Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
I don’t think Barry Goldwater would recognize Conservatism or his Republican Party if he was alive today. Conservatism used to mean belief in safe and sound economic spending and freedom for all from governments getting too large and too restrictive on personal freedoms. Recently we have seen Republicans offer up a brand new and dangerous definition of rape in an attempt to restrict abortions and to restrict government money being used to pay for them. Now we are seeing another Republican attempt to restrict the use of contraceptives under the guise of ending the alleged use of Federal funds to pay for abortions.
A recent article outlined the legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Spence of Indiana to eliminate the entire $327 million dollar budget for Title X. Title X is a program that provides funding for women’s health and family planning costs. “The measure would eliminate all $327 million in funding for Title X, a family planning program that began 40 years ago under President Richard Nixon. And while Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the program, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services. The money is to be used for noncontroversial family planning services, mostly for low-income families.”
Rep. Spence and his fellow Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood because it receives millions from Title X funds to assist women in their family planning and health matters. In order to try to end abortions without testing the strength of Roe v. Wade in the courts, the sponsors and backers of this bill don’t care if low-income women suffer by not getting the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these same legislators also backed the repeal of the Affordable Health Care act which would also assist low-income women get affordable health care.
The proposed legislation would end all monies from Title X and the effects of those funds drying up could be catastrophic for women. “The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL said the legislation would lead to more unwanted pregnancies by cutting funding for contraceptives. “The new anti-choice House leadership now wants to take away birth control and cancer screenings from millions of American women and men,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL. “While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that’s the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy. Americans will not stand for this blatant hypocrisy.” ‘
Is it just me or do I detect a pattern here? What do these mostly male Republicans have against women? I was thinking of writing an article asking when America will have its own “Egyptian” moment, but maybe I should ask when will American Women have their “Egyptian” moment?
Source: Raw Story
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
360 thoughts on “The Right’s War on Women”
Use machine-controlled Blogging SoftwareThere are many software programs available that accomplishment to own, Alas in today’s world it’s of lilliputian more use than as a by-line.
Ahmadinejad isunbowed on just now own blogs instead of websites.
Indiana Bill Would Force Doctors To Tell Women That Having An Abortion May Lead To Breast Cancer
First Posted: 03/ 9/11 04:03 PM Updated: 03/ 9/11 04:03 PM
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of protesters rallied at the Indiana statehouse on Tuesday in opposition to restrictive abortion measures that would, among other things, require doctors to tell pregnant women about a controversial theory that says having an abortion could lead to an increased risk of breast cancer.
House Bill 1210, introduced by Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner (R), would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks. The Senate has already passed a similar bill, but it is awaiting action in the House.
The bill would also require physicians to inform a pregnant woman seeking an abortion that the fetus could feel pain and require patients to view an ultrasound. A patient could get out of doing so only if she stated her refusal in writing.
Turner was not available for comment on Wednesday, but he recently said, “The vast majority of both the Senate and House are pro-life legislators, and I think we truly represent Hoosier constituents.”
But one of the most controversial portions of the bill is the part that would require doctors to inform women about the risks of abortion, including “the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer.”
Indiana wouldn’t be the first state to promote this theory. According to the Guttmacher Institute, five states — Alaska, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia — currently include mentions of a link between abortion and breast cancer in written counseling materials.
In 1999, Nevada Republican Sharron Angle — who was then in the state Assembly and recently lost the U.S. Senate race against Harry Reid — proposed a similar measure requiring doctors to make the abortion-breast cancer link.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) and other major health organizations, however, have rejected this theory. In February 2003, the U.S. National Cancer Institute brought together “more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk.” They found that neither induced nor spontaneous abortions lead to an increase in breast cancer risk. In fact, the risk is actually increased for a short period after a woman carries a pregnancy to full term (i.e., gives birth to a child). According to ACS, these findings were considered “well established,” which is the highest level for scientific evidence.
