War on Women's Health

I am a woman and I have these human rights:


The right to life.

The right to privacy.

The right to freedom.

The right to bodily integrity.

The right to decide when and how I reproduce.

We had evolved into a society that supports family planning and birth control with laws intended to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the state costs that go with them – through obstetrical care, pediatric care and welfare. In one state, a free birth control law for low income women was estimated to cost the state $1.36 million and save it $8.1 million. By driving down these medical costs, we also incent better financial circumstances for low income women and families.

Suddenly, mostly male legislatures all around this country are trying to take away these laws and our rights by passing new, absurd laws that truly speak to "big government" . Why?

Don't kid yourself. It's all about power.


Above is from a prior post..............

I look at what Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina have recently done to exact Big Government on women   (Big Government is only worthwhile when it is keeping a thumb down on women, especially poor women who are young or of color).  My favorite is in North Carolina where Health Teachers, under a new law, will be forced to tell kids in middle school that having an abortion may make it more difficult to conceive a baby later in life.   This, as far as I can tell, is a complete falsehood.

I would probably expound on it, but Helen Philpot of  the "Margaret and Helen Blog"   does so much better: 


http://margaretandhelen.com/    July 2 post or:

http://margaretandhelen.com/2013/07/02/if-my-vagina-shot-bullets-could-i-conceal-it-from-rick-perry-and-john-kasich/


Kasich's signing ceremony for his sneaky attack on women this week.   Note all the women who surround him in support while he signs.   Oh, they're all old white men?  Isn't that strange?

Bizarre or just not Inclusive?

I often wonder if some of the bizarre stances that Mitt takes are because being inclusive is just not something he has any familiarity with, at all. 

We will not hear the end of the snarky "binders of women" comment he made last night.  Was it the compelling point of the debate?  No.  Was it an example of how socially awkward he is, because his experiences in the high world of finance and the Mormon church have not provided him with a setting where he could learn about diversity and inclusion?  Most probably, in my opinion.

He obviously had a talking point memorized last night, and used it at the wrong time.  When asked about promoting pay equality on a going forward basis, really, all Mitt had to say was "I support that women should make as much as men do if they do the same work."  Instead, he decided to play up the one time in his career (his only political office) where he had a mixed staff of men and women.

He launched into a disingenuous discussion about his efforts to hire more women (6 out of 14) and stumbled over how he found the candidates in "binders of women" brought forth by women's groups.  He complicated his answer by dwelling on how women need more flexibility in the workplace, and he's granted it, by letting them go home at 5 pm so they can make dinner for the children.  OMG.

By the way, here's the real story of Mitt's feminine hires in Massachusetts:

In fact, Romney did not direct women's groups to bring him female candidate.  A non-partisan collaboration of women’s groups called  Massachusetts Government Appointments Project (MassGAP; a sort of regional Emily's list for appointees) was responsible for the effort in 2002, when the group's leaders realized that women held only 30 percent of the top appointed positions in the state.

Romney boasted that during his term as governor, Massachusetts had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America. "Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort," he said.
This statement, too, is misleading. While 42 percent of Romney’s appointments during his first 2-1/2 years as governor were women, many resigned, and the  number of women in high-level appointed positions actually declined to 27.6 percent during his full tenure as governor.

     ~real story as reported by Boston Phoenix reporter David Bernstein

Mitt created the culture at Bain Capital, and while he ran it, there were no female partners.  Today, only 4 female partners exist in the 49 partner structure.  Mitt Romney simply does not see women
as people who belong in the room where the decisions are made.  Pure and simple.

Smoking Crack AND Drinking the Kool-Aid

ACTUALLY SAW THIS BUMPER STICKER TWICE YESTERDAY

I wrote this post a few weeks back and wondered if I was too impassioned by what I consider to be a legitimate "War on Women".... and then this week the House of Representatives took a totally ugly position on Violence Against Women.  Another move that must have been inspired by crack and kool-aid.   It rekindled my fighting spirit.  See the next post on VAWA.  

