Justifying Abortion

Let me begin by saying, none of your business.  We need to remember this.  Our right to a medical procedure is nobody's business.  And yet because we are constantly under attack for the freedom to decide to have an abortion, we have found it necessary to tell private, personal stories and to attempt to provide a justification for those decisions that are palatable to religious radicals in this country that are no better than the Taliban.

Here's another point:  we allowed the insurance industry to increase premiums on those who smoke.  At some point, we will allow them to increase premiums on the obese.  With DNA testing, it will become possible to increase premiums for those who are high-risk for genetic factors.  Forcing women to pay a rider for abortion coverage is really another component of the country's intolerance and willingness to let industry profit from it.  Which does not excuse or minimize this new attack; I am merely saying we should step back and look at the atmosphere that allows it to happen.

Under the heading of, "I Can't Believe They Can Do This," Michigan Right to Life gathered sufficient numbers of signatures on a petition to require women to pay for an insurance rider on any insurance policy, even those held privately, if they want abortion services to be covered.  So, once again, the voice of the fanatic holds sway over individual rights.   Of course, this did require that the Michigan legislature do the group's bidding.

Most of us are not fighting for reproductive freedoms because we are not wrong.  We are engaging in the freedom that we take for granted in a democracy.  We have fought hard for equality, and assume it is our due.  But just as if we were a country under attack, our attacker has no justification, only the desire to control us.  They have not ever needed to prove that they are right, only that they are more powerful.  And that they have, because they are louder and they don't give up.  Ever.

And this has been going on for a very long time.

So we need to fight back, and as ferociously as they fight, and as though we are a country at war defending our liberty.

And there are others that should be joining the fight, for a variety of reasons.

Men should be interested in defending the right to reproductive privacy and equality, because after abortion comes birth control, already under attack.  A woman who does not have reproductive freedom makes the entire family structure more vulnerable, emotionally and economically.

Employers should want to assure that women are in control of their reproductive health, for the stability of the workplace.

The insurance industry certainly must know that it makes sense financially to cover birth control and abortion.

And finally, as a community we should all recognize that those who are seeking to prevent women from determining their reproductive paths are by no means pro-life.  In fact, they oppose funding better health care and nutrition for pregnant women and children.  The women most affected will be the poor, but it will also be the middle class who in 2014 will be struggling to provide the best for their families.  The additional costs for preventive care, and even more the  burden of being forced to carry a pregnancy, can be enough to push that woman or that family over the brink into undue emotional stress, and financial hardship.  It can end the possibility of college, even high school, and put an end to a promising career and hope for the future.

And here's something else.  A woman who is able to make her own reproductive decisions is more likely later to have wanted, healthy and happy children.

God did not create a world in which a woman has an abortion and is then banned from having children.  That's the case whether the abortion is the result of a rape, a medical complication, or an error in judgment.  Those who seek to punish women for their sexuality would have us believe that abortions reduce the numbers of children.  In fact, being able to wait until a woman feels ready to have a child is something that many of us might consider a blessing.  That God may have given us the option of ending a pregnancy because this is not about punishment but about growth.  And there are a lot of women who have had that opportunity, and wonderful, wanted children were the result.

I am one of them.  Not that it's anybody's business.

So instead of wondering why the anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-freedom people are attacking us, I think we need to see the attacks as irrational acts committed by tyrants, and do what we need to do to control our bodies and our lives.

Religious Exemptions -- That Slippery Slope

I was disgusted, but not surprised, when I heard yesterday that the Senate was entertaining something called "the Toomey amendment," which would allow employers to discriminate against LGBT employees because of their -- pardon the expression -- religious values.

Not surprised because the religious tyranny wing of the republican party was able to get away with this lame rationalization for religious groups when in June the Obama administration allowed religious groups to exercise a religious exemption by not covering contraception, which would be somehow covered by other means.  Good deal, right?

Not good enough for the rabidly religious.  This was a mere victory en route to the next battle.  That next battle was that employers, whether a religious group or not, should not have to pay for contraception if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  Nor should they have to pay the penalty for failing to cover this required benefit.  And the D.C. Appeals Court did in fact last Friday, strike down the requirement.

And of course, there is the battle raging over whether a pharmacist should have to fill a prescription for contraception if it burdens their conscience.  Even a waffling bill which allows an employee to refuse to fill as long as there is someone at the pharmacy who will do so has been unable to make it through Congress.  And why should it?  Refusing outright has been the raison d'etre of our current republican legislators.

What does contraception have to do with LGBT rights?  That religious exemption is the key to wiping out a whole lot of our civil liberties.  Because the same god who thinks women should not have protection from pregnancy believes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is wrong.  According to the god who talks to these folks, a person of faith (i.e. christian) should be able to deny workplace rights to any of the above based on the perversion known as their "conscience."