In June 2009, the highly respected American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice wrote, “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”
“I think that the pregnant lady needs to have every bit of information that she can,” Turner said in defense of the strict counseling requirements in his bill. “I think it’s important that she see an ultrasound image of her child before she elects to have an abortion. She can see that it’s a living being.”
While some backers of the anti-abortion legislation turned out on Tuesday in Indianapolis, the Indianapolis Star reported that they were greatly outnumbered by opponents.
For Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN), which organized the rally, the fight is personal. House Bill 1205 would prohibit the state from “entering contracts with or making grants to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” While many pieces of legislation in Indiana don’t take effect until July 1, after the close of the legislative session, this bill has an emergency provision — meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage.
Planned Parenthood has 28 locations around the state. According to PPIN President Betty Cockrum, they serve 9,300 patients on Medicaid for a wide range of services including administering pap tests and STD treatment, providing birth control and giving annual exams. At PPIN’s other eight funded health centers, they serve 12,500 Medicaid patients. So if House Bill 1205 passes, PPIN estimates that approximately 21,800 Hoosiers would be affected.
Indiana is also central in the national debate on abortion rights. On the federal level, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is leading a similar campaign against the national family planning organization.
“We’re working as hard as we can to have the right conversations with legislators and leadership,” said Cockrum in an interview on Wednesday with The Huffington Post, adding that on the national level, one of their primary targets is Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). “I have to believe that Sen. Lugar is going to understand that taking family planning dollars away from existing health care providers to pay for birth control and pap tests isn’t good public health policy.” Indiana Right to Life, which supports Pence’s bill, also considers him a key vote. It recently sent an e-mail message to its supporters encouraging them to contact Lugar.
Indiana Right to Life has hailed 13 measures introduced into the state legislature this session, calling it the “largest array of pro-life legislation in recent history.” The group’s website states, “The flood of legislation is a direct result of the dramatic change in leadership at the Statehouse following the November elections.”
For now, these bills are all stalled. Indiana’s House Democrats left the state on Feb. 22 in order to prevent their Republican colleagues from reaching the quorum needed to push through anti-union legislation.
“How can he tell or madate to private insurance companies that they cannot include coverage for abortions?”
That’s what irks me. The Republican’s were so concerned about the nonexistent government takeover of healthcare, but have absolutely no problem with government dictating what coverage employers can (in order to get tax breaks) and cannot (lose the tax breaks) offer employees, even if the employees pay for it out of their own pockets.
I simply cannot in any way, shape or form, wrap my head around it!
Thanks for the interesting and scary link. Stupak’s legislation is trying to make abortion illegal. How can he tell or madate to private insurance companies that they cannot include coverage for abortions? This legislation is startling evidence of the horrors that are in store for women if this bill gets passed and confirmation that women are considered second class citizens under the Religious Right. .
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 9, 2011
Senate Rejects Defunding Planned Parenthood While House Escalates the War on Women Washington D.C.
In reaction to today’s events on Capitol Hill, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement:
“We commend fair-minded senators for rejecting the anti-choice House leadership’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and dismantle the nation’s family-planning centers,” said Keenan. “Unfortunately, the Senate action coincides with a War on Women in the House that continues to escalate. This extreme and far-reaching agenda is a wake-up call to Americans, who are realizing just how much time and energy anti-choice lawmakers are willing to expend attacking a woman’s right to choose instead of focusing on the jobs agenda that they promised Americans.”
Today, the U.S. Senate rejected the extreme House version of the continuing resolution (CR), legislation that defunds preventive-health services at Planned Parenthood and zeroes out Title X, the nation’s domestic family-planning program. However, women’s access to family-planning services remains in jeopardy as Congress now must compromise on a final CR that will fund the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year.
Meanwhile, a House Ways and Means subcommittee scheduled a hearing on H.R.3, the extreme “Stupak on Steroids” legislation, for Wednesday, March 16. H.R.3 effectively blocks private insurance plans from covering abortion care in the new health-care system and imposes tax penalties on small-business owners and many other individuals who purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion care. The legislation now has 219 co-sponsors, enough votes to pass the House.
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032
“If you’re against abortions? Don’t get one. Problem solved.”
