I Stand with Planned Parenthood #StandwithPP

Today is "Pink Out Day." People around the country--including Pittsburgh*--are rallying in support of Planned Parenthood as once again, congressional Republicans (and Republican presidential candidates) continue their relentless attacks on reproductive health care. They do this even to the point of threatening to shut down the government, despite the fact that government funds do not go to paying for abortions.

One in five American women have received care at a Planned Parenthood health center. And in 2013, Planned Parenthood served 2.7 million women, men, and young people. Maybe that's why USA Today found that Americans back government support for the group by more than 2-1.

If you're not already at a rally, you can still participate:

Wear pink to show your support for women's health and for Planned Parenthood, and make sure your friends know why. 

Share a #PinkOut selfie to #StandwithPP on social media.

Pink Out your Facebook and/or Twitter profile image.

Let them know that we're sick of this bullshit.


* Thank you  Lynn Cullen, and City Councilman Dan Gilman!

A Message to Alabama

(But it applies equally well to, say, some pharmacist anywhere who refuses to dispense birth control, etc.)

 

Independence Day

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

- Patriot Abigail Adams, 1776

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 2011

While the Founders would obviously have no problem with discrimination against women, how many truly believe they'd be in agreement that corporations were people who had religious beliefs that allow them to discriminate against a class of citizens and be exempt from duly passed laws?

Certainly the five Catholic, male judges on the Roberts Court believe that it's perfectly fine for corporations to hold others (others of course being women) hostage to their own particular religious views.

And while the media and supporters got the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case wrong by insisting that it was a "narrow" ruling, it only took a day for that to be proven false and for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be correct (in calling it a "decision of startling breadth"):

In fact, it only took a day for the Court’s “narrow” decision to start to crack open. On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday. 

In light of its ruling on Hobby Lobby and a related suit, the Supreme Court ordered three appeals courts to reconsider cases in which they had rejected challenges from corporations that object to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services at all.

[snip] 

 It’s bad enough that the Court privileged the belief that IUDs and emergency contraceptives induce abortion over the scientific evidence that clearly says otherwise. With Tuesday’s orders, the conservative majority has effectively endorsed the idea that religious objections to insurance that covers any form of preventative healthcare for women have merit.

Just as bad, these males on the court actually lied about their ruling.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in a dissent on Thursday (signed by all the women on the court), noted, “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”

Sotomayor was referencing that accommodation was one of the reasons Justice Samuel Alito cited to justify his Hobby Lobby decision:

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government has to show it has pursued the least restrictive means to accomplish its goal. Alito claimed that because the nonprofit accommodation exists, that means the government has other ways to get women access to contraception that respects religious liberty. Yet only a few days later, he ruled that the nonprofit accommodation – again, signing a form – is also a violation of religious liberty.

Yep, that means that the often trotted out example of the Little Sisters of the Poor (with a name like that, how could anyone deny them anything?) can refuse to even sign a damn sheet of paper saying they want a waiver for providing birth control because: religion.

To recap: Corporations are people with religious beliefs. Their beliefs trump women's beliefs, women's rights under the law and women's health. Women can be discriminated against and have no rights against discrimination under the Constitution. And, it's perfectly fine for Supreme Court justices to lie in their rulings.

Happy Fucking Fourth, ladies!

Hey Supreme Court: No Bosses in My Bedroom

This:

Uncle Sugar!

 

("Uncle Sugar" link)

I have a question!

I was half watching Chris Hayes on MSNBC tonight and he was arguing with some anti choice guy about the Affordable Care Act provision which requires employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. I suppose this came up because the Supreme Court decided to take on Hobby Lobby's (and other for profit companies') objections to this provision.

Locally, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, the Diocese of Erie and several affiliated nonprofit groups have recently won an injunction against having to follow that same provision. Please note that the diocese themselves didn't need to follow that part of the act--only their nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities--you know, the ones that take taxpayer funding (and lots of it).

