Ross Douthat is a Religionist Poet Quoting Hack
Posted: January 3, 2011 Filed under: Reproductive Rights, The Media SUCKS, Violence against women, Women's Rights | Tags: professional idiot, Ross Douthart 26 CommentsIf ever there was a need for some genetically manipulated critter requiring maudlin, self-serving millennial look-at-me-effete-snob-and-intellectual-dilettante-that-I am qualities and the actual sense of an eggplant, Ross Douthat could provide the DNA. I had to hold down a little bit of throw-up in the back of my throat while reading THIS spurious drivel. From under WHICH nasty critter-filled rock does the NYT find its op ed writers?
This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.
How many stupid diatribes do we have to endure from people that confuse scrambled eggs with fried chicken in the name of a mythological angry sky god before we move on to the living breathing BABIES that are treated abominably in this country?
Prior to his own personal religionist conclusion, he dribbles this:
Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.
And lives are what they are. On the MTV special, the people around Durham swaddle abortion in euphemism. The being inside her is just “pregnancy tissue.” After the abortion, she recalls being warned not to humanize it: “If you think of it like [a person], you’re going to make yourself depressed.” Instead, “think of it as what it is: nothing but a little ball of cells.”
He needs to look at the anti-abortion ‘swaddling’ in his own pathetic euphemisms before he gets all 3rd century on any one that actually CAN get pregnant. Let me just clear this one up for him.
It takes around nine months of gestation to get from picture on the left to the picture on the right. Picture on the right shows a living, breathing human being. At some point during the third trimester, the protohuman might become something that can be sustained on its own. It may live. It may eventually breathe. There’s a lot of stuff before that picture, however. A few fluttering heartbeats do not make a sentient human being. A few little buds that may become arms or hands do not make up a fully sentient, breathing human being. It is not up to you to figure out when it becomes a sentient being for every one, Ross. Science–at this point–can’t even do it. Science is the germane thing here for law; not your personal mythology.
But, more importantly, let’s keep this in mind:
One in four children are on food stamps in this country.
There is limited access to prenatal care in this country. Our rates for infant mortality are comparable to third world countries because access to prenatal care is restricted.
While extraordinary progress has been made in the last half century in infant survival and health, the decline in infant mortality rates in the United States has not kept up with progress in other industrialized countries. According to the most recent data from UNICEF, the U.S. infant mortality rate ranked 27th among 30 industrialized countries. In fact, in 2002 our nation’s infant mortality rate rose for the first time in more than 40 years; after declines in 2003 and 2004, the rate rose again in 2005, then declined again in 2006.
There are more than 8 million uninsured children in the United States. Millions more are underinsured. As a result, millions of children lack timely access to comprehensive health and mental health services, and must delay or forgo preventive care and treatment due to cost or other barriers.
- Uninsured children are 10 times more likely than insured children to have unmet medical needs, such as untreated asthma, diabetes or obesity, and are 5 times as likely as an insured child to go more than 2 years without seeing a doctor. Regular health screenings help doctors identify and treat problems preventively and are crucial to a child’s healthy development.An estimated two-thirds of children and youth with mental health needs are not getting the help they need. In fact, unmet need is as high today as it was 20 years ago.
- Uninsured children are more than 4 times as likely as an insured child to have an unmet dental health need. In 2000, children missed more than 51 million hours of school because of dental-related illness.
- Uninsured children are more likely than insured children to perform poorly in school; in contrast, enrolling children in health coverage has been associated with greatly improved school performance.
- Uninsurance disproportionately affects minority children. While 1 in 14 White children is uninsured, the statistic jumps to nearly 1 in 9 for Black children and 1 in 5 for Latino children.
Hell, we can’t even vaccinate our living, breathing, children.
Despite these improvements, one out of four Black two year olds—and one out of five Latino two year olds—have not been fully immunized.
Now, can we talk about access to Birth Control, sex education and Family planning that very might well prevent the little MTV “mishaps’ about which your sanctimonious white male ass is in such a bunchy about?
•Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia explicitly allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services without a parent’s involvement (as of January 2010). Two states (Texas and Utah) require parental consent for contraceptive services in state-funded family planning programs.[5]
•Ninety percent of publicly funded family planning clinics counsel clients younger than 18 about abstinence and the importance of communicating with parents about sex.[6]
•Sixty percent of teens younger than 18 who use a clinic for sexual health services say their parents know they are there.[7]
•Among those whose parents do not know, 70% would not use the clinic to obtain prescription contraceptives if the law required that their parents be notified.[7]
•One in five teens whose parents do not know they obtain contraceptive services would continue to have sex but would either rely on withdrawal or not use any contraceptives if the law required that their parents be notified of their visit.[7]
•Only 1% of all minor adolescents who use sexual health services indicate that their only reaction to a law requiring their parents’ involvement in obtaining prescription contraceptives would be to stop having sex.[7]
•Teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did in the past. Some 13% of never-married females and 15% of never-married males aged 15–19 in 2002 had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.[1]
•The majority (59%) of sexually experienced teen females had a first sexual partner who was 1–3 years their senior. Only 8% had first partners who were six or more years older.[1]
•More than three-quarters of teen females report that their first sexual experience was with a steady boyfriend, a fiancé, a husband or a cohabiting partner.[1]
I would now like to suggest that Ross Douthart is an irrelevant voice on the topic and he should STFU.
