The Rise of Jane Crow
Posted: April 22, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights, Women's Rights | Tags: abortion restrictions, abortion rights, fetus fetishists, The Guttmacher Institute 16 CommentsNot since the country experienced the havoc of Plessy v. Ferguson have so many states done so much to actively
restrict rights recognized by the Supreme Court under the context of promoting imaginary state interests. A number of laws and constitutional amendments were passed during reconstruction that were meant to right the wrongs done to both free people of color as well as former slaves. Shortly there after, slave state after slave state tried to enact laws to chip away at the constitutional rights of black Americans under the same pretext that states had some compelling interest. In a similar action, we now see a variety of laws that imply that the state needs to protect a woman from her presumed bad judgment.
Lawyers argue that this is nothing more than an attempt to find doctrinal loopholes in three court cases. That would be Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and Gonazles v. Carhart. Each of these cases sought to compromise the constitutional rights of women and clearly inject the state into a woman’s right to self-determination. The latter cases have clearly laid out weirdish pretenses like phantom fetal pain or third term deliveries t mislabelled as abortion that have no connection to science, medicine or fact.
The Carhart case has activated 916 Anti-abortion measures in the first three months of 2011. Justice Kennedy owes every single American woman a huge apology. The Guttmacher Institute has a succinct list of trends resulting from the nonscientific meanderings of an Opus Dei adherent that feels the need to subject women to all kinds of harassment in order to exercise their constitutional rights just because he can’t keep his personal mythology out of his job duties.
To date, legislators have introduced 916 measures related to reproductive health and rights in the 49 legislatures that have convened their regular sessions. (Louisiana’s legislature will not convene until late April.) By the end of March, seven states had enacted 15 new laws on these issues, including provisions that:
- expand the pre-abortion waiting period requirement in South Dakota to make it more onerous than that in any other state, by extending the time from 24 hours to 72 hours and requiring women to obtain counseling from a crisis pregnancy center in the interim;
- expand the abortion counseling requirement in South Dakota to mandate that counseling be provided in-person by the physician who will perform the abortion and that counseling include information published after 1972 on all the risk factors related to abortion complications, even if the data are scientifically flawed;
- require the health departments in Utah and Virginia to develop new regulations governing abortion clinics;
- revise the Utah abortion refusal clause to allow any hospital employee to refuse to “participate in any way” in an abortion;
- limit abortion coverage in all private health plans in Utah, including plans that will be offered in the state’s health exchange; and
- revise the Mississippi sex education law to require all school districts to provide abstinence-only sex education while permitting discussion of contraception only with prior approval from the state.
In addition to these laws, more than 120 other bills have been approved by at least one chamber of the legislature, and some interesting trends are emerging. As a whole, the proposals introduced this year are more hostile to abortion rights than in the past: 56% of the bills introduced so far this year seek to restrict abortion access, compared with 38% last year. Three topics—insurance coverage of abortion, restriction of abortion after a specific point in gestation and ultrasound requirements—are topping the agenda in several states. At the same time, legislators are proposing little in the way of proactive initiatives aimed at expanding access to reproductive health –related services; this stands in sharp contrast to recent years when a range of initiatives to promote comprehensive sex education, permit expedited STI treatment for patients’ partners and ensure insurance coverage of contraception were adopted. For the moment, at least, supporters of reproductive health and rights are almost uniformly playing defense at the state level.
This is clearly a shocking conspiracy to deprive women of their autonomy and to inject the state directly into the middle of personal medical decisions. Op-ed columnist Gail Collins puts a human face on these statistics. She singles out the case of Texas which appears to lead the country in a lemming like march against science, contraception, and the idea that women are capable of making adult, moral decisions without the state giving them lectures, time frames, and measure after measure of harassment. An effort by one state senator to simply ensure that information handed out was medically accurate died in committee. It’s obvious these folks aren’t interested in facts. It’s a crusade back to the days when male high priests determined the will of the angry sky god and every one else just had to deal with it. There is no such thing as a lie to outrageous when it’s about a fertilized egg.
Meanwhile, on the House floor, anti-abortion lawmakers were stripping financing for other family-planning programs. Representative Randy Weber successfully moved part of the money into anti-abortion crisis centers for pregnant women.
“There’s been research done. … It actually shows the highest abortion rate is among women actively using contraceptives,” Weber insisted.
“These folks are anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-science,” said Representative Mike Villarreal, who tangled with Weber during the debate.
Villarreal has had a rather dark view of the rationality of some of his colleagues ever since he tried to improve the state’s abstinence-only sex education programs by requiring that the information imparted be medically accurate. It died in committee. “The pediatrician on the committee wouldn’t vote for it; he was the swing vote,” Villarreal recalled.