Ok. So there are many state legislatures (Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania) who have considered and passed laws in the last 18 months that sew up any possibility of ever getting an abortion within their bounds, forcing women to undergo unnecessary ultrasound procedures, and flirting with the concept of "personhood", which means, frankly, that a person exists at the moment of egg fertilization....thereby raising all kinds of potential problems for their populations. (Need to take birth control in an oral hormone variety? It may be for birth control or to regulate heavy mensturation. I used the pill for 17 years. 7 of those were for actual birth control.... It may not be legal with personhood because the medication takes apart a fertilized egg in its earliest stages.... Go horseback riding in the early stages of pregnancy and then miscarry? Be careful. You may be charged with endangering a "person" by pursuing your pastime.) Ridiculous? Of course it is.

Since the 30's the Catholic church has pursued a course of action that imposed religion on a married couple's desire to have children. They advocated the "rhythm method"... a way to count days on the calendar to reduce your chance of conceiving without the use of any device or medication -- procreation being God's will.  The large number of children in many Catholic families in the 50's and 60's was a testament to the people following the Church's teachings... and the unreliability of rhythm.   In 1965, a poll of Catholics revealed that 61% of them thought the church would reverse its position on birth control. Indeed, it seemed it might be so. However, the modern Catholic church anchored its position during Vatican II, when Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae . In the years that followed, polls found that American Catholic women were using the pill in 66% of circumstances... 75% for those under 30. You hear now that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control; in truth, that number is a little high, but the real usage exceeds 90%. So what does it mean? It began decades where the American Catholic church began a long retreat from Rome.... divorce prohibition was high on the list, as well. And now the American Catholic church has a dearth of priests; not only because of the past pedophile scandals but also because standing up for these dictums is unrealistic in today's modern world.  In 1987, deaf to what was happening to their rules made by men, and not by God, the church entrenched by announcing it was opposed to in vitro fertilization.. on the grounds that it is harmful to embryos.  

What do today's state legislatures in many of the states (and notably, the distinguished gentlemen, Governor McDonnell, Governor Brownback, Governor Perry, and the delightful woman governor, Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma) have in common with the church? For the most part, the executive hierarchies in state governments and the hierarchy of the Catholic church are made up of primarily men. And somehow, these men believe it is their destiny to cast the law, make the rules, on what women have achieved in terms of their control over their own bodies and plans to give birth ... fought for over the last 50 years... in this year's legislation.

They are smoking crack.

They are made more delusional by the Republican candidates for President who  ALL backed personhood legislation in this election cycle and support measures like the Blunt amendment, which would allow EMPLOYERS to decide if their health plans would cover...procedures that the company was MORALLY opposed to.  This not only would mean employers could outlaw birth control medication in their health plans, but could take a stand on any prescription drug or medically necessary (as deemed by the patient's physician and agreed upon by the insuror) medical procedure they didn't like.  Somehow, I don't think Employers will be allowed to determine that a man cannot have a vasectomy.  Somehow, I think people will cry "foul" if an employer decides it won't pay for a child's operation to have tubes inserted in their middle ears, because the employer believes the procedure can be "over prescribed" in children.  

And then there are our Federal legislators, who aren't really passing laws to limit choice and to intrude in the doctor/patient relationship (actually, they're not doing much of anything to pass any laws at all)...they are just doing political posturing because they think that the issue of religious freedom (it is religious freedom for a Catholic University to deny birth control for its Protestant, Hindu and Islamic women employees) will outway the bedrock it is laid upon.... the dialogue of limiting access to birth control. They SAY it is not about birth control, but about religious freedom. But they are losing the communications battle, because this matter has been outlawed in many of the states, by Governors like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. It was never an issue then. It is only an issue because Obama directed the matter at the Federal level.

And, they have underestimated the groundswell of opinion of modern women. Call it what you will, call it religious freedom, call it birth control..... just get the hell out of our vaginal cavities and go win a damn war or anchor a wave of infrastructure rebuilding or jobs production.

They are drinking the Kool Aid.