So let's just look ahead down that slippery slope.  If the law and the courts agree that based on religious freedom an employer should not have to provide contraceptive care, or give LGBT persons employment equality, and businesses have the right to refuse to provide contraception based on their religious beliefs, some other likely god-fueled battles are:

Refusal to marry an interracial couple.

Refusal to allow adoptions by certain racial or religious groups.

Refusal of a restaurateur to seat people who are LGBT.

Refusal to allow members of certain groups service.

Segregated proms.

Signs in windows exercising business owners' rights:

Two things about the above examples.  First of all, check out the dates on the links.

Secondly, notice the language in defense of these horrific acts of discrimination.  They all positively flow with the blood of protecting religious freedom.

So here's the thing.  If we don't all join together to fight these injustices, we are all going to be living in a country in which the only freedom is granted to those who are white, wealthy, and claim to be christian.

The only way to protect our individual freedoms, and our freedoms as members of minority groups, is by uniting and not allowing any discrimination of any one of us by any person (or business or church).  If you can't see the problem with refusing to fill a prescription for birth control, I guarantee, your rights will be next in front of the firing squad.



  

Family Values

Maybe it's me, but "family values" means a whole lot different to the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation and groups that actually have the words "family" and/or "values" in their names than it does to me.  I think of family values in terms of valuing families -- being sure that children have proper nutrition and a secure roof over their heads, including in school, where there should be heat in the winter and no water leaking from said roof.  And of course a decent education followed by a job that provides a living wage for a good day of work, and decent benefits, like sick leave and health insurance to provide for the children.  See, it's like a cycle.

But the folks that brag about their family values today tend to be the ones that do not value the families of those with less wealth and power than they have.  And then try to justify those other children and families doing without all that fine stuff with nonsense about killing jobs and creating debt that their children will have to pay off.

And when they say they don't want their children to have to pay off the nation's debt, they really mean their children -- not yours.

So in that atmosphere, forget about daycare, we have to fight for the adequacy of our schools.  And where far too many workers barely subsist on minimum wage, our government is convinced that the way out of debt is to continue to pay off big farms and cut food stamps.

So it comes as no surprise to learn that with all the talk about being "pro-life," pregnant women continue to be discriminated against at work.  Given jobs that jeopardize their health, limited sick leave, forced to take unpaid leave or terminated when they are unable to continue to do their job.

The ACLU and its New York chapter worked to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in New York City, which was signed into law on October 2 by Mayor Bloomberg.  As you can imagine, getting this law to go anywhere in our current Congress will be a fight.  It was introduced in 2012, and reintroduced this year.

The ACLU is asking for our support, in signing a petition to Congress to pass a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  Please sign, and spread the word.  And be sure to let our representatives know that all that talk about family values is just hot air without passing legislation that truly supports families.

And while we're at it, I'm thinking we should get our own legislators here in South Carolina to pass its own Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; maybe those who feel the need to safeguard pregnancy could do something more constructive than force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

We're #1

Read what Mia McLeod has to say about South Carolina being #1 in domestic violence.  Maybe raising the amount of the bond needed to be posted would help, but people that are crazy violent have been known to wait around a few days to take out their rage.

I was a visiting therapist at a shelter for battered women on Long Island back in the 90's, where three women in the month of December one year were killed by men to whom had been served an order of protection.  Interestingly, or obscenely, it was the same judge, and he had ordered the women to serve the petition themselves rather than have the court pay for a server.

While at the shelter, I saw what happens when a woman without family and financial resources makes the courageous decision to leave an abusive partner.  Even with social services and medicaid the resources are pathetic.  After the short stay they not only have to deal with housing, but also with transportation.  Often with children, there is inadequate care available, and finding a job while juggling temporary and/or unaffordable housing and transportation is one step too far in this nightmare.

More often than not, when abusers come calling with apologies and promises, the women go home to whatever security they have there.

Society's biases are really what this is all about.  Here in South Carolina where the mass killing of children in Newtown last December resulted in a season of gun bills designed to protect the rights of gun owners, we pretty much know where the loyalties lie.  Hard to believe but the philosophy is that women that get beat must be doing something to deserve it.  Oh, and if she doesn't like it why doesn't she leave.  And if she leaves and he comes after her, well, that's her own fault too.

Add to that an education system that struggles to provide "minimally adequate" schools, the constant stress of being working poor -- and in this economy, the stress of being working middle class.  We have a governor who won't take federal money to assure Medicaid for the poor, and who would like to prevent those on food stamps from buying sweets.

And then our legislature gerrymandered districts so that the status quo is guaranteed.

There's two levels here.

The first is stepping in those shoes and living that life.  Knowing what it is like to be a woman afraid, and unable to do enough to keep herself and her children safe.