Welcome to the fact-free zone. This week, U.S. Senator John Cornyn gave an interview to Evan Smith of The Texas Tribune in which he claimed that the battle in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood “was really part of a larger fight about spending money we don’t have on things that aren’t essential.”
Remember, Senator Kyle claiming 90% of Planned Parenthood’s business was abortions when number is more like 3%? That’s just par for the course for the fetus fetishists. He later backtracked by saying his speech given on the house floor and entered into the record was “not intended to be a factual statement.” Well, that’s the problem. These folks are WAY short of factual statements. That’s not stopping them from passing laws based on pure fiction. After weeks of Stephen Colbert taking Kyle on via twitter and many news outlets, we still have right wing, Republican politicians completely lacking the facts. Here’s representative in Florida made yet another misstatement to the press about this today.
PolitiFact says state Rep. Ronald Renuart, R-Ponte Vedra Beach, was wrong when he said Planned Parenthood received more than a third of its income from providing abortions.
The national debate over funding for Planned Parenthood spilled into state politics in a recent House committee debate over a bill to require ultrasounds before having an abortion.
Renuart said, “almost 37 percent of the total income from Planned Parenthood is from abortions. And to me, it sounds like they don’t want to lose business.”
PolitiFact Florida rated the claim false.
Reporter Aaron Sharockman said Renuart is quoting from a Planned Parenthood study, “but he’s leaving out whole chunks of how Planned Parenthood gets its revenues.”
He said a better estimate might be 13 percent, but no one knows for sure because Planned Parenthood doesn’t release that information.
“Renuart’s overstating the number by not including other sources of income, things like private contribution, as well as the federal funding Planned Parenthood receives,” Sharockman said.
Renuart’s statement came during debate over a bill requiring women to get an ultrasound before having an abortion. It is awaiting a vote by the full House. A similar bill is working its way through the Florida Senate.
I think these guys think that some sort of 2 day fully complete mini-me will pop up in each huge projection of the ultrasound. They can’t possibly have even seen an ultrasound let alone know anything about gestational development. You would think that people that are so concerned about keeping government out of everyone’s lives would realize that they and the state are not the best decision makers on a medical procedure. But no, state lectures are the prescribed way of telling women they couldn’t possibly make a good, moral decision.
At this point, we’re all on the defensive. It’s obvious that there’s a nest of these vipers in every statehouse in the country and we’ll need to vote them out. Until then, be prepared for more fiction-based accounts of human development and laws based on them.
Tuesday Reads
Posted: March 15, 2011 Filed under: John Birch Society in Charge, morning reads, Reproductive Rights, Republican presidential politics, right wing hate grouups | Tags: abortion rights, Corporate SCOTUS, Glenn Beck, Kansas Republicans, no looting in Japan, The Roberts Court, Wisconsin Republicans 72 CommentsWell, things remain in flux. First, Senate Republicans in Wisconsin are still holding the 14 Democrats hostage to their policies and contempt.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald wrote this afternoon in an email to his caucus that Senate Dems remain in contempt of the Senate and will not be allowed to vote in committees despite returning from their out-of-state boycott of the budget repair bill vote.
“They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded,” wrote Fitzgerald, R-Juneau.
Republicans in Kansas are also suggesting some pretty bizarre things.
A legislator said Monday it might be a good idea to control illegal immigration the way the feral hog population has been controlled — with hunters shooting from helicopters.
State Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, said he was just joking, but that his comment did reflect frustration with the problem of illegal immigration.
Peck made his comment came during a discussion by the House Appropriations Committee on state spending for controlling feral swine.
After one of the committee members talked about a program that uses hunters in helicopters to shoot wild swine, Peck suggested that may be a way to control illegal immigration.
Then, Glenn Beck decided to take Pat Robertson’s place in talking about earthquakes, god, and endtimes.
Discussing the devastation in Japan on his radio program this morning, Glenn Beck lamented that we “can’t see the connections here.”
Beck said that he’s “not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes,” then clarified that he is “not not saying that, either,” then added: “Whether you call it Gaia, or whether you call it Jesus, there’s a message being sent and that is, ‘hey, you know that stuff we’re doing? Not really working out real well.’ Maybe we should stop doing some of it.”
Think that’s outrageous? Check out this one from a GOP House member from New Hampshire that at least retired after this comment.
Rep. Martin Harty, a Barrington Republican, has resigned his House seat in the wake of fire he drew for remarks on mental illness and population control.
Harty, who turns 92 this month, came into spotlight last week after telling a voter during a phone call that he thought the best treatment for the mentally ill would be a one-way trip to Siberia.
He also said population growth and mental illness could be controlled with eugenics, a form of genetic engineering commonly associated with Hitler’s Germany.
Kinda makes you wonder what’s wrong with some people in this country doesn’t it? If this is coming from the country’s decision makers and opinion leaders, I think we’re in a heckuva lotta trouble. Then there’s this bit of news on the Supreme Court coming from a study co-authored by conservative Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner.
