Morons and Oxymorons: The Fruitless Search For A Moderate Republican

DonkeyHotey

The Republican Party has become such a far right party that a "Republican moderate" appears to refer to someone who occasionally gives lip service to reality, such as acknowledging the existence of climate change or accepting the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  This is not moderate at all but, even so, it is hard to find a GOP candidate for president who can meet even this generous standard.

Ohio Governor John Kasich once conceded that climate change was a problem but has more recently hewed to the standard Republican canard that, notwithstanding the overwhelming consensus of the relevant scientific community, “we don’t want to destroy people’s jobs, based on some theory that is not proven.”  Virtually the entire field either denies outright that climate change is happening or refuses to believe that it is caused by human activity.  Jeb! takes the relatively more moderate position among the GOP candidates which is to admit that man-made climate change exists but insist that the government do nothing about it.  He believes that climate change will be solved miraculously by American ingenuity alone and, disregarding clear Supreme Court precedent, asserts that environmental regulations aimed at curbing carbon emissions are unconstitutional.  Doing nothing about climate change is not a moderate position.

All of the Republican candidates oppose abortion rights.  Several have staked out the extreme position that abortion should be prohibited even in cases of rape or incest or where the health of the mother is at stake.  This would include at least Rubio, Walker and Huckabee.  And so, the relatively more moderate position taken by the rest of the field is allowing for the aforementioned exceptions.  (Of course, they would all defund Planned Parenthood.) This may be a moderate position for the Republican Party, but not for a majority of Americans. 

Rick Santorum compares the Supreme Court's Obergefell ruling that the Constitution guarantees same sex couples the right to marry to the Dred Scott decision.  Mike Huckabee has urged people to "resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."  The less extreme Republican position is accepting the principle that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land -- a view that, it should go without saying, should be a given for any public official.  This purportedly moderate stance on same sex marriage, however, also includes supporting a "religious liberty" bill that would prevent the federal government from penalizing businesses that discriminate against same-sex married couples.  John Kasich -- who as governor supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and supported appealing a ruling that found it unconstitutional -- is purportedly the outlier because he revealed a glimmer of humanity during the first GOP debate, admitting that although personally opposed to gay marriage, he went to a gay wedding and would still love his daughter if, hypothetically, she were a lesbian. That, I suppose, is the best they can do.

Donald Trump has gotten a lot of attention for his offensive, racist statements regarding immigrants and immigration.  His most recent proposals include building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, abolishing birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants, freezing green card applications and mass deportation.  Outrageous, you say?  Well, so-called serious candidate Scott Walker not only agrees but insists that he came up with these ideas first.  Governors Christie and Jindal like the idea of ending birthright citizenship too.  The more moderate position is to not support amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship but to build a wall to keep immigrants out while, magnanimously, agreeing not to deport those law-abiding, God-fearing immigrants who are already here. 

On most other issues the Republican candidates pander to the extreme right wing of their party --  refusing to rule out torture for terrorism suspects, supporting the repeal of Obamacare, proposing block grants for entitlement programs, opposing federal minimum wage.  And on and on.

The more polished, less overtly wacko Republican candidates supported by the pragmatic, so-called establishment wing of the GOP are treated by the media as if they are well within the mainstream.  But none of them can be considered moderate unless you compare them to their utterly bat-shit crazy cohorts.  This will be important to keep in mind when the eventual Republican nominee begins moving towards the center during the general election campaign and the media's selective amnesia portrays him or her as sane, reasonable and, of course, moderate. 

Profiting From Fetal Body Parts? The GOP Sure Is.

Guest Blog Post by Jodi Jacobson

It’s pretty much a given these days that no matter how untrustworthy or mendacious a group, politician, or individual, no matter their actual agenda, no matter actual facts or lack thereof, they can easily garner media coverage that in turn requires taking their claims seriously and as though they deserve merit, even when they are lying through their teeth.

Social media ensures that even the most salacious and obviously immediately suspect claims can “trend”; the desire for clicks over concerns about journalistic integrity drive even once-venerable media outlets such as the Washington Post to cover claims without inspection; and perversion of what it means to be balanced and unbiased have resulted in the public elevation of quacks into so-called experts whose opinions are sought even as they spread lies about everything from climate science to medical care. The public circus of media coverage and debate about lies that influence policy and affect real people’s lives and welfare has become all too familiar.

That circus is particularly well attended when it comes to anything and everything having to do with abortion, contraception, sex, gender, and reproduction, and certainly with Planned Parenthood. The effect is to provide fodder for right-wing chest-pounding about “life,” derail serious public debate about actual issues, and give self-important programs like Meet the Press something to discuss with faux experts so they can avoid tackling real subjects.

The newest example is in coverage of the so-called fetal body parts scandal, created by the “Center for Medical Progress,” named apparently by George Orwell, and an arm of leading anti-choice movement groups. The pattern they’ve followed is familiar and goes like this: Anti-choice group hires actors who, with camera in hand, pose as something they are not, in this case as representatives of a company interested in purchasing human tissue. The group surreptitiously tapes a conversation, the entirety of which is not clear, edits it into a shorter version (presumably on the assumption that in this environment no one will take the time to watch the actual unedited version, which in this instance is two hours long) and creates a sensationalized “gotcha” video combined with suggestions of implied wrongdoing under the law. They create an equally sensational press release. They release these like chum to the shark-infested waters of social media right-wingers, and the broader media laps it up.