The second is a society that approves and rewards power and punishes weakness.

Strong laws that communicate disapproval of violence against women and children need to happen before the violence will be lessened.

And while that happens, allowing people to have a life with the security of home, health, a living wage, and for their children a good education with promise for the future, will perpetuate the value that violence is unacceptable.

Mia McLeod is a strong voice to that end, but she needs a lot more voices to call out for change with her.
   

Across the Aisle

I heard that State Senator Vincent Sheheen made an appearance at SC Pride yesterday.  Not surprisingly it has not been widely reported, especially by the Sheheen camp.  Sheheen made news earlier this month by reaching across the aisle to Governor Haley in his support of the ban on gay marriage.  The public outcry apparently stunned Sheheen, who wants more than anything to be governor, to the point of making the appearance at the Gay Pride event.

The problem with Senator Sheheen as I see it is that his values lie on the other side of the aisle, but his political affiliation is with us Democrats.

While Sheheen unabashedly seeks support from women's groups, unions, and gay rights groups, he wants to do it without making it too public, and without having to compromise his lack of support for same.

Pardon me but my rage is showing.

It would be a simple matter even for a proud Catholic like Sheheen to support women's reproductive privacy and freedom.  Even Pope Francis, who has to deal with the ultra-conservative archbishops who elected him, has figured out a work-around to the Church's obsession with contraception and abortion.

With Pope Francis, his own Church's leader, as the model, now is the time for Senator Sheheen to take a stand that sets him apart from the rabid Christian republicans, like Senator Lee Bright, who would bring back the Inquisition (for women only) which looks a bit like his fantasy of Sharia Law.

In other words, women's reproductive choices should be as private as are those of men.  They should be as fully covered as those of men (When was the last time you heard an argument that vasectomies should not be covered by our state health plan?).  Women's health care -- the promotion of discriminatory practices against women -- has no place in the legislature.

Abortion and contraception are private matters, to be addressed by the woman, her doctor, her family, her church, and not by government.  God did not appoint lawmakers to make God's rules.  In fact, there's that whole "render unto Caesar" idea that pretty much means the state should stay out of God's business, and God will do the same for the state.

Meanwhile, the state's business is to see that those who choose to have children are not made to suffer needlessly.  In other words, health care, education, a living wage, those are the issues that need to be addressed by government, not what goes on in the doctor's office, or in one's church.

We need to suggest this to Senator Sheheen, to insist in fact that he listen to us -- and to the Pope -- and stop obsessing about women's reproductive parts.  We need to let him know, on Facebook, on Twitter, by email and in person, that church and government, his religion and his role as a public servant, are separate entities.  We need to call and write to the media.  We need to light up this issue, while there is a chance that a Democratic candidate might listen.

Expert Opinion

These days, when the men in Congress invite the men in the Church to testify on how better they can help women see the light, some of us are starting to notice.  Some of us are beginning to remember, as though awakening from a deep slumber, that it wasn't always like this.  But before it wasn't like this, it was.

What I mean is that many of us grew up in a Mad Men world, where being thin and pretty were requirements not only for being a stewardess but for answering phones in an office.  In that world, we kept things tidy and never made a fuss.  We were mostly homemakers, and when we made ripples, folks, we were unceremoniously squashed.

I remember as a psychology student learning about the high rates of women in psychiatric hospitals diagnosed with depression, and the new miracle drugs, like Valium, that would get them back on the track to being happy.  Because without a happy wife, how could the husband go out and conquer the world?

Fortunately, that was my mother's generation, and in the fifties there was enough social security -- the kind you get from having a roof over your head with an affordable mortgage and knowing you were going to college -- to have the guts to begin to question your world.

Who were men to tell us what made us happy?  Or that our job was to keep them happy?  We knew we were smart and starting to realize we were as smart (maybe smarter) than the boys that were going to college and getting better jobs than us.

We made waves.  And it felt good.  And for awhile, the men in charge listened.  And then more women were in charge.

But not enough.

The men were persistent; they know war.  We women knew how to work hard, and we also knew guilt.  We tried to do it all, and that left us vulnerable, too busy doing it all and trying to get it right to fight battles we thought we had already won.

Men let women be midwives when it wasn't worth their time, but when it became a career they began to fight to take it away from us.

They let us be managers as long as our lower wages could make their profits greater.  And as long as women were taking care of the children, they weren't as likely to rise too high, or rise up to fight.

And as long as we were the ones that had babies, we were still going to be under their thumbs.

This is why so much energy is being focused on women's reproductive freedom.  In a Congress that daily fights to deny women food stamps and health care the issue is certainly not the value of life.  It is, however, about power and money.

Good education can give a girl hope for a good future.  Access to contraception can free a young adult from worry, and allow her to control her present and her future.  Availability of safe abortions mean security for women and their families.