But Hayes, and no one else I see on my TV set asks the one question of the opponents of the provision that I want to hear. It goes something like this:

Sir/Madame: The Affordable Care Act requires larger companies and nonprofits to provide health insurance to people who work for them who, in turn, may or may not end up using it to cover contraception. The law requires companies and nonprofits to provide a paycheck to people who work for them who, in turn, may or may not end up using it to cover contraception. What is the fucking difference in terms of "morality"?

OK. For the sake of television they can leave out the "fucking" part of my question. But, seriously, what is the fucking difference? How are they not paying for contraceptives either way? In neither case are they actually being forced to purchase the contraceptives themselves and put it in the hands of their employees. In both cases they would be made to follow laws that everyone else must follow in terms of compensation to their employees. In both cases their employees end up getting birth control, and in neither case do they get to stone their employees to death (for the moment anyway) for being "immoral"--or for as Bishop Zubik and Cardinal Timothy Dolan have called it, "evil" and "facilitating scandal."

They are simply making it more expensive for their employees to get the birth control. If they really, really cared about the "morality" of their employees or being "pro life," shouldn't they fire their immoral workers? Of course they can't do that because they'd run out of employees as 62% of all women of reproductive age are currently using a contraceptive method.

And not having a ready pool of low paid women to exploit and impose your own religious beliefs on employ, my friends, would be bad for business.

"I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor"

While voting to shut down the government Saturday night, apparently some of the House members weren't just drunk on power. From a Politico Congressional reporter:

I'm not over exaggerating when I say I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor.
— Ginger Gibson (@GingerGibson) September 29, 2013

And from a Buzzfeed reporter on Capitol Hill:

I def saw more than 1 member of congress putting a few back on Penn earlier. Ran into 2 in the liquor store.
— KateNocera (@KateNocera) September 29, 2013

And before they even got drunk, they were already acting like drunken pigs:

[T]hey have added a “conscience clause” to the spending bill which takes away preventative care from women, which includes birth control.  

[snip]  

Friday afternoon, Republican John Culberson from TX got huge applause from his colleagues when he compared the GOP’s effort to destroy Obamacare to the heroes of 9/11. Culberson compared the House Repubs to the passengers on United Flight 93 who overtook the terrorists and got control of the plane on 9/11. Yes, Seriously.

This is your government on drugs Tea.

Video of the Day (Advertising to Women Edition)

(Posted with reservations because undoubtedly someone on the right will see this and think it is a real thing in the world.)

Song of the Day

Brought to you by International Women's Day.

Vote like your lady parts depend on it!

I'll be on NewsRadio 1020 KDKA with Johnna Pro tomorrow

I'll be on NewsRadio 1020 KDKA with Johnna Pro tomorrow, Saturday, October 27 in the 6:00 PM hour.

You can also live stream it on their website, by clicking on the "Listen Live" button on top of the right sidebar.

We will, of course, be talking about the upcoming election, but also about issues like this and this:

(Via Daily Kos)

 Should be interesting!

I was robocalled by The Catholic Association

Yesterday morning I received a recorded call by "Sue." "Sue" said she wasn't trying to tell me who to vote for, BUT instead of trying to get folks jobs, President Obama was spending his time trying to take away the religious freedoms of Catholics. Uh-huh. I'm not even sure the call mentioned birth control.

The recording said the call was paid for by The Catholic Association. I'm assuming that I got the call because I'm a super voter, registered Democrat in Western PA with a Catholic-sounding name(?). (What exactly would that computer algorithm look like anyway? First name "Maria"/"Angela"/"Carmela"/"Theresa" and last name ends in a vowel?)

I will repeat what I said back in February:

Let's get it straight. The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays. It does not, however, require religions, churches, parishes, dioceses, archdioceses, etc. to cover contraception -- they are exempt (if you're a secretary working for a church you're shit out of luck). What we're talking about are public institutions like universities and hospitals -- non-profit businesses (much in the same way that UPMC, for example, is a "non-profit") -- who take government money and who take money from the public being required to follow the law to not discriminate against women when covering their health care costs.

That's it.

If the Catholic Church does not want to follow the law, they can stop taking federal funds or they can get out of the business of running businesses.

That's it.

That's their choice.

(Jesus' choice -- from all available evidence -- would seem to be to sell everything and give it to the poor. Just saying...)