(Recent unplanned-pregnancy movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up” made abortion seem not only unnecessary but repellent.)
Here’s hoping his angry sky god forces him to a hell realm where he’s perpetually dealing with his own pregnancy under all the worst conditions imaginable. I would gladly offer up the few I had as an example trying to bring youngest daughter to term. Yes. Abortion can be THE moral choice. Also, it’s none of Douthart’s damned business under ANY circumstances. Maybe that’s his issue and that’s why he thinks it’s a paradox of all things.
Religionists on Supreme Court Damage Rights of Women
Posted: December 28, 2010 Filed under: Reproductive Rights, SCOTUS, We are so F'd, Women's Rights | Tags: abortion rights, Nebraska, religious nuts, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Samuel Alito 78 Comments
It’s obvious the real legacy of Dubya Bush will be his assault on the fundamental secular nature of the United States through court appointments. Republicans–and their appointees–appease people with such extreme religious views that we will need to remain vigilant for some time. These people murder doctors in their churches and harass women at health clinics day-in-and-day-out. They’ve done these things obsessively and zealously for over 45 years.
I think I’ve told you that I was stalked, slandered, and made generally miserable by the omnipresent fascist elements of the anti-choice movement just under 20 years ago as a young mother and economist running for state legislature. The only group to not only oppose me–but go out of their way to ensure nothing truthful about me or my positions was put out there–were religionists.
It doesn’t surprise me that the continuing hotbed of theocratic insanity in the entire area continues to be Nebraska. This is a state whose hallmark of fame right now is its continual brain drain and DINO Senator Ben Nelson who blackmailed the entire country for his vote on health care. Another big mistake made by the state was to put term limits on all its unicameral members ensuring they have a perpetual revolving door of hit and run policies. No wonder people leave that state in droves. Your entire life is in the hands of religious fanatics and the amateurs they bring to office.
The right’s continual obsession with letting women die or suffer to bring nonviable pregnancies to term is nothing but torture-based public policy laced with the sanctimonious mythology of “Eve made us all deserve to die in childbirth” . Here’s the latest craziness from Nebraska that will undoubtedly be given attention by even crazier people like Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia; the Republican version of the Spanish Inquisition. No science or medical facts here folks, just religious dogma from the dark ages please!
Gonzales v. Carhart was the 2007 court decision that values religious dogma over science, medicine, reason, and facts. It’s set the perpetual Nebraska industry of manufacturing laws to test Roe v. Wade in action. Millions of tax dollars will now go into defending a distinctly warped view of medicine. This one is based in the absolute lie of ‘fetal pain’ in early term pregnancies set up by Justice Kennedy. Kennedy also basically wrote that women were too stupid to realize they might come out of an abortion traumatized. He’s just one more adherent of that 3rd century mythology that needs to go away.
A long line of Supreme Court precedents seemed to stand in his way. But Flood believes that a 2007 decision offers hope for him and other state legislators looking for ways to restrict abortion.
Using that decision as a road map, this spring Flood wrote and won passage of legislation that bans abortions after 20 weeks. Introducing into law the concept of “fetal pain,” it marked the first time that a state has outlawed the procedure so early in a pregnancy without an exception for the health of the woman.
The law shut down LeRoy Carhart, the provider who had planned to expand his practice outside Omaha and provide late-term abortions to women across the Midwest.
The importance of Flood’s bill is likely to be felt far beyond Nebraska. Abortion opponents call it model legislation for other states and say it could provide a direct challenge to Supreme Court precedents that restrict government’s ability to prohibit abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb. (It also prompted Carhart to shift his practice east, and he has since opened a late-term practice in Germantown, outside Washington.)
Critics of abortion hail the law as the most prominent and promising outcome of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, in which, coincidentally, Carhart was the lead plaintiff.
The 5 to 4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart turned away Carhart’s challenge to the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion and appeared to mark a significant change in the high court’s balancing of a woman’s right with the government’s interest.
The ruling was a key moment in the emerging identity of the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who marked his fifth anniversary on the court this fall.
‘Fetal Pain” has no more basis in reality than virgin births and immaculate conception, yet here it is, threatening the ability of a woman to self determination, privacy, and life. There is also no such thing as ‘partial birth’ abortion. The entire thing is a public relations sham with no basis in anything but the desire of a bunch of crazed religionists to inflict their personal religious dictum on every one else. Since they can’t convert us all, they’ll force the law to recognize their extreme views through reckless Republican court appointments.