The crazies of the religious right are merely pawns of the power brokers.  They are used daily in front of the offices of abortion providers, and they are used at the polls on election day.  Groups with warm and fuzzy names like the Family Research Council are about as anti-family as you can get; they scorn poor women for having too many babies at the same time as they cut off her education and access to birth control.

But our "representatives" in Congress look to these anti-life groups as "experts" when they are looking to force their way on women.  And while the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops may be momentarily busy tap-dancing around the actual Christian values of their new Pope, they will still make time to restate their control over women.

Let's start questioning -- loudly -- the "expert opinions" that have nothing to do with science, nothing to do with life, and nothing to do with women.  When you see a group convene, whether it be the state legislature or a hospital board or the Heritage Foundation, count heads and note how many women there are.  And then make sure to note how many women are testifying about women's issues.

Coming Out from the Shadows

In an amazing wedding announcement in the New York Times, the couple describes their decision when they had just begun dating to have an abortion, because the time and circumstances were not right.  They went on to have a son and are now celebrating their marriage.

This is such an important news story, because it is about women coming out from the shadows.  It is about refusing to accept blame and hatred for a responsible decision.  It is about letting others see just who we are.

When African-Americans risked their lives to desegregate schools and businesses, they were able to debunk all the nasty myths that had existed because they had been forced to live hidden away.

When gay and lesbian men and women took the courageous step of coming out, and then began to celebrate their existence, those who had denigrated their sexual identity were forced to recognize that these people are in fact their friends, family, co-workers, neighbors.

And as women come forward and tell their stories, and make their abortion decision just another page in their lives, those who have demonized us will no longer have power over us.

Because those who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy are us:  our daughters, our mothers, our friends and co-workers, our neighbors.

It is easy to demonize someone you don't have to face, and for whom there is no name.  This is the time to stand up to the bullies and let them know we are not ashamed of who we are and how we have lived our lives.

Left Behind

The Post & Courier ran an article last Wednesday on the local coalition which had organized to send buses to Washington for the "new march," the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's March for Jobs and Freedom.  I read through it a few times and then concluded that, once again, women were being left behind.

The purpose of this coalition:

“to stand together against the recent attack on voter rights, against Stand Your Ground and racial profiling, and to continue to raise awareness on unemployment, poverty, gun violence, immigration, gay rights and other critical issues affecting our nation,” according to the National Action network.

Apparently, women's rights fell into the unnamed "other critical issue" category.

Sure, just like in the 60's, we could join up and demonstrate against the war in Vietnam, or for civil rights, but we signed up as helpers, keeping the men happy so they could do the real work.

By the 70's, women like Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan confronted that hypocrisy, questioning our second place position in society, from family roles to economic rights.  It was a fight that continues today, because we continue to be the second class citizen, with lower pay and less input.  While we run more things than ever, we continue to have a supporting role in our own lives.

Our struggle for freedom and equality has never been greater than it is today, when state and federal legislators strike down programs that would provide economic security, and push through laws that make us prisoners of our own bodies.

Imagine vasectomies being banned from government health insurance plans, as are abortions.  Suppose a man had to prove he was married before he could buy erectile enhancement drugs?  Imagine couples of mixed race being refused service for religious reasons, as pharmacists are now allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.  Just as those of us in the LGBT community are winning hard fought battles for equal rights, women are being threatened with imprisonment for refusing to carry a pregnancy to term.

The public spectacle that we have allowed to exist with women's bodies as the object is as horrific as Russia's attack on its gay citizens.  In this country we should be appalled that women would be subject to government control by virtue of the fact that we are capable of getting pregnant.

If so many of our government leaders are opposed to that mythical evil that the ignorant call "Sharia Law," how can they propose the same kind of religious imprisonment and call it Christianity?

Getting back to the article about the 50th Anniversary March, it seems that we -- women -- have gotten so desensitized to our exclusion that we don't even realize that the coalitions that are fighting for freedom and justice are not fighting for ours.

It's time, once again, to open our own eyes, so that we can confront that hypocrisy each time it occurs.  Don't let our leaders make a set of rules for free Americans, and another for women.  Don't support Democratic candidates who refuse to stand by a woman's right to the same privacy as a man.  Stop allowing our government to be controlled by religious extremists that prove their power by exploiting women's bodies.

Don't forget, and don't let our fellow Democrats leave us behind.

Both Sides of Eric Cantor's Mouth

Eric Cantor is suddenly concerned about who's in the doctor's office with us:

"The doctor's office is the last place anyone would want to find the IRS."

I believe his concern stems from the fact that, particularly for women, the doctor's office has been getting crowded.

For decades we have had to make room for all the representatives of private insurance companies; in the heyday of managed care, there were all kinds of folk, from nurses to administrators, and even occasionally a doctor.