In this case, the short video features a meeting between Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood and actors falsely presenting themselves as representatives of a firm that buys human tissue for research, though the reason for their interest is not made exceedingly clear in the video. (Indeed one of the actors is virtually incoherent and not very good at playing their part, but I digress). The video is angled so as to present an unattractive picture of someone eating their lunch while speaking. It features Dr. Nucatola clearly answering a stream of questions—though in what order and to which questions any of her comments are tied is not clear—about the donation of fetal tissue from abortion procedures.

That these donations are requested by (gasp!) the sentient, decision-making women exercising both their rights to terminate a pregnancy for whatever their own reasons and also making decisions about (gasp!) how to put to best use the tissue that results is not mentioned. Clearly, women who are choosing this option want their tissue used for scientific research or in some way to help others. And yet this, my friends, is the scandal of the century.

The video is further spliced with deep-voice-over imagery of federal laws prohibiting the sale of human tissue for profit, implying by association that somehow Planned Parenthood is both engaged in illegal activities and is selling fetal tissue for profit, neither of which is true, but … facts? Meh.

Still, since I am a bit obsessive about facts, let me give you some that are indisputable.

One, Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal tissue for profit. Rather, labs, companies, and scientists who might be interested in said tissue pay the administrative and shipping costs.  As noted by the International Business Times:

In the video, Nucatola appears to say it cost $30 to $100 for baby organs. But that might not have been what she was really talking about. In the unedited version of the video, Nucatola was discussing the cost of “space issues” and shipping, notes Snopes, a website that debunks Internet rumors and hoaxes. However, the viral video makes it seem as if she is telling the actors — who were hired by the activist group [which made the video] — about the cost of fetal tissue.

Two, people have a right to donate their tissue, organs, and body parts for scientific research and to benefit others. Organ donation, for example, is a thing. You may have heard of it. I am an organ/tissue donor, because I know that if I die precipitously and in good health, my organs—I am tempted to say “god willing” but I’ll leave aside the religious thing just for now—may save someone’s life. In fact, a real scandal? There are not enough organ donors in the United States to even come close to saving lives that could be saved. More than 123,000 people are waiting on organ transplant lists according to the federal government, and 22 people die every day due to lack of available organs. This. Is. A. Scandal.

Women who have abortions may also feel that by donating their tissue they are helping others. And indeed doing so is pro-life! Human tissue is widely used in research, and there is not enough of it available for that either. Fetal cells have in the past contributed to such breakthroughs as development of the polio and rubella vaccines. At its peak, polio paralyzed 1,000 children a day and threatened millions of people worldwide. Saving them and preventing a resurgence of polio is what the vast majority of people might consider to be a kind of a pro-life thing.

Planned Parenthood legally helps people who wish to donate tissue to do so. “Some Planned Parenthood affiliates have programs for women and families who want to donate tissue to leading research institutions that will use it to help find treatment and cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s,” said Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications at Planned Parenthood, in a statement.

He continued:

In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

“Standard across the medical field.” That means exactly how everyone else does it. That is kind of the way public health and medicine fit together for social good. And in fact, it’s all regulated. Federal and, frequently, state laws govern these activities, as well as ethical considerations. Patients provide specific consent to tissue donation. Planned Parenthood affiliates are eligible by law to receive reimbursement from tissue donation entities for the additional expenses related to tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance. No individual staff member or provider receives reimbursement; any reimbursements are provided to the affiliate.

Yet while Planned Parenthood does not sell nor profit from fetal tissue, you might be interested to know more than a few snake-oil salesmen and women are indeed now profiting off the “sale” of the fake fetal tissue scandal. Many of them are the people otherwise known as GOP presidential candidates, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (whose “pro-life” policies have resulted in a state with one of the highest rates of poverty and uninsured individuals and one of the lowest median incomes in the country), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) (who previously voted to defund Planned Parenthood and was among the first to get out a fundraising email to profit off the lie about fetal body parts), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Californian Carly Fiorina, who can’t decide what she thinks or who she is. Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is now in on the party, while he simultaneously tries to ram through every piece of anti-choice legislation not yet passed by his right-wing friends in the state house.

Pleas to “investigate Planned Parenthood” and kick a few dollars their way also came out today from Americans United for Life, Students for Life, and the Family Research Council. And in a response that appears to have been perfectly choreographed (and all of this is of course choreographed), Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO), and Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) have all promised to launch an investigation during a press conference today. There is nothing like paying Congresspeople to bloviate for months about ways to take down the nation’s primary provider of reproductive health care.

Who is profiting off fetal body parts? The people who make false accusations and waste taxpayer money holding kangeroo court investigations into public health-care providers that have saved untold lives. Who is losing? All of us, as rather than promoting and protecting the public welfare, politicians seek to advance their own careers by creating a fearful and fact-free universe attacking public health care and medical providers.

Jodi Jacobson is the Editor in Chief of RH Reality Check, where this article was originally posted. 

Censoring Doonesbury On Abortion

By Jodi Jacobson, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

What does it say about the state of our society when so many state legislators seem to make the passage of laws de-humanizing women their main priority, but newspapers are afraid of running comic strips satirizing these laws?

Garry Trudeau, the brilliant political cartoonist, has produced a series on forced trans-vaginal sonogram laws in Texas, intended to run in all papers that syndicate his comic strip. The strip depicts a “shaming room” and counseling by ridiculous anti-choice legislators in an effort to drive home how harmful these laws are.

Except not all papers who regularly run Trudeau will run this week's strip.

