Once More, With Feeling - or - Stay the Hell Away from My Reproductive Rights!
--- Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop in Spartanburg, South Carolina 2/07
so, i read this article, which i've included at the end - which basically states that if women want to retain any power at all over their bodies, they should not, under any circumstances, vote for Sen. McCain
(please pay particular attention to his utterly inane and idiotic answers to a couple questions posed to him on the subject of sex education in the US)
*i have since added the above quote, thanks to Kirk, which leaves absolutely no doubt on the matter....
and, i realized that as far as abortion goes, i have quite a few things to say...
why isn't everyone Pro-Choice? - now, i'm not being obtuse or naive here - what i mean to say is - shouldn't all women, everywhere, want to keep their reproductive rights, um, THEIRS? - i mean, don't we have a right to say what we do with OUR OWN bodies? - no matter if you happen to personally feel that abortion is wrong - what right do any of us have to judge another woman in her reproductive choices? - we're not in her head, living her life! - what right do we have to impose our beliefs upon another?
“I
hope every woman in this country, whether they agree with Roe or they
disagree with Roe, whether they themselves would make one decision or
another, will come together and say: Pro-choice means that the Government respects the individual, and isn't that really what our country is all about?” --- Barbara Boxer
this compunction to pass judgment on other people in matters which are none of our collective business is really troubling to me - and to pass legislation on such matters is offensive to me - i happen not to be personally opposed to abortion - i have never had to make the choice, but i do understand that by the time it comes down to abortion, it is truly a hard decision to make - but, there are times that it is necessary (for any number of personal, medical, or economic reasons) - whether you agree with WHY it is necessary for someone else to make this choice, is none of your business - it is not your life - it is theirs
it is MINE
“Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion.
It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing
in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't
believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me
and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.” --- John Kerry
unfortunately, that does not seem to be the way America is heading
as an adult woman - is it too much to ask for the government to stay out of my sex life AND to stay out of my reproductive rights?
(and
i'm only dealing with abortion here, not any of the other personal
issues which the government also has no business poking its looong nose in)
apparently, it's like asking for the moon and the stars - actually - you might as well ask for your own galaxy!
Rewind...
As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," declared his firm opposition to certain affirmative action programs, and strongly endorsed a government role in "protecting traditional values."
-- No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985
Fast Forward...
well, he's certainly held up his end - restricting access to reproductive procedures and not even pretending that he and his like-minded Justices are ruling with womens' health in mind
April 30, 2007
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's regressive ruling on April 18 in the two abortion ban cases, women's rights advocates in Congress have introduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) S. 1173/H.R. 1964. This legislation, if enacted, would override the Court's decision in the two cases, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the court upheld vaguely-written bans that could prohibit the most commonly used and safest abortion procedures after 12 weeks of pregnancy.
In upholding these bans, five conservative Supreme Court justices have effectively overruled a core element of Roe v. Wade
that had been reinforced in many Court decisions: the requirement that
legislative restrictions on abortion must contain an exception to
protect the woman's health. The gravity of the Court's decision as it
relates to the health of all women of child-bearing age is immense. It
is a giant leap toward overturning Roe and, at the same time,
signals approval to the state legislatures with anti-abortion
majorities to move forward with abortion ban bills that would go into
effect when, and if, Roe falls completely.
With the two recent Bush-appointed justices—John Roberts and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.—and their anti-abortion-rights colleagues Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, it seems only a matter of time that Roe will be overturned by the high court. States will then be allowed to re-criminalize abortion; doctors and their patients would face the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment. Doctors will not risk the consequences, and women's reproductive health clinics will close. We all know what will take their place.
--- Freedom of Choice Act would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes
!!!
if i'm not mistaken, the other guy could croak any second...gee, i wonder who would take his place...
never mind the fact that uncontrolled birth rates would be a disaster for the US - um - see India - see China
The erosion of a woman's right to choose began almost immediately after the Roe decision, she said. In 1976, a law known as the "Hyde Amendment" outlawed the use of federal Medicaid funds to the poor for abortion services. -- http://www.counterpunch.org/higgs02012006.html
!!!
Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, anti-choice legislators in the states and in Congress have systematically eroded reproductive rights. State and federal restrictions already in place make reproductive freedom an empty promise for many American women. Many of these restrictions fall most heavily on low-income women and teens. For example, numerous states and the District of Columbia currently restrict low-income women’s access to abortion; and the federal Hyde Amendment bars access to abortion care for low-income women who rely on the federal government for their health care. Likewise, many states dangerously restrict teenagers’ access to abortion care.
--- ACLU - Support the Freedom of Choice Act
...because the smart thing to do is restrict access to these services to people who can't afford them and to people who are too young to be having babies...does anyone NOT see the socio-economic implications that this amendment has wrought and will continue to spawn?
and, thanks to Truthdig, i found this the other day...