Kennedy’s ruling in the case–and his very words–are a warning to people who don’t like the government involved in their most personal and private decisions. It inspired Ruth Bader Ginsberg–a life long champion of women’s rights–to write a response and dismantle Kennedy’s attempt to logically explain a ruling based not on law, precedent, or logic. Kennedy’s rambling diatribe was both intellectually and legally weak. Its main tenets were clearly based in his own rooted need to defend his own narrow patriarchal misogynistic religious view instead of examine evidence and prior rulings.
He noted that the Casey decision affirmed the right to abortion before viability. But he said it also established that “government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”
Kennedy’s ruling was shot through with references to government’s interest in protecting the unborn and in making sure women knew the consequences of their actions.
He drew the ire of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others when he discussed the regret a woman might feel about the decision to end her pregnancy.
“It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound” when she learns the details of the intact-dilation-and-extraction process, Kennedy wrote.
In a dissent, Ginsburg struck back at the insinuation that a woman has not fully thought through her decision, or should be protected from making such a choice. “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution,” said Ginsburg, which “have long since been discredited.”
Ginsburg noted that, besides being the first court decision not to require a health exception, it as the first to uphold the ban on a specific procedure.
Leave it to Nebraska–a state with lots of land, buffalo and tumbleweed, and very few people that exists on federal funding and taxing people for gas as they drive through the state–to once again bring up an expensive test of our audacity to stand up to theocracy. This has been a tactic of theirs for decades. Nebraska no more represents the country than a penguin in ANWAR could. Nebraska is whiter than than the rest of the country and older than the rest of the country. It has only 22 people per square mile when the entire rest of the country averages 79. It represents a gone bye era in many ways but it still creates trouble despite its basic irrelevance to the country as anything more than a series of interstate stops. The state endlessly manufactures laws that impose a religious view on medical procedures that always require tax payer funding to fight it through courts. What I’m saying is Nebraska’s main export is test laws for Roe v. Wade. What a shameful legacy!
From little, irrelevant states like Nebraska,we get laws like those that force ‘biased consent’. That would be laws that force physicians to give state lectures rather than advice on medical procedures. But, this isn’t because of the state’s overwhelming concern for the health of pregnant women or fetuses or babies. Witness this little law that now plagues my ob/gyn doctor daughter doing residency in that hell realm right now. Many of her patients typically come in obese. She was telling me over the weekend that a BMI of 40 was not atypical. This puts a lot of her young patients into the automatic high risk/C-Sec category. Does any of this bother Nebraska? Hell, no!
Charities, hospitals and other nonprofit groups are scrambling to fill the void left by the state’s decision to end state Medicaid funding for prenatal services for low-income women, including many illegal immigrants.
In nearly two dozen interviews, Nebraska providers said that while they may be able to absorb the costs for women now pregnant, the long-term outlook for providing an estimated $10 million a year in health care services without reimbursement is bleak.
Hospitals are bracing to provide more “charity care” and expecting an increase in emergency-room visits from women who experience pregnancy complications due to the lack of prenatal care.
A couple of emergency fundraising events have been scheduled, and private donors and the United Way are being asked to dig deeper.
Clinics that focus on the poor and uninsured are shifting resources away from other areas, such as mental health and diabetes care, to cover the loss of funds for services that can head off expensive birth defects and premature births.
“We only have so many resources. If we start pouring more money into uninsured pregnant women, that will take away from what health care we can offer in other areas,” said Dr. Kristine McVea, medical director at the OneWorld Community Health Center in south Omaha.
The issue of whether hospitals, health clinics that focus on the uninsured and private physicians can shoulder the load for such low-income women without government help is now front-and-center in the controversy.
The debate intensified last week after a Schuyler, Neb., doctor said one of his patients opted to have an abortion because she couldn’t afford the cost of prenatal care on her own. At least seven other women in Omaha and Schuyler have told clinicians they plan to seek abortions.
Gov. Dave Heineman, who opposes government aid for illegal immigrants, has said he expects charities, church groups and others to pick up what the government cut off.
See that. They already caused at least ONE needless abortion. Of course, that law primarily impacts babies that infertile white couples don’t want to buy from the baby market, so the religionists are less concerned about that.
It’s about state control of women and children. It’s about the state making decisions that belong to individuals and doing so based on religious views alone. It’s about the improper role of religious belief in our country as written in The Constitution. Young women in this country better get a grip on what’s happening and pretty quickly. That’s because these same folks are after all forms of birth control and if they continue on with the same tenacity of lunacy, the pill will also be banned or hard to get. This is especially important because President Barrack Obama has left open many vacancies on courts and if he is a one term president, or a two term president with a senate that goes Republican, we can only look forward to more.











Recent Comments