… the Roberts Court places a huge thumb on the scale in favor of corporate interests. According to the study, the Roberts Court rules in favor of business interests 61 percent of the time, a 15 point spike from the five years before when Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court.
While the Chamber of Commerce has recently tried to downplay the favorable treatment it receives from the Supreme Court, its own top lawyer admitted a few years after Roberts joined the Court that the justices give his client special treatment:
Carter G. Phillips, who often represents the chamber and has argued more Supreme Court cases than any active lawyer in private practice, reflected on its influence. “I know from personal experience that the chamber’s support carries significant weight with the justices,” he wrote. “Except for the solicitor general representing the United States, no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.”
Phillips’ confession, and the Posner study’s conclusion, corroborates other data showing the Roberts Court’s favoritism towards corporate interests.
Women are definitely on the losing end of Republican Government overreach. Here’s the latest example from Iowa.
Life can’t get much worse for Christine Taylor. Last month, after an upsetting phone conversation with her estranged husband, Ms. Taylor became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs in her home. Paramedics rushed to the scene and ultimately declared her healthy. However, since she was pregnant with her third child at the time, Taylor thought it would be best to be seen at the local ER to make sure her fetus was unharmed.
That’s when things got really bad and really crazy. Alone, distraught, and frightened, Taylor confided in the nurse treating her that she hadn’t always been sure she’d wanted this baby, now that she was single and unemployed. She’d considered both adoption and abortion before ultimately deciding to keep the child. The nurse then summoned a doctor, who questioned her further about her thoughts on ending the pregnancy. Next thing Taylor knew, she was being arrested for attempted feticide. Apparently the nurse and doctor thought that Taylor threw herself down the stairs on purpose.
According to Iowa state law, attempted feticide is an trying “to intentionally terminate a human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy.” At least 37 states have similar laws. Taylor spent two days in jail before being released. That’s right, a pregnant woman was jailed for admitting to thinking about an abortion at some point early in her pregnancy and then having the audacity to fall down some stairs a couple of months later. Please tell me you find this as horrifying as I do.
With that bit of news, I’d like to recommend something Bostonboomer found yesterday by Chris Hedges: Power Concedes Nothing Without a Demand.
The liberal class is discovering what happens when you tolerate the intolerant. Let hate speech pollute the airways. Let corporations buy up your courts and state and federal legislative bodies. Let the Christian religion be manipulated by charlatans to demonize Muslims, gays and intellectuals, discredit science and become a source of personal enrichment. Let unions wither under corporate assault. Let social services and public education be stripped of funding. Let Wall Street loot the national treasury with impunity. Let sleazy con artists use lies and deception to carry out unethical sting operations on tottering liberal institutions, and you roll out the welcome mat for fascism.
Well, there are some places in the world where people see themselves as altogether in one big struggle against the bad things that happen. The Japanese are certainly providing some good examples of resilience and human strength in the face of some horrendous disasters. In the UK, The Telegraph asks: ‘Why is there no looting in Japan?’
The landscape of parts of Japan looks like the aftermath of World War Two; no industrialised country since then has suffered such a death toll. The one tiny, tiny consolation is the extent to which it shows how humanity can rally round in times of adversity, with heroic British rescue teams joining colleagues from the US and elsewhere to fly out.
And solidarity seems especially strong in Japan itself. Perhaps even more impressive than Japan’s technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting, and I’m not the only one curious about this.
This is quite unusual among human cultures, and it’s unlikely it would be the case in Britain. During the 2007 floods in the West Country abandoned cars were broken into and free packs of bottled water were stolen. There was looting in Chile after the earthquake last year – so much so that troops were sent in; in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina saw looting on a shocking scale.
Why do some cultures react to disaster by reverting to everyone for himself, but others – especially the Japanese – display altruism even in adversity?
We might ask ourselves the same question. Why is it that some folks display altruism even in adversity?
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
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.
Another Straw Man Down
Posted: December 4, 2008 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: abortion, abortion rights, and depression, mega study on women, no evidence of depression after abortions. 2 Comments
Any one who has dealt with anti-choice zealots knows they will say and do anything to stop a woman from exercising her right to terminate pregnancies. This includes the use of a number of number of pseudoscientific studies that supposedly justify what is essentially their narrow religious viewpoints with facts and the scientific method. Today, one more scientific study has shown yet another religious right talking point on abortion supposedly backed by scientific study is just that, a talking point, with no basis in fact. It’s time for women’s rights advocates to get this information out so we reframe this in terms of science and not patriarchal religious tomes.
Abortion not seen linked with depression
Review of studies found no evidence of emotional harm after procedure








Recent Comments