Last November, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists outlined the ethical guidelines for doctors. Those who have moral objections to performing a legal abortion for a woman don't have to do it, but they do have to refer her to another doctor or health care provider. [ACOG]
We'll quote the ACOG: "Physicians and other health care
providers have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other
providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the
standard reproductive services that patients request. In resource-poor
areas, access to safe and legal reproductive services should be
maintained."
It would seem to be a straightforward, ethical guideline, but then the guys at the Bush White House decided to get involved.
Friday, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt in effect put an asterisk on the ACOG guideline saying, actually, he doesn't' think doctors should have to refer women to another doctor before they kick them to the curb. [HHS]
Leavitt: "I am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers ... It appears that the interaction of the ACOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification."
A) What? ACOG never said anything about losing board certification.
B) Leavitt expresses concern about the well-being of the doctors, which is all well and good, but what about the well-being of women who could be thrown out into the cold, unable to find accessible health care?
C) And according to OB/GYN Wendy Chavkin of Columbia University, Leavitt's policy may also allow physicans to deny emergency contraception to women who have been raped.
and so, here we have further intrusion into matters which are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS - and, not only that, but going even further to threaten action against the doctors themselves! - in essence, completely leaving women-in-need without options
now, compound the above with this excerpt...
Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on Campuses
In health centers at hundreds of colleges and universities around the country, young women are paying sharply higher prices for prescription contraceptives because of a change in federal law.
The increases have meant that some students using popular birth control pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about 400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.
The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.
Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pressing for new legislation by year’s end that would reverse the provision, which they say was inadvertently included in a law intended to reduce Medicaid abuse. In the meantime, health care and reproductive rights advocates are warning that some young women are no longer receiving the contraception they did in the past.
Some college clinics have reported sudden drops in the numbers of contraceptives sold; students have reported switching to less expensive contraceptives or considering alternatives like the so-called morning-after pill; and some clinics, including one at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Me., have stopped stocking some prescription contraceptives, saying they are too expensive.
“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not
you can pay for it, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop having sex,”
said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand
Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a
popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12...
...and what do you get? - young women everywhere - trying to get an education - at needless risk for pregnancy - do i need to spell out the socio-economic implications of this?
(btw, i'll have to look into that year's end legislation fix - if any of you have any info on that, please share it)
in 1995, my senior year in college, i paid 5 dollars a pack - for my BC - Ortho-Cept 28 - which, i am still on - it is subsidized here in New Zealand, in the socialized health system
(here, i do want to say, that if i get any moralizing on sex before marriage and how people shouldn't be having sex in college, i will be ignoring you)
it is possible to be sexually responsible (meaning have a healthy sex life and being responsible about it) if one is FULLY and EXHAUSTIVELY educated about sex
it is NOT possible without the proper education
and, how many times can i repeat this - abstinence-only sex-ed DOES NOT WORK - in fact, it makes the situation worse, especially among teens! - and WHY do we want teen girls at risk of getting pregnant though ineffective, counter-productive, and downright dangerous faith-based initiatives?
The evaluation, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, examined the impact of the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs funded under the 1996 federal welfare reform law.
Through the study, more than 2,000 children were randomly assigned to groups that received abstinence-only counseling and those who received no counseling. Over the next four to six years, numerous surveys were done to determine the impact of these programs on the behavior of the kids.
Researchers found no evidence that these abstinence-only programs increased rates of sexual abstinence.
The study also showed that the students participating in these abstinence-only programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs, and that the age of first sex was similar for both groups too.
"The basic takeaway message is that there are no differences between the two groups on any behavioral outcomes," says lead study author Christopher Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research...
"The data coming forth now is simple proof -- solid, unassailable evidence to back up what many of us have known from the get-go," says Joy Davidson, a certified sex therapist in New York City who is on the board of directors of the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapist.
"There have been studies that have been done over the last
few years at least that have made it quite clear that abstinence-only
education is not only a waste of money, but it is a danger to young
adults as well."
--- 'Abstinence Only' Sex Ed Ineffective
Recent surveys show that 70 percent of U.S. teens have engaged in oral sex by the time they reach 18, and more than 45 percent have had intercourse at least once. More than 70 percent of young women and 80 percent of young men approve of premarital sex, according to a study published recently in the Review of General Psychology.
In addition, studies show sexually transmitted diseases are spreading at an alarming rate among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly half of the nation's new cases of STDs each year occur among adolescents and young adults. A recent study found that teens who took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex ed classes ultimately had STD rates similar to other young people and were less likely to use contraception or other forms of protection when they did become sexually active.
In short, the idea
that teens will remain celibate until they marry — and that they don't
need information about sex — says much more about the values and
fantasies of the people who are promoting these policies than it does
about teens.
