The Latest “Culture of Life” Bill Would Allow Hospitals to Let Women Die

Talking Points Memo has the details:

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the “Protect Life Act,” would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

Read the rest of this entry »


House Republicans Want to Change the Definition of Rape

OK, this is too much. If you need any more convincing that Republicans are just plain evil, check out this story at Mother Jones on the GOP’s new plan to limit funds for abortion.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith’s spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old’s parents wouldn’t be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn’t be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

Unbelievable!! Don’t these people have any human decency? Are they so brainwashed by their fundamentalist religions that they are incapable of empathizing with a young girl who has been impregnated by her own father and could die if forced to give birth?

And get this, there is no definition of “forcible rape” in the bill. So who decides what “forcible” means? Many states do not have an official definition of “forcible rape,” so it could be that no woman in those states could qualify.

It sounds like overt violence has to be involved in order for the House GOPers to certify that the woman or little girl can get funding for an abortion. Under this policy, according to Mother Jones, women who have been date raped, women who have been drugged and raped, and women who are taken advantage of because they are drunk or have cognitive disabilities would not meet the requirements.

If this bill passed, what would it do to public perceptions about rape. Before the women’s movement rapes were hardly ever successfully prosecuted. It was assumed that women “asked for it”–they were wearing the wrong clothing, or they acted in provocative ways. If the police thought the women didn’t fight hard enough, her case might not even get to court. For years a battle has been waged to change public perceptions around rape. But now we may be taken back to square one.

It’s really hard to believe that so many of these right wing Republicans claim to follow Jesus’ teachings. This bill is the product of heartless, cruel people with sick minds.


Rick Santorum: Obama’s abortion views “almost remarkable for a black man.”

From ABC News:

In a recent interview with the Christian News Service, Santorum argued that because of his race, Obama should be able to say definitively that the life of unborn children is protected under the Constitution.

“The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says ‘no,’” Santorum said in a televised interview. “Well if that person — human life is not a person — then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘we’re going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

Santorum was referring to comments, now more than two years old, that Obama made as a candidate for president in which he said that the question of whether a baby should have human rights was “above my pay grade.”

WTF?!

Santorum is supposedly running for President in 2012. It looks like his campaign may be short-lived. Comments?


“There is no cause more noble than the defense of human life”

John Boehner cares deeply about human life

That’s a quote from the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner. From The New York Times:

In a speech to the Right to Life Committee in June, Mr. Boehner explained the roots of his beliefs.

“I grew up in a small house in Cincinnati with a big family, 11 brothers and sisters,” Mr. Boehner said. “My parents sent all 12 of us to Catholic schools.” At those schools, he said, “we learned about deeper values, and respect for life was at the top of that list.”

Except as far as I can tell, the only form of life that Boeher holds sacred is fetuses. He seemingly has no objection to lives being lost during pointless wars, he voted against stem cell research which would help people with deadly diseases, and I would be very surprised if he doesn’t support capital punishment. Boehner apparently doesn’t value women’s lives very much, since he voted against equal pay for women.

Because of his deep “respect for life,” Boehner strongly supports the goals of the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), whose committee “has jurisdiction over private health insurance, Medicaid and much of Medicare, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health,”

Pitts primary goal is to repeal Obama’s health care reform law.

Short of that goal, Mr. Pitts said he was determined to ban federal subsidy payments to any health insurance plans that include coverage of abortion — a benefit now offered by many private health plans.

Under the new law, the federal government is expected to spend more than $450 billion in subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance from 2014 to 2019.

When Congress was writing the law, Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, led efforts to restrict the use of federal money for insurance plans covering abortion. Mr. Pitts, though less well known, was the chief Republican co-author of the “Stupak amendment.”

Joe Pitts, another lover of human life

From his powerful new perch, Mr. Pitts said he would try again to impose those restrictions.

“The new health care law is riddled with loopholes that allow taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion,” Mr. Pitts said.

In its current form, the Obama health care law allows health plans to cover abortions, but no federal money can be used to pay for them. To make sure not a single cent of taxpayer money gets used in that way, patients must write two separate checks–one for health coverage and one completely out-of-pocket for abortion coverage. Furthermore, insurance companies have to keep the money in separate back accounts! In addition President Obama, the great progressive, issued an executive order to make it absolutely clear that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions.

But none of that was good enough for Joe Pitts. He wants to make sure that no plan that makes abortion coverage available can receive subsidies under the new law. In effect this would ban abortion, since the few doctors who still perform the procedure aren’t likely to keep doing so if they aren’t covered by insurance. Frankly, I think the current rules will probably lead to this result, but Joe Pitts and John Boehner want to make absolutely sure. Because they care so very deeply about human life.

God, I’m so sick of Republicans. If only we could have gotten a Democrat into the White House in 2008, maybe Democrats would still control Congress.


Another Straw Man Down

wollstonecraft-right-of-womanAny 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

Read the rest of this entry »