AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! AAAAAH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I just read this.

It's about Mayor Ravenstahl saying in private to some Allegheny County Democratic Committee (ACDC) members how he didn't think people should be using contraceptives. Then, denying that he'd ever had that conversation, then dodging whether or not he's against contraceptives and how committed he is to a right to privacy.

lmxclsksk fkdk;,g ,gdkjkms ddflss nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I'm sorry, I think I temporarily went blind or blacked out or something.

What year is this?

This is coming from Pittsburgh's "hot, hip, young" mayor?

And, let me make this clear, I don't give a flying fig what Luke thinks about contraceptives for his own family.

I do care what this City's Mayor whispers about contraceptives to other public officials (ACDC members are elected by the public) in private when he's trying to get their votes. (The average age of ACDC members must be, like, 70 something and lives in a region which is heavily Catholic.)

I especially care when this same person voted against the so called "Bubble Zone" Ordinance" -- without public comment -- while he was on City Council.

I also care when a supporter of Luke's recently called up a progressive friend of mine claiming that Luke is the real progressive and that Bill Peduto is actually anti-choice. Let's just hope that the caller wasn't working from a script (you know, one for progressives and one for older ACDC members).

Let's also hope that this Luke supporter, who is a gay man, also stops to think for a moment that if Ravenstahl adheres so rigidly to Catholic doctrine on contraceptives (which let's face it, most American Catholics don't), that he might also believe Catholic doctrine regarding gays. I hope he promises to at least abstain from all gay sex sex with other men (and any contraceptive use) until he checks it out with Luke. Otherwise, he might want to consider switching his alliance away from someone who, well happy to have his vote, may very well consider him to be a sinner.

But more importantly, someone who has no problem putting his own religious doctrines first when it comes to making public policy for everyone.

Grow the fuck up already

Yes, I used the "f-word" in the headline because people fuck -- they also screw and sometimes even make love -- and when they do engage in these activities in a hetero kind of way without using contraceptives there's a chance they could, oh I don't know, make a baby.

And, don't any of you trolls out there start with the "keep your knees together" crap. People have been doing this for as long as there have been people. That's why you are able to be here reading this (yes, your parents did it -- don't cry).

We know that unintended bundles of joy do not exactly encourage personal financial stability and we know that Right Wing Republicans hate hate hate paying anything towards the healthcare, education, food, etc. of bundles of joy post-womb.

We also that Right Wing Republicans hate hate hate allowing women to have abortions (which contraceptives could, oh I don't know, help to prevent).

So why did Right Wing Republicans throw a huge hissy fit to drop a provision from the economic stimulus package that would have made it easier for states to expand coverage of contraceptives through their Medicaid programs?

Could be that can't let the cultural war go? Could be that as I've always said: they don't just want to stop abortions, they want to stop contraceptives PERIOD? Could be that they are just huge fucking douchebags hypocrites?

Could it also be that they did it because they knew they could? (DING! DING! DING!)

What also doesn't help is when the supposedly MSM mucks up the issue by claiming that the provision would, 'allow Washington "to regulate the amount of kids people might be in the mood for."' (Yes, Chris Matthews, President Obama and the Democrats are calling for mandatory sterilizations and forced abortions. But not to worry, we will make sure that they are green mandatory sterilizations and forced abortions and we will give out coupons for free cappuccinos after the procedures. Glad we cleared that up!)


Of course the Democrats caved.

I thought the adults were supposed to be back in charge now?

Everyone needs to just grow the fuck up.
.

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.

It's All There. Right In Front Of Us.

As a frame, let's start here: 

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, plans next month to fast-track a Senate vote on a bill to protect access to contraception nationwide, the start of an election-year push to highlight Republicans’ record of opposing reproductive rights that voters view as at risk of being stripped away.

The Right to Contraception Act is expected to be blocked in the closely divided Senate, where most Republicans are against it. But a vote on the bill is a crucial plank of Democrats’ strategy as they seek to protect their majority in the Senate, in part by forcing G.O.P. lawmakers to go on the record with their opposition to policies with broad bipartisan support.

Access to contraception is a constitutional right regarded by many voters as possibly the next to go after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Recent moves by conservative state houses and governors have added to a sense of urgency about addressing it at the federal level.

One of those moves was made right here in Pittsburgh:

Donald Trump signaled in an interview with a local Pittsburgh TV station that he is open to restricting access to birth control.

KDKA aired an interview with the former president shortly after his defense team rested its case in his criminal hush-money trial in New York.

“Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?” host Jon Delano asked.

“We’re looking at that, and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting,” Trump replied. “You will find it very smart. I think it’s a smart decision.”

Of course, the stable orange genius backpedaled: 

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he did not support restricting birth control after saying earlier in the day he was “looking at” contraceptives when asked if he supported any restrictions to the right to contraception.

“I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”

Trump’s post comes after the Biden campaign seized on comments the former president made in an interview with Pittsburgh TV station KDKA-TV when asked if he supported restricting access to contraception.

“We’re looking at that, and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting,” Trump said. 

But here's the thing - no matter how back the backpedaling can go, restrictions on birth control are already part of the GOP discussion in the run-up to the 2024 election:

Allies of former President Donald J. Trump and officials who served in his administration are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country.

Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.

This is what the MAGA GOP is looking to enforce. A ban on:

Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance; and

Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—

Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.

Whoever knowingly uses the mails for the mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery of anything declared by this section or section 3001(e) of title 39 to be nonmailable, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, or knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

That's what they're discussing when they're discussing Comstock.

Tell me again how there's not a dime's bit of difference between the two parties?

The economy isn't the only thing McCain't doesn't know much about

From Lawyers, Gun$ and Money:

The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007:

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

.