--- Abstinence-only sex ed defies common sense
and then there's the just plain WRONG abstinence-only sex-education...
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women
who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10
percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a
standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by
elective abortion, the Waxman report said...
--- Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
---------------
yes, i seem to have gone off on a related tangent, which actually segues quite nicely into the article about McCain below
but first, here are my final words on the matter:
supporting the restriction or total federal ban on womens' reproductive rights hurts ALL women as well as society-as-a-whole
WE MUST WORK TO KEEP SUCH MATTERS A PERSONAL CHOICE
we must work to maintain our reproductive freedoms
are we just going to stand by while control over our own bodies is eroded by legislation?
heads up, ladies!
or someday, women in the US will be fighting far worse battles for our freedoms
and i don't need to tell you the socio-economic implications of THAT
(anybody read Margaret Attwood's A Handmaid's Tale? - what, you don't think it could happen?)
* For Your information: Abortion stats for the US and more - also, if you click on the link at the top of the page which says "State Center" - you can find info on legislation for each state when you click on its location on the map
----------------------------
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031008WA.shtml
Why McCain Should Worry Women
By Robyn E. Blumner
The St. Petersburg Times
Sunday 09 March 2008
Sen. John McCain wants people to know that he is a true conservative. The right flank of his party, particularly blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, want to paint McCain as a closet pinko because he only has an 82 percent rating with the American Conservative Union. But McCain insists that his conservative credentials speak for themselves.
Believe him. They do.
What scares me most about McCain, beyond our 100-year presence in Iraq, his itchy trigger finger relative to other foes, and his enthusiasm for tax cuts for the rich, is his fiercely conservative record on women's reproductive freedom. Here, there is no moderate McCain or reach-across-the-aisle McCain. On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.
You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.
The next president will be the decider on whether women's emancipation from the slavery of the womb will continue in this country. We are on the cusp of losing the right to control our bodies and determine our family size. McCain promises as much.
Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.
But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn."
In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given half a chance."
McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective groups.
An intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly antiabortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again.
McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.
McCain is much more comfortable with President Bush's wasteful and utterly ineffective abstinence-only approach.
The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007:
Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"
McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
Do you really have to say such idiotic things to win the Republican nomination? It is an incontrovertible fact that the use of a condom will help interfere with HIV transmission. But I guess McCain sees it as a fact too liberal to acknowledge. Jeesh.
Now that the senator from Arizona has locked up the
Republican nomination, he may be spending less time asserting his
conservative bona fides and more time focusing on his occasional
bipartisanship. This appeal will help to blur his record. Yet any voter
who worries about government dictating to women what they can do with
their bodies needs to understand the danger that McCain poses. Roe
can't survive another president like Bush, and McCain is promising to
be just like him.
Comments
Okay this is an absurd suggestion by Leavitt and it is an example of where bureaucracy should keep out of matters that do not concern them and professional/ethical guidelines do not concern them. Speaking as a health care professional myself, I would be appalled if the govt interfered with my profession's ethical guidelines, which are there to provide the best possible care to our patients. Obviously Leavitt does not understand what an ethical guideline is and that is a model of best practice and it is not a law. It is an agreement by the members of the respective profession as to how to provide the best possible service and in the case of the medical profession, it is crucial that the best possible service is provided. A health care professional has a duty to cause no harm and to make sure that every patient receives optimal care. For any health related condition, a doctor must either provide the necessary service themselves or if they are unable to for whatever reason, they must refer the patient onto another doctor who can provide the patient with the necessary health care. That ethical guideline is not something that should be open to debate as it is an essential duty of a doctor.
Wow I am not sure who is making the profit in this case, but that cost seems totally over the top. We don't have that OC here in Australia, but I have just checked the cost of one of the more expensive unsubsidised OC here in Australia and its cost is $50AU/4 months.
I am starting to wonder if there isn't some hidden agenda in the US and that is to increase the US population by preventing BC of any sort.
It certainly worries me to think that a civilised country like the US could return to the archaic practice of backyard abortions with coat hangers and knitting needles as the surgical implements. The implications would be horrific.There is so much I could say and I could be here all night. So I will just make one more comment. Given McCain's following reply, I can only assume he must have been a student of the Bush administration's sex ed program (lack of ed). I think it says it all.
If it wasn't such a serious subject his response would be a joke, but it is NOT a joke in fact his response is pathetic!
i wouldn't be surprise if these kind of "back alley" procedures are being done somewhere in the states...
some more info for you and anyone else who might read this...again, the link i provided towards the end of my post is quite informative...
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=121780
Still, getting an abortion in some states is difficult. Local laws, culture and politics create widely varying experiences for women seeking to end their pregnancies.