But Eric Cantor's proud contribution to the "manning" of the doctor's office has been all his votes to criminalize abortion.  He has voted every which way to limit a woman's rights when she is in her doctor's office, from forcing her to watch a sonogram to controlling how many weeks to who pays for the visit to where she can go.

And all these bills, should they become law, require personnel.  More enforcement personnel, in fact, than it would take to stand arm-in-arm guarding the Mexican border.

So I would like to take this opportunity to put Mr. Cantor's mind to rest (and I do believe a little rest would be good for such a panicky little man).

Only an idiot would think that the IRS is going to be involved in medical decisions.  The IRS would have lots less to do with medical decisions than does the insurance industry, to which Cantor would like to return all control by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Obviously, this is another "keyword" mind game.  The IRS has become the fall guy for, well, everything, but it started with the "scandal" that right-wing groups were having applications for tax-exempt status denied.  In fact, political groups on both sides were being denied, as they should have been.  But Democrats being Democrats, instead of saying, "Yeah, what of it?" they cowered and allowed "IRS" to become yet another bad word eliciting knee-jerk rage like Benghazi.

I would like to hear Eric Cantor's defense of those votes which would place law enforcement solidly in the doctor's office with American women, and then he can explain why he thinks one more guy would make a difference in there.

Opening the Door to Alleys and Coat Hangers

The Texas State Legislature had to lie, cheat and steal to do it, but they have managed to pass their forced-pregnancy bill.

Delusional Rick Perry appears to believe that now that he has taken the criminalization of women and their reproductive rights to new depths in his state, he is ready to give the national stage another try, and so has indicated that he will not run for another term as governor.

What does the passage of this bill really mean?

By making it more difficult for women to seek legal abortions, Texas has opened that door to the dirty, dangerous back-alley abortions of the 50's.  Teenage girls and women alike will return to the options that were available when I was a teenager.  Word of mouth will lead them to the door of the disreputable doctor, or to those old home remedies for pregnancy, like Lysol and coat hangers.  If you are poor and have limited resources, an unsupportive family, or are just terrified, these are the options that will remain open to you in Texas, and in many other states across the country.

These lawmakers have done nothing to provide better education, better health care, better nutrition, a living wage.  These are the means through which a moral nation fights abortion.  In those states where there is hope and means to a decent life, the incidence of abortion is less.  And not surprisingly, teen pregnancy and infant mortality rates are lower.

The sad fact is that the anti-abortion movement has been allowed to use the horrors of Kermit Gosnell's abortion practice and trial to push through the very laws that would make such practices more likely.

Wendy Davis did what she could to bring the real issues and arguments to the national stage.  It will take many, many more women, and men, to stand up and loudly speak the truth, else this awful reality of back-room abortions will spread again across our country.

Texas Bull

While across the country, and in the US Congress, the plot to keep women pregnant and powerless continues, in Texas they have continued to prove that they can do it bigger and better.  In fact, Governor Perry-- who not only can't remember the third thing on any list, he can't recall resigning from the presidential race after becoming a laughingstock-- continues to believe that he has a moral imperative to, well, make women behave.

After Wendy Davis' amazing filibuster, which was cut short by republicans who were just teed off at not getting things their way, Rick Perry had his own personal god-given tantrum.  Unable to get his forced pregnancy bill passed by following the rules that were set up by his own gang, and after his gang couldn't even break their own rules to get it passed anyway, Perry immediately stated that he is going to call for another special session.  Maybe this time there will be a secret meeting place.

Perry, who I believe has way too personal a fear of abortion, projected that fear when he said that because Davis was born into "difficult circumstances" she should know how important it is to prevent women from being able to decide to have an abortion.

In Mr. Perry's small mind, women only (and apparently always) opt for abortion because life's too tough.  Maybe just out of touch, or maybe it's that niggling fear that if his mom had had a choice, there would be no Rick Perry.  Isn't it this fear of women being in control that is determining this whole evangelical passion to force women to bear children?

The other issue surrounding this nonsense coming out of Texas is the fact-free assertion that fetuses feel pain.  Sadly, it was a woman who was blowing hot air on C-Span when I turned it on a week or so ago, and she was nearly in tears over the thought that these fetuses could feel pain.

To all those legislators there in Texas who are feeling the pain of those fetuses, I want you to dry those crocodile tears and pay attention.  Because Texas is helping my state of South Carolina hold down the bottom in terms of health care, education and child nutrition.