There have been some cultural wars in America. Republican administrations need to heed the groundswell of sentiment among American women. Before it is too late. They need to put these types of legislation away, and focus on some of their other agendas... like limiting access to the voting booth and trimming the rolls of union labor. I am still an independent voter.  But what the party has become since 2010 is scary.  They need to dial it back.  Or they will doom the party.

STAND UP... AGAINST TYRANNY

THIS

IS

A TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND PROBE

What is it used for?

The test can be performed to evaluate women with infertility problems, abnormal bleeding, sources of unexplained pain, congenital malformations of the uterus and ovaries, and possible tumors and infection. The most prevalent use is in women who are not pregnant.

What is it not used for?

Examining the state of a fetus in utero is best done by a transducer, used over the abdomen. Most doctors recommend that the test be performed within the first 18-22 weeks of preganancy. A transvaginal probe is used only in very early pregnancy stages, when an ectopic or molar pregnancy is suspected.

So What Is Going On Now?

In inflicting politics and the law upon the relationship between a woman and her doctor, state legislatures in some states have decided that the perfect way to assist a woman to NOT make the decision to abort a pregnancy is to force her to get a transvaginal ultrasound. It does not matter that the test is medically not necessary. It doesn't matter that it will cause additional expense. It does not matter that the application of this particular instrument is humiliating for most women. It doesn't matter that the law will legislate that a doctor MUST perform this test on a woman who DOES NOT get a chance to consent to it.

Extremists have likened this to a form of legalized rape. Colorful language for a law and an unnecessary medical procedure that seems as though it is designed to inflict punishment on women. Why not just stone them?

The state of Virginia is such a state. They are on the cusp of making this the law of their particular land. Only the governor's signature remains. And then, the sometimes silent, incredibly vast anger of the women of the state of Virginia, and many of the men (55% of those polled are against this, ONLY 36% in favor) will begin the drumbeat of public outrage. The kind of outrage that Komen faced. The kind of outrage that OWS represents for another kind of situation. The enactment of this law will be the beginning of the end for Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, who can barely disguise his longing to be Vice President.

Because the kind of movement that is behind this bizarre legislation is the type of movement that has all along been thought to be anti-abortion. It had traction when it moved against procedures such as partial-birth abortion. It lost ground when madmen began to kill the doctors who performed abortions, which, I remind you, are lawful. It is now revealed to be "pro-family" (as defined in extreme), anti-contraception, anti-divorce, anti-homosexuality ... "the antis" go on and on. And as more of the extreme measures are revealed in states across the nation, the general public recoils at the thought that this type of social extremism not only exists in the 21st century, but that we have damn well made millionaires and political postulates out of some of the people who advocate it the strongest.

Check out McDonnell, with some of the text from his master's thesis:

he blasts... “the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state”..... and refers to the family as: a “God-ordained government,” ... he is against all efforts to “redefine family by allowing special rights,” not just for “homosexuals,” but for “single-parent unwed mothers” . He touts leadership as: "Leadership, however, does not require giving voters what they want, for whimsical and capricious government would result. Republican legislators must exercise independent professional judgment as statesmen, the decisions that are objectively right, and proved effective. " He states that "the government must restrain, punish, and deter” not only drug abuse and pornography, but homosexuality.

I won't go into his restrictions on no-fault divorce and the existence of day care, which supports working women, which is ultimately detrimental to the family, in McDonnell land.

I recognize him. In 1920, he would have been against my right to vote. Now, he somewhat serendipitously wants to probe my uterus.

Will McDonnell sign the bill? Will it begin a chain of feminine protest (or just logical protest) the country has not yet seen? Tune in. It could happen in the next week. If he's foolish.

Get involved. There is a movement in this land to restrict our choice, strip our access to prenatal testing, contraception, in vitro fertilization... and make us pay for it. This is not the platform that most Republicans want or believe in, but they have ceded a lot of the stagescript to extremists that believe a woman's place is in the kitchen... or homeschooling a half dozen children while men make the decisions for this land of ours. It is a rollback in women's rights unprecedented in the modern world. Stand up and and change it.