I wonder if that same principle would work with kidnapping and pedophilia?
I am a conservative and I have served. But correct me if I am wrong, most of our wars were started by liberals and then the rank and file liberals ran to Canada. Or they get jobs and send civilian/military technology to our enemies. Think GE and Clinton.
Not all conservatives are chicken hawks.”
You are absolutely correct in the fact that many conservatives have been in the service and some have fought bravely. However,
many of the most hawkish of politicians were conservatives who called for or started wars, but either didn’t serve, or avoided duty in harms way. As to your assertion that most wars were started by liberals, let’s look at the record:
Revolutionary War: Were the founding fathers liberals?
War of 1812: Was James Madison a liberal?
Civil War: Was our first Republican President a Liberal?
Spanish American War: Was Wm. McKinley a liberal?
WWI: Yes one could call W. Wilson a liberal, even if he was a
racist and anti-Jewish.
WWII: FDR was a Liberal, but what would you have done after Pearl
Harbor? Senator Prescott Bush’s bank provided some of
the original Nazi Funding and was the sire and grand sire
of two Republican Conservative Presidents.
Korea: Harry Truman a liberal, with tremendous bi-partisan
Viet Nam: JFK was far from Liberal and also was heroic in war.
Richard Nixon served in the Pacific in WWII and
supported the war.
Granada: Reagan spent WWI as a documentary film narrator for the
army far away fromthe front lines. Jimmy Stewart, Ted
Williams, Bob Feller, Phil Rizzuto saw significant
Nicaragua: George Bush, Sr. had a good military record but
definitely started this war.
Desert Storm: Bush, Sr. again
Iraq 2: George Bush, Jr. was an Air National Guard deserter and
to boot the ANG was known as a haven for rich kids
avoiding conflict. Dick Cheney was too busy to serve in
a war he didn’t believe in. This failure to serve was a
general condition among Republican war supporters save
for Donny Rumsfield, who was a Sgt; in WWII.
Afghanistan: See above.
I would say that it was about even between conservative and liberal war starters. Many liberal served the country valiantly in the Armed Services. However, when it comes to hypocritical partisanship, even a legitimate war hero like John Kerry was savagely disparaged by conservatives who never served.
Not sure if it was this thread or another that mentioned adoption and foster care. Here is a little tidbit from a local paper…http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/father-of-dead-girl-injured-boy-pleads-not-1264805.html
strangely enough, the Child and Family Services dept. had been involved for quite awhile…you know, that group that like teachers are so incredibly underfunded…again, the concern for children in light of all the defunding in favor of corporate welfare is just twilight zone….
They don’t care about the future. They only care about making political points with their base.
What the hell manner of chaos and criminality is occurring NOW while the fundy right wing diddles around about Planned Parenthood.
What constitutional freedoms and principles are they upholding?
The mess they are making is going to bite their kids in the ass….
I mean new thread.
We need a news thread on the attack on produtive freedom. This is barely loading. I call an attorney with an IQ of 50 – someone who can’t pass the bar. Too many people stayed home in 2010. We had many arguments on this blog about what might happen. The worst is happening. I don’t see Tony C commenting here. At least the base is rallying now.
“Hey what do you call an attorney with an IQ of 50? Your Honor…”
Thanks – you beat me to it:)
I know, I know……..
Either house can fund anything so long as the revenue is there….But any project calling for new funding….such as revenue enhancement…..must start in the house…. Most people would call that a Tax…..I prefer the colorful words…then people don’t know what they are doing….
Hey what do you call an attorney with an IQ of 50? Your Honor…
Thanks for the link Lotta! I get it right every once in awhile.
I saw that the House passed the PP defunding bill. Thanks. I don’t think the Senate will pass it.
Joan McCarter, one of the front pagers at Daily Kos, has just published an article entitled: “House votes to defund Planned Parenthood, Title X.”
More of the Republican War on Women.
Rafflaw, I recall that you are correct, Aug 13 2010 decision from the Court of Appeals. Decision:
Comments are closed.