It's time to take care of this group of constituents, who we know for a fact feel pain:

From AlterNet

From Dallas Observer

And if you Texas legislators are really into doing some research about pain, you'll find a lot of it in your own backyard.  And you won't have to force women to take the helping hand that will help feed their kids.

worldhunger.blogspot.com

Ignorance and Power

When you're too ignorant even to know to keep it to yourself, it sounds like this:

Well, "gee whiz," Saxby, I get a bit nervous considering how you might want to go about fixing this problem.  If you can't change the hormone levels in those 17 to 22 or 23 year-olds that are coming in to the military, and you claim to want to do something about rape in the armed services, you might be suggesting that women should be more segregated.  Coming from Georgia, you would understand a lot about that.

Because it is sounding a lot like if black folk don't go to the same schools or use the same bathrooms as white folk well then white folk won't be tempted to beat them up.

The Taliban has a big problem with women tempting their men to evil sexual thoughts as well.  So they've solved that problem by making "their" women wear a hijab.  Oh, and they can't leave the house without a man to chaperon, even if the "man" is eight years old.

So maybe you think that in our military women require uniforms more suitable to keeping our fighting men at bay.  Maybe women should only go out in groups, oh, and with a chaperon.

So, gals, Senator Saxby Chambliss is the guy who is going to protect you from those randy 18-year-old recruits.  Let him know how much you appreciate that:

DC Address:	The Honorable Saxby Chambliss United States Senate 416 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1004
DC Phone:	202-224-3521
DC Fax:	202-224-0103

The Battle for Forced Pregnancy

Our own pompous ass, Senator Lindsey Graham, is scared out of his boots.  So it's not enough for him to brag on what a good shot he is, he has taken his fight against a potential Tea Party challenger -- that must be you, Lee Bright -- to another battle front.  He has come out with barrels blazing against... pregnant women.

I admit, in South Carolina it's a cheap shot.  But it is also true that the man has shown in the past year that there is no depth to which he will not stoop to win re-election.

May 20, 2013 Dear Friends, First and foremost, tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions.   As a strong supporter of the right to life I have again cosponsored Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-Mississippi) legislation, S. 946 the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, to establish a consistent, government-wide prohibition on abortion funding.   This important legislation would make the following policies permanent:   ·         The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act; ·         The Helms Amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas, ·         The Smith FEHBP Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees; ·         The Dornan Amendment, which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia; and ·         other policies, such as the restrictions on elective abortion funding through Federal prisons.   The House of Representatives passed the bill 251-175 in the 112th Congress, but the legislation was not allowed for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.   The legislation currently has 22 cosponsors in the Senate.  I am hopeful the Senate will take up and force a vote on this important legislation to the pro-life cause. Sincerely,  Lindsey O. GrahamUnited States Senator  To contact me, please click here to visit my website. Please do not respond to this email, the mailbox is unattended. To unsubscribe at any time, please click here.

 You might think that, after all his time in the Senate, he would be secure enough to continue to maintain his facade of reasonableness.  But, like Mark Sanford, I believe Graham knows that there is no sweeter deal than working for the federal government.  And no price is too great to pay to keep that job.  And these days, there is no easier target than women and children.

So while these jackasses continue to pass bills that reinforce the fact that pregnant women are vulnerable and easily controlled, prenatal care will continue to suffer, infant mortality will continue to be shameful, and the future of children born to poverty will continue to be grim.

I sent an email to Lindsey in response to his proud newsletter:

I was 21 when I was fortunate to have legal and safe abortion available to me.  I am now 62 and I am appalled that you believe God has chosen you to control the reproductive choices of my daughter.

Shame on you.

Join me in letting misogynists like Lindsey Graham know that we are out here, we vote, and we are not ashamed.

Parent v. President

A few days ago, Penny pointed out that seemingly minutes after President Obama forcefully pledged his support to Planned Parenthood and women's rights, he opposed removing age limits for above-the-counter purchase of the "morning-after" pill.

As a parent who was damned overprotective of my daughter I understand fully.  Rather than have her sit through sex ed classes that I doubted were going to be open and accurate, I opted out.  I talked to my daughter, and sometimes she was furious that I was so involved, but she also talked to me.  And I am assuming that the Obama's are such parents.

But that is not always the case.  And sadly, children get pregnant.  And horrifically, there are times when the parents are the last people in which that child can confide.

We are a nation that refuses to deal with the difficult problems, the ones that would actually improved our lives, make the world safer for our children and grandchildren.  Our legislators do a lot of grandstanding and bloviating about their moral values.  But when it comes to doing the right thing, they lately almost always do the thing that fuels their power and greed instead.

Personhood amendments abuse women by forcing them to maintain a pregnancy to term, while funds that would improve the life expectancy of infants are cruelly cut.  Civil rights for those who are not Christian are violated in the name of public safety while the right to own a gun and carry it anywhere is religiously protected.

Our children are increasingly less likely to feel secure, to have parents who have the time to spend with them when they are needed.  They are less likely to be educated in a school where there are adequate numbers of teachers and counselors who know them.  They are less likely to receive adequate sex education, and in some cases receive misinformation.