Doonesbury’s syndicate, United Features, has given papers that don’t want to run the strips a set of alternate cartoons. "Even though the real cartoons simply humanize the struggles of Texas women, many papers will call that “controversial,"" notes the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The list of papers taking smelling salts notably includes--in fact is weighted toward--outlets in states with the harshest anti-choice, anti-woman laws on the books or now being pushed by state legislatures. The Gainsville Sun and the Ocala Star-Banner in central Florida have refused to run the strip, for example, while the Florida legislature has passed restrictions on access to abortion for low-income women, young women, and just women women; mandates biased and medically inaccurate counseling for women seeking abortion; and has in place unnecessary TRAP laws (targeted regulation of providers) that have nothing to do with health and safety and everything to do with reducing access to safe abortion.

In Indiana, The Indianapolis Star has refused to run the strip as has the Pocono Record in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Writing at Colorlines about HB 1210, an anti-choice law passed in Indiana in 2011, Akiba Solomon states:

Among other heinousness, the law codifies what radical anti-choicers call ‘fetal pain,’ and requires a woman who has already decided to have an abortion to gaze at ultrasound images and listen for the flutter of a fetal heartbeat right before the emotionally charged procedure.
HB 1210 also strips existing and future Medicaid payments from “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” (Hospitals are exempt.) For those who don’t speak Radical Republicanese, “entity” means “Planned Parenthood,” which runs 28 health centers across the state.

Legislators in Pennsylvania, a state with high unemployment, high rates of poverty and many other problems, spent an astonishing 30 percent of their time last year on anti-choice laws, and yet have been kinda quiet lately on their own version of a state-sanctioned rape/mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound law ever since Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell got in trouble for that one, though he passed an abusive mandatory ultrasound law anyway.

The Kansas City Star has decided that the topic is too hot for its comics page, but will run the series on its op-ed pages. Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering a 68-page bill of abortion restrictions that RH Reality Check's Kari Ann Rinker calls one of the most anti-choice laws in the nation.

Creating a divide between what laws are being passed and what we are willing to portray in satire is dangerous. Some editors have said the comic "goes over the line." But if the comic goes over the line, what does that say about the law? And if we are willing to abuse the rights of individual people but not actually look at the reality of the state-sanctioned laws that do so, even in the form of satire, what does that say about the state of this democracy?

What it says to me is that in our society, it is apparently okay for the state to force a woman to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure--to humiliate her and to charge her for the costs of that humiliation--in order for her to subjugate herself enough to get what for her is a necessary--and legal--medical procedure, but not okay in the sensibilities of many newspaper editors to make such abuse visible to the public at large.

What it confirms for me is what I have believed for a long time... that the less "visible" are the human rights, economic, or social abuses we heap on people in this country--whether these take the form of mandatory ultrasounds to the shackling of pregnant or laboring women in prison to abstinence-only programs that de-humanize LGBT youth to the effects on low-income people of cuts in public transport, unemployment insurance and other social survival programs--the more we are willing to tolerate and in fact expand those abuses.

Because we don't see them.

Some papers are stepping up. The Washington Post is running the cartoons, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is running the strip, because: “Garry Trudeau’s metier is political satire; if we choose to carry ‘Doonesbury,’ we can’t yank the strip every time it deals with a highly charged issue.”

Especially not when the rights and well-being of women throughout this country are daily affected by this "highly charged" issue human rights abuse and will continue to be so until we make them visible.

Democrats Must Take The Offensive On Women's Reproductive Rights

Democrats See Electoral Gold in Birth Control Fight, But Do They See Women's Health?

By Joan McCarter, cross-posted from Daily Kos

The Senate is going to be voting on Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment repealing the administration's birth control mandate and with it much of the health insurance coverage the Affordable Care Act extended. Though the primary focus of the Blunt amendment has been on birth control, the actual language of the bill would allow employers to dictate all kind of coverage exemptions for their employees, under the guise of "moral convictions." That's a proposal, by the way, which is hugely unpopular.

Which is why Democrats in the Senate are anxious to take the vote.

Democrats see the vote as a way to embarrass Republicans — especially those up for re-election in moderate states like Maine and Massachusetts — and believe that the battle may alienate women and moderates from the Republican Party. Republicans need to pick up a number of seats to take back the Senate. “They’ve gone way overboard in the mind of independents,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, in a conference call with reporters, referring to Republicans generally. The fight over contraception, he said, “is going to do lasting damage” to the Republican Party.

Lasting damage to the Republicans is all well and good. The GOP's overreach on social issues has to come to an end at some point through a good electoral stomping, and it might as well be now.

But, Democrats, how about a little effort to take the bull by the horns and start making up for the huge ground lost to the zealots in the past few decades in women's reproductive health rights? Now that the nation has a crystal clear view of exactly what Republicans intend to do with the freedoms of 51 percent of the nation's population, it's the perfect time to be proactive with a coherent message to America's women that you'll start fighting for us again.

That goes for the White House, too, which seems a little hesitant to make this a real fight.

One White House official cautioned that should the debate devolve into shrill arguments, the net result would be the alienation of the independent or moderate voters whom Mr. Obama is trying to woo in his reelection bid. “Look, we don’t want to overplay this either, so we’ll be cautious,” another White House official said.

Just look, again, at the polling. There's no time like the present for getting just a little bit shrill. That's the least the nation's women deserve.

The War On Contraception

Conservatives Claim "Religious Freedom" Means Freedom to Impose Religion on Workers

By Bill Scher, cross-posted from Campaign for America's Future

It was just one month ago when conservatives were complaining that ABC's George Stephanopoulos was displaying his "bias" while moderating a Republican presidential debate by being "obsessed" with contraception and asking Mitt Romney a "gotcha question" about whether the Constitution has a right to privacy that extends to obtaining contraception.

Last month, Romney handled the question by saying "Contraception—it's working just fine. Just leave it alone."