But, now I'll add this from a Republican-appointed judge's ruling in federal court late last month who upheld the Obama Administration’s birth control coverage rules:

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. [It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .

[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

Or as Think Progress explains it:

A key insight in this opinion is that salaries and health insurance can be used to buy birth control, so if religious employers really object to enabling their employees to buy birth control, they would have to not pay them money in addition to denying them comprehensive health insurance. An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

Cause that would hardly be "small government" now would it?

Video of the Day (for Mitt)

While Mitt Romney continues to flip-flop on his positions on reproductive rights, here's a video to remind everyone what's at stake. And, here's a link which shows that increased access to insurance for birth control under RomneyCare actually decreased the abortion rate in Massachusetts -- especially among teens.

 

PA Congressman Mike Kelly Likens Birth Control Mandate to Pearl Harbor and 9/11

Rep. Mike Kelly in his natural habitat

US Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Butler, PA) commenting yesterday on the mandatory contraception coverage going into effect that day (via Talking Points Memo):

“I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack,” Kelly said, according to NBC. “I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.”

Yes, requiring all businesses -- including those owned by religious institutions -- to have insurance which covers women's reproductive healthcare needs is exactly like Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

If Kelly truly believes this, he should think seriously about jumping off the upper floors of a very tall building -- the way people had to at the World Trade Towers when they were attacked. Otherwise, he should think seriously about shutting the fuck up.

Missa Eaton is running against this assclown. You should think seriously about throwing her some bucks.

Here's what the Affordable Care Act does for women (when its not busy raping churches):

What "Freedom" Means In Arizona

From The Explorer in Arizona:

Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2625 into law Friday. The legislation authorizes religiously-affiliated employers to deny contraceptive services from their employees' health insurance plans.

Despite opponents saying the bill would violate a woman's right to privacy, proponents say it will apply exclusively to those entities whose religious beliefs are central to their operating principles, and for whom providing coverage for contraception could pose a moral conflict or religious objection.

You'll note that the proponents' argument doesn't actually address whether the bill violates a woman's right to privacy.  Patience, my friends.

Here's what the Governor's office itself had to say about the bill:

Governor Jan Brewer today signed into law HB 2625, legislation that authorizes religiously-affiliated employers to exempt contraceptive services from their employees’ health insurance plans. The new law will apply exclusively to those entities whose religious beliefs are central to their operating principles, and for whom providing coverage for contraception could pose a moral conflict or religious objection.

“In its final form, this bill is about nothing more than preserving the religious freedom to which we are all Constitutionally-entitled,” said Governor Brewer. “Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the 1st Amendment.”

Currently, state law allows a narrow scope of nonprofit, faith-based institutions to opt out of contraceptive coverage, provided that the institution primarily employs and serves individuals who share the religious tenets of the institution.

See? It's about freedom!  There's nothing about any "violation of privacy" in there!  It's just protecting the rights of any "religiously affiliated employer" to hold true to their beliefs!

What are these ladies complaining about?  It's so unseemly, isn't it?

Perhaps it's this part of the legislation:

Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a religiously affiliated employer may require that the corporation provide a contract without coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the religiously affiliated employer offering the plan. If a religiously affiliated employer objects to providing coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection. On receipt of the affidavit, the corporation shall issue to the religiously affiliated employer a contract that excludes coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section. The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. A religiously affiliated employer offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit and may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not for a purpose covered by the objection. A hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

AA. Subsection Z of this section does not authorize a religiously affiliated employer to obtain an employee's protected health information or to violate the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (P.L. 104‑191; 110 Stat. 1936) or any federal regulations adopted pursuant to that act. [emphasis added.]

So the law allows for insurers to cover contraceptives, as long as they're not used for contraceptive purposes.  And it's up to a woman who may be suffering from, say, polycystic ovary syndrome to prove that she's not a slut who's using the pill to keep from getting pregnant.  And even then, she may be charged "an administrative fee" for providing such proof.

All to insulate a religiously affiliated employer from following the law like everyone else.  As Justice Scalia wrote:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

But I guess that all changes when it comes to controlling the vaginas.