In South Dakota, for example, a woman may have to travel as far as 400 miles to the one abortion clinic in the state, which is picketed daily and run by a doctor who travels from Minnesota. South Dakota doctors refuse to perform the procedure because they say all other patients would boycott them in the sparsely populated, conservative state.
By contrast, in New York, nearly all women have access to a clinic in their local community, and a woman of any age can receive an abortion, no questions asked, without counseling or waiting.
In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, an underage woman seeking an abortion must get her parents’ permission, but in neighboring Connecticut, Vermont and Maine, she can end her pregnancy without her parents’ knowledge.
In both Texas and Mississippi, a woman must undergo counseling, wait 24 hours, and if she’s a minor, get her parents’ consent before receiving an abortion. But because of differing state rules for abortion providers, a majority of women in Texas have local access to an abortion clinic, while women in Mississippi have only one clinic, which the state has threatened to shut down.
For a variety of reasons, the number of abortion providers varies widely from state to state, according to information compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights, nonprofit research organization.
In Hawaii, every woman has an abortion provider in her county. With a population of about 1.2 million, the state is home to 51 providers. In contrast, Idaho has roughly the same population, but only seven abortion providers.
In California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, fewer than 10 percent of women live in counties that lack an abortion facility. But 75 percent or more of the women in Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming must travel to another county to receive an abortion...
If the Supreme Court were to return states’ powers to ban abortions, even greater differences likely would result. The existing mosaic of state abortion restrictions would become punctuated by states that outlaw the practice. Exactly how any given state would respond depends on who is governor, what party dominates the legislature and the status of public opinion on abortion.Abortion policy analysts differ on the number of states they predict would ban the procedure if allowed. But a starting point is to look at existing state laws and court rulings that would come into play if states were free to ban abortion again. (See map.)
Six states – Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota -- have so-called trigger laws waiting on the books to make abortion illegal as soon as federal policy permits. Three more states – Arkansas, Missouri and North Dakota – have passed weaker laws declaring the state's intention to criminalize abortion, but experts say those laws can’t be enforced.
In contrast, seven states have passed laws ensuring the legality of abortion whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington. California and nine others also have constitutional language interpreted by courts as protecting a woman’s right to end her pregnancy. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) proposed a similar law in 2007 that would clarify the state’s liberal, but out of date abortion statutes.
I honestly believe the Republicans ran John McCain as a throwaway candidate. They were sure they were going to lose this time. Thaks to the dems and their asinine campaign they've actually amde it possible that this idiot wilbe our ext president. Just when you thought 'STUPID' had George W. Bush's face next to the word in the dictionary.
Oh I wish I was able to vote. But Aussies can't vote in American elections, which is a shame given what America does on an international scale seems to affect us all.
"But Aussies can't vote in American elections, which is a shame given what America does on an international scale seems to affect us all."
If only more Americas understood that. I always quote Spider-man on this issue-"With great power comes great responsibilty." I find it astonishing that people, even educated ones, don't realise that greed, hubris and lack of accountability are what caused the fall of every great empire. When it happens, many Americans will be surprised they've burned bridges with so many countries....
There was an opportunity after 9/11 for self examination, unfortunately it seems revenge was the only answer
One of my former posts.
People wonder why I get angry!
It is scary that all there may be between choice and no choice is a very old judge. I believe there is also a worry as to whether this judge may be the last link in the chain to prevent the US becoming a theocracy, with the possibility of the dissolution between church and state.
Anyway, I am not sure if you have come across this link, but it is of interest to your current topic. It is a short vid clip:
Would Roe v Wade Survive a McCain Presidency?
The answer is, NO it would not survive.
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin speculates as to what type of judge John McCain, if elected President, would appoint to the Supreme Court.
The above is a small excerpt from a larger lecture titled:
Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
In his lecture, Toobin will discuss the history, politics, and interpersonal dynamics of the Supreme Court - The New School
I've read that post of yours. And to me, it's not a wonder that you get angry, but that more people DON'T.
If you go to the main program and scroll down to the Q&A section you will see Q11 - Abortion debate and if you click on that link it will bring you up to that topic.
The speaker Dionne doesn't believe Roe Vs Wade is satisfactory anyway and he doesn't believe that abortion will be banned across all states, if it was to fall.
I believe Dionne agrees with most people who have commented here, that instead of debating the lawfulness of abortion, we should be allowing abortion but making more efforts to reduce the number of abortions. Ways would include better access to contraception , better sex ed - includes both abstinence and contraception education and give financial help to poor women who would like to keep their child. He quotes the names of two senators one pro-life and one pro-choice who would be happy to head in this direction.
Sounds like the way to go to me.
Of course I wouldn't suggest we vote for McCain and take a risk on this and so many other issues.