But now, after conservatives began obsessing over the Obama administration's decision requiring insurance companies to include contraception in the preventative services covered for free under the Affordable Care Act, Romney has become a little obsessed himself, falsely claiming, "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience."

The obsession has now reached the Speaker of the House, who declared today that if the President doesn't "reverse" this "attack on religious freedom," then "Congress must."

Like most obsessions, this one makes no sense.

How is a rule, based on the law that Congress passed, providing coverage for a service that literally more than 99% of women use, somehow a blunt attack on religion?

How is a rule that is already the law in 28 states—without much of a peep from conservatives including Mitt Romney who was governor of one of those states—suddenly wreaking secular fascism across the nation?

How is a rule that makes eight states expand the exemption for religious institutions, take away freedom from religious institutions?

Most importantly, how is a rule that explicitly exempts "religious employers" a violation of the separation of church and state?

Questioning The Pink Scourge

The Susan G. Komen Foundation's shameful decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s breast health work has not merely caused a backlash against the organization, but has sparked an important discussion about the non-profit's methodology.  No doubt the Foundation, as Alyssa Rosenberg says, has done much "to make breast cancer a publicly discussable disease" and should be commended.  But, for those "who want a comprehensive approach to women’s health, and who want to give to a program that’s more about direct service and less about cancer culture and products, a reexamination of Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a healthy debate to be having and a spur to thoughtful philanthropy.

E.J. Graff puts it a little more pointedly:

The Susan G. Komen organization is responsible for the pink scourge in this country. Barbara Ehrenreich nailed the issue in her cult-favorite essay, "Welcome to Cancerland," which discussed the infantilizing and cutesy approach that has taken over the world of breast-cancer care. . . .[And] if you're a corporation that wants to do something that makes you appear female-friendly, just put a pink ribbon on your product—shirts, makeup kits, football players—or turn your website pink in October. Say that purchases go to "breast-cancer awareness" (no matter how small a percentage of the price actually gets donated). Voila! You are in with the girls. 

As reported in the New York Times, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October), executives at Breast Cancer Action, a San Francisco advocacy group, questioned "the value of pink October" and spending "millions more on promoting the medical status quo — annual mammography screening, that is — than they do on financing research into the causes and prevention of the disease." 

There are many questions surrounding the pinkification of breast cancer, including whether it trivializes the disease, permits companies -- many of whose products are associated with cancer risks -- to hide behind a pink veneer, and sidesteps questions regarding where the millions of dollars raised actually goes.  But as Rosenberg concludes, "it’s just too bad that Susan G. Komen for a Cure had to cut off aid to the women who need it most to get the conversation started."

The Cancerous Politics And Ideology Of The Susan G. Komen Foundation

By Jodi Jacobson, cross-posted from RH Realty Check

This week it became clear there are things more important to the Susan G. Komen Foundation--the fundraising giant that each year during breast cancer awareness month virtually swathes the United States in pink, a la Christo--than ensuring women are able to access exams for early detection of breast cancer.

What could be more important to an organization ostensibly dedicated to the elimination of breast cancer? Answer: The politics and personal agendas of the organization's senior staff and board, both of which have been infiltrated by right-wing ideologues and both of which were instrumental in a decision to deny further support from Komen affiliates to Planned Parenthood clinics that provide breast exams. In fact, it is now clear that some anti-choicers on Komen's board and senior staff are actually willing to sacrifice poor women to breast cancer to satisfy their own agendas.

Nationwide, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually, offering risk assessments, breast exams, breast health information and education, and diagnostic and surgical referrals. Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers have conducted nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams with funds from Komen, out of a total of more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide by Planned Parenthood clinics. Komen grants also supported more than 6,400 out of 70,000 mammogram referrals made by Planned Parenthood. These are affiliate-to-affiliate grants between Komen and Planned Parenthood sister oganizations at the state level.

A large share of the clients served at Planned Parenthood clinics are low-income African-American and Latina women. The National Cancer Institute identifies lack of access to early and effective screening for breast cancer (and hence lack of early treatment) as a primary reason that African-American and Latina women die of breast cancer at higher rates than the general population. In fact, Komen itself recognized these links in a 2011 statement lauding its relationship with Planned Parenthood:

While Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.

Komen further stated:

These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.
As long as there is a need for health care for these women, Komen Affiliates will continue to fund the facilities that meet that need.

But apparently those women no longer matter as Komen's support has now been withdrawn. Last month, the national office of the Komen Foundation, which maintains tight control over its state affiliates, sent a memo barring those affiliates from using money they had raised at the local level to partner with Planned Parenthood clinics in improving access to breast exams.

Why? Not science, not evidence, not concern for women.

Politics and personal ambition, pure and simple.

The War On A Woman's Right To Choose Continues

By Tanya Somanader, cross-posted from ThinkProgress

Tom Tomorrow

2011 was a banner year for anti-choice activists who succeeded in pushing through a record number of abortion restrictions. But it’s a new year, and it appears the GOP is dead set on outdoing itself. Republicans in Congress and across the country are introducing a variety pack of extreme anti-abortion bills — including personhood initiatives, heartbeat bills, and fetal pain bills — that saw some success last year. Here is a run-down of the abortion restrictions American women across the country are already facing in the first month of 2012:

– PERSONHOOD: The Virginia General Assembly’s very first bill, House Bill 1, is a “personhood” measure that defines life as beginning at conception and would essentially outlaw abortions. Modeling it on Mississippi’s failed measure, Virginia Republicans threaten to outlaw birth control and in vitro fertilization for couples trying to have a baby. Anti-choice activists hope to push similar measures in at least 11 other states, including Ohio and Kansas.