Gender Gap

"Democrats Winning Women Across The Board, Polls Show"

I can't imagine why on earth there's a gender gap...

Sally Kalson's Modest Proposal

An idea whose time has come. Guys, this one's for you:

"I solemnly swear to abstain from sexual intercourse with any and all human females, paid or unpaid, regardless of age, ethnicity, national origin and marital status, including my own wife, who hasn't let me near her anyway since this whole birth control thing began.

"I further swear to hold my sperm sacred for its zygote-creating potential and to account for every single one my body produces, verified by monthly tests and exams.

"My employer has the right to question me and see the test results, in order to avoid providing medical coverage for behavior he finds morally objectionable."

Read Kalson's entire article here.

Syndicator for Rush Limbaugh Suspends All National Ads For Two Weeks

After reporting that the total number of companies to drop their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh Show was up to 140 earlier yesterday, Think Progress announced that Rush's syndicator was suspending all national advertising for two weeks:

Radio-Info.com reports that Premiere Networks, which syndicates the Rush Limbaugh show, told its affiliate radio stations that they are suspending national advertising for two weeks. Rush Limbaugh is normally provided to affiliates in exchange for running several minutes of national advertisements provided by Premiere each hour. These ads are called “barter spots.” These spots are how Premiere makes its money off of Rush Limbaugh and other shows it syndicates.

Looks like when Rushbo slandered Sandra Fluke -- and by extension, the vast majority of women in this country -- he bit off a little more than he could chew.
Not Safe for Work:

Hillary Clinton on Extremists: "They all want to control women"

(Longer remarks here)

Transcript: "Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn't matter what country they're in or what religion they claim -- they all want to control women. They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and our own bodies. Yes, it is hard to believe, but even here at home, we have to stand up for women's rights and reject efforts to marginalize any one of us because America needs to set an example for the entire world."

Via USA Today:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waded into the debate over women's rights, warning a global audience that "extremists" are out to control women.

Clinton's remarks to the Women in the World Summit come as Democrats and Republicans fight over issues such as access to birth control.

Thank you, Hillary!

Why Arguments By Analogy Are Tricky

In her column today, P-G columnist Ruth Ann Dailey argues by analogy - badly.

She's talking again about contraception and religious liberty.  And in the process sets up a strawman argument.

Let's take a look.  She sets up the strawman.  First the frame:

Let's say you're a pacifist, and you belong to a pacifist religious organization. Maybe it's the Mennonite Central Committee, the Jewish Peace Fellowship, Pax Christi or any of numerous Quaker groups.

And then the conflict:

Let's say your organization needs a new staffer and you hire me because I'm a perfect fit for the job and an all-around wonderful human being.

Imagine that at some point during my tenure with your organization, a right-wing president and Congress so advance the cause of a citizen militia, as it existed in the Founders' day, that a law is passed mandating employers to provide employees with free guns if the employees wish to have them.

And I do!

Unbeknownst to you, I feel strongly about the Second Amendment. I believe it's necessary to my personal safety and well-being to bear arms, but the weapons and ammunition I need to exercise this right can get quite expensive. It would be very helpful to my budget to get them for free.

There's two references in there of employees getting the weapons for free.  She keeps going:

There is much public controversy over this new legislation, of course, and you, my pacifist employer, are among its most outspoken opponents.

"I have the right to own a weapon," I remind you, "and it's so fundamental a right that it should be part of the terms of my employment."

"But a central tenet of our organization is that using weapons is wrong," you say. "Buying you a weapon violates our doctrine and therefore our constitutional right to the free exercise of religion."

"But I have a constitutional right to bear arms."

"Yes, you do, but we should have no obligation to buy them for you."

There it is again. The employer buying birth control for the employee - not that the insurance company has to cover contraception in its health benefits.

Guns are property.  Health care isn't.  Her analogy fails right there.

Besides that, Dailey's argument falls flat because she's assuming that her strawman pacifist organization can deny such coverage.

But if it's the law, it can't.  Religious conscience is no get out of jail free card.  Who says?

Antonin Scalia and the US Supreme Court:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [494 U.S. 872, 879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.

And:

We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, "are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Id., at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

Better luck next time, Ruth Ann.