For those parents who are unable to be the parents their children trust and confide in, whether right or wrong, we need to be brutally honest about their children's -- our children's -- safety.  We need to admit that children that are -- well, children -- are having sex, and we need to admit that access to Plan B is necessary.  And then we need to keep slogging ahead to try to make a world where our children will not need Plan B or abortions.  Which is, after all, the hard part of all this.

And we need our President to do the right thing, even though it is the hard thing.

Not so fast, Agnes

I, too, was mighty pleased to see President Obama defend Planned Parenthood and condemn the state laws that are an assault on women's rights but..........

now we have this...

Obama Administration Appeals Ruling On Morning-After Pill

JOSH LEDERMAN and LAURAN NEERGAARDMay 2, 2013, 7:07 AM1520

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Wednesday appealed a federal judge’s order to lift all age limits on who can buy morning-after birth control pills without a prescription.
In appealing the ruling, the administration recommitted itself to a position Obama took during his re-election campaign that younger teens shouldn’t have unabated access to emergency contraceptives, despite the insistence by physicians groups and much of his Democratic base that the pill should be readily available.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-administration-appeals-ruling-on-morning-after-pill.php

So...whatcha think?   Is Obama on our side or not?  Why is his administration even getting involved?

The story goes on to say that the President is heavily influenced by being the father of two school age daughters.  I think as President he should be more influenced by the "insistence by physicians groups...that the pill should be readily available."





 

Taking a Stand

Earlier I today, I published a blog entry with lots of bad news, and hoped that President Obama would develop a spine on other issues, as he has on gun control.  Imagine my surprise and pleasure when I learned of his speech yesterday to Planned Parenthood.                                                                           

This was an amazing speech.  These are the strong words of support that we have been waiting for.

Comment was made by Katie McDonough in Salon that he did not actually say the word "abortion."  I think that's okay.  If you listen to the words, he does not flinch when he talks about the state laws that are assaulting woman's rights throughout the country.  He talks about the law that was passed making abortion illegal at six weeks.

I believe we have allowed Republicans to control the labeling of this debate.  We did eventually come up with "pro-choice" to combat the "pro-abortion" label.  But "choice" still brings us to "abortion."  Which is about the fetus.

It is time we redirected this debate.  This battle is about women, not that growth that may be inside of us.  That is why I believe we need to call this a fight against "forced pregnancy."  We all know, really, that that is what this is about.  It is about control, and punishment.  It has nothing to do with "preserving life" because there is no Republican support for health care for pregnant woman, much less for care for an infant when it is born.  Republicans not only seek to punish women of limited means who have become pregnant, they will punish the children that are born to women of limited means.

Here in South Carolina, we have a shameful record of infant mortality, yet some of our legislators focus single-mindedly on assuring that every woman who becomes pregnant is forced to carry that pregnancy.  With or without health care, or even decent nutrition.  These men who, across the country, are pushing these bills through their state legislators are cruel and power-hungry; they care not for life much less quality of life.  Their goal in each of these bills, no matter what warm-and-fuzzy names they give them, is to force pregnancy upon a woman.

I have said this before, but I keep being reminded that these are often the people who scream loudest for "freedom."  What they mean, though, is the freedom to control those who have less power than them.

No Respect

Our own ex-gov. Mark Sanford seems to be a poster child for disrespecting women.  You don't have to look at his poor record as governor when for two terms he fought the hard fight against any program that would give aid to women and children.

You could even say that Sanford's battle is not so much against women, but against people of limited means -- we of the 47 percent, to put it in Mitt Romney terms.

But his misogynistic treatment of his former wife, and even his treatment of his fiancee, scream out the kind of narcissism that insure that, to Mark Sanford, a woman is merely the means to an end, the end being who he sees in the mirror and what he has to gain.

When you listen to his remarks about his many indiscretions, I mean really listen to the words and not the sad face with the teary eyes and all the talk about "his God," what you really hear is how things might affect Mark Sanford.

Jenny Sanford recounts in her autobiography Staying True that at her husband's press conference after his affair became public, despite the tears and the appearance of remorse, he failed to apologize to his wife and sons, nor to thank Jenny for standing by him.  More inappropriate and narcissistic was his call to her after the event to ask her how he did.  Most of us would see that, and his repeated attempts to seek her input and approval, as just plain cruel.  But Mark continued to beg her for permission to continue to see the other woman.  And whining that she just didn't understand.