– RACE-BASED ABORTIONS: Following in Arizona’s footsteps, Florida Republicans introduced a bill that would “require abortion providers to sign an affidavit stating they’re not performing the procedure because the woman did not want a child of a particular gender or race.” Despite a complete lack of evidence, they insist that minority women are seeking abortions, or have a higher abortion rate in their communities, because they loathe the race or sex of the fetus.

– FETAL PAIN: Florida Republicans are simultaneously pushing a bill that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks based on the unfounded idea that fetuses can feel pain. “They suck their thumbs,” said state sponsor Rep. Daniel Davis (R). “They get hiccups. They get excited when their mom talks. They feel pain.” The medical community, however, insists that it is highly unlikely the fetus registers pain as its brain is not developed enough. U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced the same measure to ban post-20 week abortions for women in Washington, D.C in order to protect a fetus from “the agonizing process of being aborted.”

– HEARTBEAT BILL: Slowly proceeding in Ohio, the “heartbeat” bill is also gaining a foothold in the Oklahoma legislature. State Sen. Dan Newberry (R) and state Rep. Pam Peterson (R) filed companion measures that “require abortion providers to use a fetal heart rate monitor on the fetus of a woman who is at least eight weeks pregnant and make the heartbeat of the unborn child audible before an abortion is performed.” The heartbeat can often be detected as early as “six to seven weeks,” before a women even knows she is pregnant.

House GOP Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) are also pushing their own anti-abortion bills in Congress. Duncan’s bill would “require abortion providers to obtain written certification from a woman seeking an abortion, then to wait 24 hours after that certification before performing the abortion.” Jordan’s bill would “require women seeking an abortion to be given the chance to view an ultrasound of their unborn child before obtaining the abortion.”

Roe v. Wade At 39

By Casey Martinson, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

Earlier this week, Washington Post columnist David Milbank leveled criticism at both sides of the debate over reproductive rights, claiming that all of the sound and fury leading up to the anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision on Sunday is more about raising money for advocacy groups than dealing with the issue of abortion.

“If these groups cared as much about the issue as they claim, and didn’t have such strong financial incentives to avoid consensus and compromise, they’d cancel the carnivals and get to work on the one thing everybody agrees would be worthwhile – reducing unwanted pregnancies.”

He goes on to say that while abortion opponents should be criticized for “resisting easy birth control,” the pro-choice crowd should “drop the sky-is-falling warnings about Roe and acknowledge that…not every compromise means a slippery slope to the back alley.”

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of real-world evidence piling up to the conclusion that Milbank is being more than a little naïve, and there are probably a lot of so-called “centrists” in the same boat. So let’s set a few things straight.

First, the idea that the pro-choice community – whose most visible proponent is Planned Parenthood – has not “[gotten] to work” on reducing unwanted pregnancies is obviously absurd. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood affiliates provide affordable birth control to more than 2.5 million women each year, and sex education programming to over a million people each year – 24 million if you include traffic to online and mobile education resources. At the Planned Parenthood affiliate where I work, we see nearly as many people in the community through our education programs as we see in our health centers. And when we talk to elected officials, comprehensive sex education is always a top priority. Nobody is doing more than Planned Parenthood to reduce unintended pregnancy.

Second, I’m sorry to say that the sky is falling on Roe v Wade. It’s been falling incrementally for the past four decades, and it fell further, faster, in 2011 than in any year before. According to the Guttmacher Institute, state legislatures passed 94 new laws restricting abortion in 2012. Not only is that a new record, but it shatters the previous record of 34 new laws passed in 2005 by a lot.

Iowa Caucus Is Really About Abortion

By Amanda Marcotte, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

After what is the most protracted, ridiculous run-up to a primary season I’ve seen in the couple of decades I’ve closely followed politics, we’re finally going to actually begin the Republican primaries, a mere three months after everyone is completely exhausted of them. The entire situation is particularly frustrating, because the majority of the focus, from the media and the candidates, has been on Iowa, even though the state has been known repeatedly to give far more weight---and even victories---to candidates that have literally no chance of winning the Republican nomination, because these candidates hit a bunch of buttons for Christian conservatives but have little appeal outside of those circles. The 2008 win for Mike Huckabee, who was quickly wiped out when a more diverse group of Republicans got a crack at primary voting, is a perfect example of this.

To make the entire situation even more frustrating, for all the hundreds of cable news hours and column inches dedicated to the Iowa caucus, abortion is rarely mentioned.  The narrative this year is that voters are mainly concerned with the economy, which translates for conservatives into vague concerns about the deficit, even though there’s no reason to think that lowering the deficit through spending cuts would do anything but exacerbate the recession. The problem with applying that logic to Iowa is that it utterly fails to explain the voting choices of the Christian right which rules the caucus in the state. The differences in economic policies between the Republicans simply aren’t dramatic enough to explain Mitt Romney’s inability to get more than a quarter of voters behind him, for one thing. For another, just because the voters say they care mostly about economic issues to a pollster doesn’t mean that they don’t vote their gut when it actually comes time to make a decision.

To really understand Iowa, you need to understand the primacy of abortion as an issue to the Christian right. It’s baffling how little attention this gets, considering the tendency of all the candidates---and especially those whose numbers in Iowa, like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, eclipse what they can get in most other states---to make frequent statements about how they consider banning abortion to be a number one priority and the big issue of our time. Economic issues are confusing and the difference between candidates is too hazy to matter to the Republican base. Foreign policy doesn’t seem to matter that much at all to voters this year. But abortion is a nice, simple issue, and the candidates by and large seem to get what the media doesn’t: The more you pound the table and stereotype women who get abortions as heartless slatterns, the better you do in the polls.

