess I’ll decide at the last minute. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren has any real competition, but I’ll need to find out for sure.
Ed Kilgore had an interesting post yesterday at Political Animal. Rick Santorum lost the Catholic vote to Romney in Michigan 44-37. I guess Rick has the Bishops but not the rank and file Catholics who like to plan their families. Kilgore:
Immediately there was speculation that Rick’s visceral dissing of JFK’s church-state relations speech might have contributed significantly to this result, or had perhaps cost him Michigan altogether.
That was my initial reaction, too, until I started wondering: why did we all assume Santorum had an advantage among Catholics in the first place? …. as I and others have amply documented, the idea that Catholics are more conservative than Americans generally, even on “social issues,” is pretty much a myth. But you had to figure that the kind of Catholics who choose to vote in Republican primaries are pretty significantly correlated with “traditionalists” like Rick, right?
That’s actually not so clear at all. The last contest with exit polling by the networks was Florida. There Santorum won 13% of the overall vote, but just 10% of Catholics; Mitt Romney ran a bit better among Catholics than he did overall. Now maybe you could say Florida’s heavily Latino Catholic vote is atypical. What about South Carolina? There Santorum won 17% of the overall vote, but just 15% of Catholics. Again, Romney performed a bit better among Catholics than among voters generally.
It doesn’t really surprise me. I wonder why Kilgore didn’t break down the gender numbers? I’ll bet Catholic women didn’t care for Santorum’s act.
The New Civil Rights Movement blog has more interesting details on which population groups voted for Rick the Dick and which ones preferred Willard.
Speaking of dickish theocrats, Darrell Issa may have topped Rick the Dick Tuesday at the latest War on Women hearing in the House. From the estimable Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches:
One of the strangest moments at yesterday’s very strange hearing on whether a regulation duly promulgated under a law passed by Congress was “executive overreach” and an infringement of religious freedom was when Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Not Catholic) asked to have the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae entered into the Congressional Record.
His point, obviously, upon questioning the now-ubiquitous Bishop William Lori of the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was to show the authoritative (or rather, authoritarian) roots of the Catholic opposition to “artificialqui” contraception.
There it is now, part of the Congressional Record! A document few Catholics follow, and which provoked dissent from (believe it or not) American bishops when Pope Paul VI issued it in 1968.
I’m really starting to tire of bishops testifying before Congressional hearings and now we have quotes from Papal Encyclicals in the Congressional Record?! WTF?
Via Think Progress, disgusting misogynist pig Rush Limbaugh opened his bit yap yesterday and
called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student whom House Republicans wouldn’t let testify at a contraception hearing last week, a “slut” and a “prostitute” today, because, Limbaugh argued, she’s having “so much sex” she needs other people to pay for it:
LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
You can hear the clip at Media Matters if you are so inclined. I decided not to listen.
Also at Think Progress, check out Alyssa Rosenberg’s Pop Culture Guide to the War on Women.
In science news, an article in Nature reveals that Dinosaurs had giant fleas–about an inch long!
Primitive fleas were built to sup on dinosaur blood in the Jurassic period, more than 150 million years ago. The potential host–parasite relationship has been uncovered thanks to a set of beautifully preserved fossils found in China.
Today, the varied group of parasitic insects known as fleas frequently infests mammals, birds and thankfully we have products like Comforits amazon to remedy those woes. But little is known about their origins. The flea fossil record consists mainly of modern-looking species from the past 65 million years, and the identity of possible fleas from the Cretaceous period (145 million to 65 million years ago) has been debated by experts. But Michael Engel, a palaeoentomologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, and his colleagues have now extended the history of the parasites by at least 60 million years. Their work is published online today in Nature1.
Engel and his co-authors studied nine flea specimens from two sites: the 165-million-year-old Jurassic deposits in Daohugou and the 125-million-year-old Cretaceous strata at Huangbanjigou, both in China. The insects were not quite like fleas as we now know them. Whereas modern fleas range from 1 to 10 millimetres in length, the Jurassic and Cretaceous species were between 8 and 21 millimetres. “These were hefty insects as far as fleas are concerned,” says Engel.
If you’re more interested in futuristic science, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is going “live on the web.”
Announced at a technology conference in Los Angeles, the site Setilive.org will stream radio frequencies that are transmitted from the Seti (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Allen Telescope Array in Northern California.
Participants in the project, being run by Jillian Tarter of the Seti Institute’s Center for Seti Research, will be asked to search for signs of unusual activity in the hope the human brain can find things automated systems might miss.
“There are frequencies that our automated signal detection systems now ignore, because there are too many signals there,” Tartar told BBC News.
I think just about anyone can volunteer to help sort out unusual frequencies from radio and TV signals.
Finally, Davy Jones of the artificially created ’60s group The Monkees died yesterday of a heart attack at 66. From TMZ:
An official from the medical examiner’s office for Martin County, Florida confirmed with TMZ they received a call from Martin Memorial Hospital informing them that Jones had passed away.
We’re told Davy suffered the heart attack at a ranch near his Florida home, where he was visiting his horses. Davy began experiencing distress while he was sitting in his car, and that’s where a ranch hand found him.
The ranch hand told Sheriff’s detectives … the singer began to complain that he was not feeling well and was having trouble breathing. Paramedics were called and Jones was taken to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. Authorities say there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding his death.
Here’s one of the group’s classic bubblegum hits. RIP Davy Jones.
That’s it for me. What are you reading and blogging about today?













Recent Comments