One would want to believe that his judgment was tainted back then by what was happening to him in his personal life (even though those events were of his own doing), but throughout the current House campaign, we have been hearing bizarre stories like that of him asking Jenny to manage his campaign as she had in the past (and telling her that this time she would be paid for it!!!).  There was the strange acceptance speech the night Sanford won the primary challenge in which he expressed surprise that the "other woman," now his fiancee, had turned up to celebrate his win.  And now we learn that one of the sons who was on stage at the event had not ever met the woman with whom they were sharing the stage.  As Jon Stewart might say, "Awk-ward."

And cold and uncaring.

Lately we have word that he has several times trespassed to enter Jenny's home, and that in March she decided to pursue the matter legally.  And Sanford's response to this is to accuse, well everyone involved in making it public, of political motivation, as though we the people have no right to know about such behavior from someone running for office.  

What we get from Mark Sanford in response to all these incidents is the type of depressive and pathetic whining that amounts to, "Why are you all picking on me?"

He has tried to blame the most recent trespassing event on the fact that Jenny was not home, leaving their 14-year-old son unsupervised.  Because, as you know, Mark Sanford is all about being there for his children.

There is a disconnect here that is disturbing.  Mark Sanford's reflection goes no further than how an action will reflect on him, and not ever whether it is right or wrong.  Whether it is leaving the state without alerting state officials of his whereabouts or lying about his affairs, Sanford is unable to do the right thing when it interferes with his needs and impulses.  And when it's over, he is unable to see what he did that was wrong.

The fact that Mark Sanford on primary night referred to "my God" was jarring.  It truly emphasized the extent to which Sanford filters his entire world through the lens of his own needs, and that it is indeed his world.

Depression is the flip side of anger.  Without going all psychobabble here, I will say that Sanford's depression looks a lot like what he feels when his attempts to manipulate the women in his life fail.  His idea of a swell relationship with his ex-wife seems to be happily running his campaign, giving him free access to her home, and supporting him in his campaigns and in his love life.

And the continued errors in judgment he has made that involve his wife, and his attempts to spin the errors, point to a man who can never be trusted to do the right thing.  Or even to understand when he has done the wrong thing.

Which pretty much explains why on earth after being laughed out of the Governor's Mansion at the end of his term he would imagine we would want him back.

Fear and Loathing

As I've talked among women about the insanity that is called Congress and its anti-abortion, anti-birth control antics, the question has come up, "Why do they hate us?"

I hadn't been able to find an answer; in fact, it seemed that "hate" was too strong a word.  It just didn't fit.  And I think the reason "hate" doesn't fit is because it is tempered considerably with denial.

My days of studying Freud are long gone, and there is a lot of derision for the man, but I believe he was brilliant in conceiving the battles within our minds.  So let me get a little faux-Freudian with this.

The most powerful object in an infant's life of course is its mother.  For a girl child, I think there tends to be more overt intimacy, and later, more overt battles for independence.  For a boy, I believe issues of dependency are far more insidious.

So, unlike with girls, a boy's anger is nearly certain to get convoluted.  Until, as an adult, you have rage that cannot be named.  That denial of rage becomes a need to protect that gets twisted all around to the most destructive forms of control imaginable.  I'm not talking about the obvious overt rage that comes in the form of rape and spousal abuse.  What I'm talking about is something I'm thinking of as "legislative rape."

It's amazing, but maybe not really, that as women become more powerful in business and politics, the push to confine us has become so much greater.  And indirect.  Of course a woman is entitled to the same job as a man, but she doesn't need a law saying she's entitled to the same pay.  And if she wants to work, then she needs to be a man and take responsibility for caring for her children -- she certainly has no right to expect the State to take care of her children for her.

And then there is the ever more abrasive and abusive anti-abortion movement.  I'm not talking about the whackos out there with there placards trying to intimidate women when they are at their most vulnerable.  I'm talking about the whackos elected into the 112th Congress on a "jobs, jobs, jobs" platform, who introduced 44 bills on abortion.  I'm talking about our own South Carolina legislators, who proudly -- and yearly -- introduced "personhood" bills and continue to try to put a monument to "unborn children" out on the State House grounds, which would have it in good company with the Confederate flag.

While these legislators look out for the interest of the "preborn" against us stupid and selfish women, they are also cutting funding to welfare, food stamps, education and health care.  And let us not forget that while they are stamping out abortion, they are also working hard to ban birth control.

That, my friends, is where the rage is evident.  This is not a case of wanting to help a woman through a hard time in bringing a baby into the world.  This is a pure and simple case of punishment.  Punishment for leading a man into sin.  God punishes the woman by getting her pregnant, and folks like SC Senator Lee Bright are going to make damned sure she pays the price.  For the rest of her life.

There is just not enough of calling things by their rightful name.  Men in power acting like they are protecting babies when they are in fact punishing women (and of course the eventual children).  Calling their motivation Christianity rather than "loathing."  And let's once and for all rebrand that "personhood" bill and call it by it's true name:  enforced pregnancy.