G.O.P.'s Ten Most Extreme Attacks On A Woman's Right To Choose

By Tanya Somanader, cross-posted from ThinkProgress

Tom Tomorrow

2011 marked a banner year in the Republican war on woman’s health. Close to 1,000 anti-abortion bills sped through state legislatures as the GOP-led House led a “comprehensive and radical assault” on a federal level. But in surveying their arsenal this year, 10 bills stood out as particularly perturbing and far-reaching efforts to stymie women’s access to abortion services, birth control, and vital health services like breast cancer screenings. Here are ThinkProgress’s nominations for the most extreme attacks on a woman’s right to choose:

– Redefining Rape: Last May, every House Republican and 16 anti-choice Democrats passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. Anti-choice activists Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) tried to narrow the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” which meant that women who say no but do not physically fight off the assault; women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped; and minors impregnated by adults would not qualify for the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment. Smith promised to remove the language but used “a sly legislative maneuver” that essentially informs the courts that statutory rape cases will not be covered by Medicaid should the law pass and be challenged in court.

– Abortion Audits: The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act also bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance. Thus, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” This requirement turns the Internal Revenue Service into “abortion cops” who, agents noted, would have to force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” which made an abortion necessary.

– Let Women Die: This October, House Republicans also passed the “Protect Life Act”, known by women’s health advocates as the “Let Women Die” bill. The measure allows hospitals that receive federal funds to reject any woman in need of an abortion procedure, even if it is necessary to save her life. Though federal law already prohibits federal funding of abortions, the GOP insisted that the health care law “contains a loophole that allows those receiving federal subsidies to use the money to enroll in health care plans that allow abortion services.”

– Personhood: Mississippi entertained the idea of passing a “personhood” amendment to its constitution this year, one that defines a person as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” The measure’s “profoundly ambiguous” language regarding the definition of fertilization not only would ban all abortions, it could potentially outlaw birth control, stem cell research, and in vitro fertilization for couples struggling to conceive. Mississippians rejected the amendment but personhood activists are making headway with versions for other states and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is championing a national personhood amendment.

Mitt Romney Might Not Be Crazy But He Is Still A Wing-Nut

Donkey Hotey

Mitt Romney is touted as the most rational and intelligent, and least extreme and toxic of the silly collection of GOP presidential hopefuls. Also giving Romney relatively more credibility is the fact that the extreme radical wing of the Republican Party (perhaps a redundancy) doesn't trust him.  None of this, however, means Romney is anything close to a moderate voice, and his election as President of the United States would be an unmitigated disaster.

The New York Times on Sunday had a long piece on the methodology of Romney's private equity firm by which he made his fortune.  The article described the "unintended human costs and messy financial consequences behind the brand of capitalism that he practiced for 15 years," which propelled companies towards bankruptcy and led to "waves of layoffs."

I previously noted the troubling fact that Romney's legal adviser is none other than Robert Bork, whose radical interpretation of the Constitution either reflects or is shaping Romney's views.

After the most recent debate, Romney made clear that he is with the pro-torture crowd, with aides asserting that Romney does not believe waterboarding is torture, but that he "is not going to spell out" what forms of enhanced interrogation he would employ.

Romney's views on abortion have, shall we say, "evolved" over time.  What is relevant is his current position.  According to his spokesperson, Gail Gitcho:  Romney supports "a Human Life Amendment that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends the issue back to the states. Mitt Romney is pro-life, and as he has said previously, he is supportive of efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception. He believes these matters should be left up to states to decide."

He has also gradually "morphed" into a climate change denier, stating recently: "we don't know what's causing climate change," and "the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."

And, as Politico reports, Romney is relying on former President Bush's energy advisers:

Already on board the Romney train are Jim Connaughton, who ran Bush’s White House Council on Environmental Quality for all eight years; former Assistant Energy Secretary Andy Karsner; former EPA air chief Jeff Holmstead; and former EPA congressional affairs liaison Edward Krenik.

This is not a good sign.  Christopher Mims at Grist writes:  "Connaughton and Holmstead, especially, have made it their lives' work to cripple the EPA and block its new rules. They've done it from the inside as government officials and from the outside as lobbyists and businessmen, and they know better than anyone else what works when you're trying to tear down America's already kinda lax environmental regulations."

It sure appears that demeanor aside, Romney fits comfortably alongside the other Republican candidates for President.  This should be quite discomfiting for all of us.

Mississippi Egg-As-Person Amendment Defeated

By Jodi Jacobson, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

In a decisive and resounding victory in one of the most conservative states in the country, Mississippi voters defeated--by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent as of this writing--the dangerous Initiative 26, which would have defined a fertilized egg as a person with full human rights.  Had it passed, Initiative 26 would have outlawed all forms of abortion and many forms of birth control. The law would have made illegal many forms of fertility treatment and would potentially have criminalized miscarriage.  It would also have endangered pregnant women by making their rights to health, to health care and to bodily integrity subservient to blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses no matter how dire the woman's condition might be or what her situation.

At the same time, however, the outcome of 26 is bittersweet, given that as of this writing Mississippi voters also appear to have passed Initiative 27, a voter ID law that will disenfranchise many of the minority voters who already suffer discrimination in a state with a history of denying African Americans their right to vote.

If The GOP Controlled The Government It Would "Let Women Die"

The Republican War on Women continues with the passage in the House of Representatives of a bill that, among other things, would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to turn away women seeking abortions in all circumstances -- even when necessary to save the woman's life.  The bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate and President Obama would exercise his veto power if it did, but imagine where we would be with Republicans in the White House and in control of both houses.  Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of the invaluable website RH Reality Check, provides the details of what has become known as the "Let Women Die" Act.

House Passes H.R. 358, the "Let Women Die Act"

By Jodi Jacobson, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

Today the GOP-led House of Representatives, with the blessings and encouragement of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops and extremist religious groups such as the Family Research Council, passed a bill in a vote of 251 to 172 that would, among other things, allow doctors and hospitals to "exercise their conscience" by letting pregnant women facing emergency medical conditions die.

Yes. Die.

This is what the Republicans called the "Protect Life Act."  And no, I am not kidding.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it what it is... "a savage assault on women's health."

A Tale Of Two Countries: The Hyde Amendment Turns 35

For 35 years the Hyde Amendment has continued to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions -- except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is endangered.  The Hyde Amendment  must be -- and has been -- approved as a rider to the appropriations bill every year.  But it is far past time to reject what President Obama characterized during the health care reform debate as the status quo.  We should be demanding a roll back of the Hyde Amendment altogether.  -- Lovechilde

By Jessica Arons  This article was published on September 30, 2011, by the Center for American Progress

Today the Hyde Amendment, which bans Medicaid coverage of abortion with few exceptions, turns 35 years old. Not even its sponsor, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), could have imagined its unfortunate success. In its three and a half decades, the Hyde Amendment policy has crept into every government-run or government-managed program, including Medicare, the Indian Health Service, the Peace Corps, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the military’s Tricare program, and federal prisons. And with the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, restrictions on abortion coverage crossed from the public into the private health insurance market as well.

While such restrictions have some effect on all women, poor women and women of color continue to bear the brunt of this cruel policy. Women enrolled in Medicaid—by definition those with the fewest resources—were the first targets of the Hyde Amendment, but two trends have converged to make them even more likely to need an abortion and less likely to be able to afford one.

The United States now has the highest number of people living in poverty since the Census Bureau started tracking the data in 1959. And 14.5 percent of women lived in poverty in 2010, up from 13.9 percent in 2009—the highest poverty rate for women in 17 years.

At the same time, poor women’s rates of unintended pregnancy are far outpacing those of more affluent women. The unintended pregnancy rate for women with incomes under the federal poverty level rose 50 percent from 1994 to 2006, while women with incomes at or above the poverty line saw their unintended pregnancy rate decrease by almost 30 percent. Poor women’s unintended pregnancy rates rose regardless of their education, race and ethnicity, marital status, or age.

And so the chasm between these two Americas continues to grow wider. A poor woman is five times as likely as her higher-income counterpart to have an unintended pregnancy (132 versus 24 per 1,000 women of reproductive age), six times as likely to have a birth resulting from an unintended pregnancy, and five times as likely to have an abortion (52 versus 9 per 1,000 women). Indeed, more than two-thirds (69 percent) of women who have an abortion are economically disadvantaged.

Put another way, abortion is becoming a poor woman’s problem—just as more women are becoming poor. Yet because of the Hyde Amendment, a woman who qualifies for Medicaid due to her low income is denied coverage for abortion care. Instead, she and her family must divert scarce resources to pay for a needed abortion out of pocket.

The Hyde Amendment’s blatant discrimination against poor women violates the fundamental principles of fairness and equality that our country aspires to achieve. At a time when Americans are experiencing record rates of poverty and economic hardship, the Hyde Amendment only compounds an already difficult situation and cuts off aid to those who need it most.

Until the Hyde Amendment is repealed and poor women receive adequate support for all of their reproductive health needs, rich and poor women will continue to live in two different countries with two different sets of rights. This 35th anniversary of Hyde is nothing to celebrate.

Jessica Arons is Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at American Progress.

Loss Leaders

It is being reported that to reach an agreement to fund the federal government and avoid a shutdown the parties are only $5 billion apart, with Republicans insisting on $39 billion in cuts, while Democrats are willing to cut $34 billion.  They are this close because even though the Republicans keep moving the goal posts, the Democrats keep agreeing to to more and more cuts in order to reach a "compromise."  And now, the key sticking point seems to be the Republican insistence on riders, including one that would transfer Planned Parenthood funding to the states.  As Ryan Grim put it, "the United States government is on the verge of shutting down over a dispute about subsidized pap smears."

It seems to me that the Republicans don't really expect to pass these ideologically-charged riders, but are using them as bargaining chips to get more concessions out of the Democrats.  And it appears to be working.  While the Democrats are "bravely" resisting GOP attempts to use the budget standoff to to score points in the culture wars, they are willingly agreeing to massive budget cuts.

The Democrats long ago lost the argument that "slashing spending in the face of high unemployment is a mistake," because they never made it.  (See, e.g., Economics For Dummies, What Krugman Said; Must Read Krugman.)  Instead, they have quibbled with Republicans over the amount of spending to slash.  As a result of the Democratic failure to contrast their vision from that of the Republicans, if there is a government shut down, both parties (and the President) will be blamed for the ensuing damage.  (See Paul Ryan's Pitch.)  

And if a budget deal is reached because the Democrats have agreed to more cuts in domestic spending that will stymie the economy, maintain the inequality between rich and poor, and gut needed social programs in return for the Republicans dropping their demand to defund Planned Parenthood, the Democrats will not have a whole lot to be proud of.

Tom Tomorrow: The Republican War on Women

As usual, Tom Tomorrow captures the absurdity of Republican extremism.  For the full comic, scroll down to the Tom Tomorrow link on the right and click on the image.

The G.O.P War On Women Continues

More than a third of Planned Parenthood's budget is funded by federal, state and local governments.  The $75 million its receives from the federal government, which cannot be used for abortions, provides family planning services for low and moderate income women.  On Friday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the budget bill to deny funding to Planned Parenthood.  Early this morning, the House passed the Republican budget plan, which all told includes $60 billion in spending cuts.  The Democrats were unanimous in opposition.

Nancy Pelosi questioned the motives of the mostly male group of Republicans who were most vehement against funding Planned Parenthood, accusing them of trying to disguise their opposition to family planning by using Planned Parenthood "as a whipping boy."  Pelosi made the obvious point that "if you want to reduce the number of abortions in our country, you must commit to supporting contraception and family planning,"  She is right.  This isn't really about preventing abortions.  We know this because the amendment which cuts funding to Planned Parenthood also eliminates all $317 million in funding for the Title X program, which provides comprehensive family planning and preventive health services, including information and access to contraception, to low income Americans.

This attack on women and families is part of the familiar mean-spirited Republican formula of attacking government programs that help the poor and disadvantaged, and using wedge issues to fire up their conservative base. This latest move is so extreme, however, that it should serve to fire up the rest of us who care about women's reproductive health.

[Related posts:  Hyde and Seek; G.O.P. War on Women; Back to the Dark Ages]

Hyde and Seek

Responding to an intense public outcry (and a great Jon Stewart bit), the House Republicans have backed down and stripped from the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act the "forcible rape" language that would have severely limited the rape exemption for federal assistance for abortions.  That's great, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the rest of the bill is a wholesale attack on women's reproductive rights.

As Talking Points Memo reports, "the bill still contains numerous provisions that appear to dramatically expand federal limits on abortion funding. The new version of the bill apparently retains the clause that limits the incest exemption to girls under the age of 18 and language that makes it tougher for women to obtain abortion coverage through their private insurers."  And the bill would make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

For 35 years the Hyde Amendment has continued to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions -- except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is endangered.  The Hyde Amendment  must be -- and has been -- approved as a rider to the appropriations bill every year.  But it is far past time to reject what President Obama characterized during the health care reform debate as the status quo.  Now that the right has gotten our attention, we should be demanding a roll back of the Hyde Amendment altogether.

According to The Center for Reproductive Rights, because of the Hyde Amendment, "more than a million women have been denied funds to cover an abortion."  This, of course, has been particularly harmful to women of limited financial means, making it extremely difficult for them to "finance abortion services and severely limit[ing] their right to reproductive health care."

It is outrageous that the Hyde Amendment is renewed every year without a fight.  Let's have one.

[Related posts:  G.O.P. War on Women; Back to the Dark Ages]

G.O.P. War on Women and Compassion

As of this writing there are 173 co-sponsors in the House of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which was introduced by Republican Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey.  For House speaker and committed right-to-lifer John Boehner, this bill is one of the Republican's "highest priorities."  He hailed the introduction of the bill by stating:  “A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the people and ought to be the law of the land.  But current law – particularly as enforced by this Administration – does not reflect the will of the people."

It is bad enough that for 35 years the Hyde Amendment has continued to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions -- except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is endangered.  According to The Center for Reproductive Rights, because of the Hyde Amendment, "more than a million women have been denied funds to cover an abortion."  This, of course, has been particularly harmful to women of limited financial means, making it extremely difficult for them to "finance abortion services and severely limit[ing] their right to reproductive health care."

The Hyde Amendment is not permanent, but must be -- and has been -- approved as a rider to the appropriations bill every year.  The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would make some of the Hyde Amendment provisions permanent.  Even worse, the bill would substantially limit the long-standing exemptions for rape and incest.  As a Talking Points Memo report notes, "changing the way rape is classified when it comes to abortion (as well as strictly defining what 'health of the mother' means) have long been goals of the anti-abortion movement."

Nick Baumann of Mother Jones explains that this new bill would drastically rewrite the rules to significantly narrow the meaning of rape and incest for these purposes.  Under the bill's rape exemption, for example, federal assistance would be limited only to instances of "forcible rape," an ambiguous term to say the least.  This could exclude federal funds for abortions for pregnancies stemming from statutory rape, as well as from non-consensual sex when the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, or was of  limited mental capacity, and for many date rapes.  As for the incest exception, the bill would exclude women over 18 years of age.  Even the "health of the mother" exception would be limited to where the woman is at risk for death but not other serious harm.

There are other serious problems with the bill, including a provision which, Baumann notes, pro-abortion rights groups are concerned could lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.  In a Sunday editorial, "The New Abortion Wars," which strongly condemned the bill, The New York Times explained that the bill "would bar outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion well beyond the new [insurance] exchanges."  In addition, the tax credits small businesses would get if they provide insurance to their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortion.

In an earlier post, I referenced a Mother Jones article, The GOP's New Abortion Agenda, that detailed the Republican Party's top goals:  "Enshrine tough restrictions on abortion funding into federal law and defund Planned Parenthood."  (See Back to the Dark Ages.)  It seems that they are well on their way.  As for the latter, as the Times editorial notes, another bill clearly aimed at Planned Parenthood's health centers would deny funds for family planning services to any organization that provides abortion, even though -- as at Planned Parenthood -- no federal funds are used for abortion.  The Times rightly calls this "a reckless effort to cripple an irreplaceable organization out of pure politics."

While mostly a Republican endeavor, it must be pointed out that there are some pro-life Democrats in House too, including Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), a chair of the House pro-life caucus, who is a co-sponsor of Smith's bill.  The question, as always, is whether the rest of the Democrats in Congress and the President will stand up and fight hard for women's reproductive rights.

[Related posts:  Back to the Dark Ages]