See How Members of PA's "Freedom Party" Respect Your Freedom!

Let's start with this Huffpost piece:

In the past week alone, House Republicans have overwhelmingly voted against a woman’s right to travel for abortion care, to access birth control and to marry someone they love.

Each of these votes was appalling in its own right.

When the House voted last week to ensure that women are able to travel across state lines for an abortion, 205 Republicans voted no. When the House voted Tuesday to codify same-sex marriage, 157 Republicans voted no. On Thursday, when the House voted to protect women’s right to access birth control and other contraception, 195 Republicans voted no.

So let's go see how those votes reflect the freedom loving House members from PA. 

Crossing State Lines 

This is HR 8297. And this is the Congres.gov's summary:

This bill prohibits anyone acting under state law from interfering with a person's ability to access out-of-state abortion services. (Abortion services includes the use of any drugs that are approved to terminate pregnancies and any health care services related to an abortion, whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day.)

Specifically, the bill prohibits any person acting under state law from preventing, restricting, impeding, or retaliating against

• health care providers who provide legal abortion services to out-of-state residents,
• any person or entity who helps health care providers to provide such services,
• any person who travels to another state to obtain such services,
• any person or entity who helps another person travel to another state to obtain such services, or
• the movement in interstate commerce of drugs that are approved to terminate pregnancies.

The Department of Justice may enforce this bill through civil actions; the bill also establishes a private right of action for violations.

205 Republicans voted against this. From Pennsylvania, they were:

• Joyce, John (PA-13th)
  
• Keller, Fred (PA-12th)
  
• Kelly, Mike (PA-16th)
  
• Meuser, Daniel (PA-9th)
  
• Perry, Scott (PA-10th)
  
• Reschenthaler, Guy (PA-14th)
  
• Smucker, Lloyd (PA-11th)
  
• Thompson, Glenn (PA-15th)
  

Marriage Equality 

This is HR 8404.

And this is the Congres.gov's summary:

This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

157 Republicans voted against this. From Pennsylvania, they were:

• Joyce, John (PA-13th)
  
• Keller, Fred (PA-12th)
  
• Kelly, Mike (PA-16th)
  
• Reschenthaler, Guy (PA-14th)
  
• Smucker, Lloyd (PA-11th)
  
• Thompson, Glenn (PA-15th)

Contraception

This is  HR 8373. And this is from the legislation itself:

To protect a person’s ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.

 195 Republicans voted against this. From Pennsylvania, they were:

• Joyce, John (PA-13th)
  
• Keller, Fred (PA-12th)
  
• Meuser, Daniel (PA-9th)
  
• Perry, Scott (PA-10th)
  
• Reschenthaler, Guy (PA-14th)
  
• Smucker, Lloyd (PA-11th)
  
• Thompson, Glenn (PA-15th) 

So tell me again how the Freedom Party is respecting freedom?

The Bishops Speak...

And guess who they want Catholics to vote for (without actually saying it, nudge-nudge wink-wink)?

From Selena Zito at the Trib:

Roman Catholic bishops in Pennsylvania are urging the faithful to remember the church’s teachings on marriage, education and religious liberty when voting on Tuesday, calling this presidential election a “historical challenge.”

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference chose All Saints’ Day to issue its election statement reminding Catholics that “most urgent political issues — ranging from the economy, immigration and abortion to global security — raise profoundly moral questions.”

“Because politics is the place where competing moral visions of a society meet and struggle, our democracy depends on people of conviction fighting for what they believe in the public square, yet doing so with an abiding respect for one another,” the bishops said.

Here's the statement.

And even though this is Zito is political reporter here, Zito the conservative columnist just can't resist the conservative spin:

The bishops warned against efforts to redefine the nature of marriage, to exclude parental authority in school choice, to encroach upon Catholic health care and social services and to erode religious liberty — an apparent reference to a Health and Human Services mandate on contraceptives and federal funding for abortion in Obamacare. [Emphasis added.]

There is no federal funding for abortion (except for rape and incest and when the life of the mother is in danger) - the Hyde Amendment has guaranteed that for decades.

And if there's any question whether federal funds can be used in Obamacare, there's an Executive Order that answers that question:

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

How could political reporter Selena Zito not know this?  And if she does, then it's simply dishonest to write what she wrote.  (Again, which is it with these folks at the Trib?  Incompetence or dishonesty?)

But let's move on to the Bishops' statement.  When they write:

Religious liberty itself – “our first, most cherished freedom” – is no longer secure. At first glance, this may seem otherwise because religious freedom is so deeply ingrained in our national history. But democracy has no special immunity to losing its soul by little steps. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great chronicler of early American democracy, observed more than 150 years ago, “it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life” – because the more the state provides, the more it inevitably controls.

Events have proven this true. In recent years a pattern of legislative and judicial actions has emerged in our country that undermines religious liberty and jeopardizes the contributions of religious bodies in the public realm. Government policies that seek to impose morally repugnant services on religiously affiliated medical providers...

And:

Consider today’s aggressive efforts to redefine the nature of marriage, to exclude parental authority in the choice of the best education for their children, and to force Catholic healthcare and social services to end their ministries unless they violate their religious identities through mandated support of practices contrary to the very sanctity of human life. [Emphasis added.]

Who do you think they want Catholics to support?  Notice how they framed the issue.  Now look at reality.

What's being discussed here is not The Church being forced to "end their ministries" in anyway.  It's about access to insurance (that they're not paying for) for women (who may or may not be Catholic but who work for a Catholic institution) who want contraceptives.  That's what the bishops oppose.  And in doing so, they're imposing their own faith in the name of religious liberty.

Amazing how faith, yet again, gets in the way of reality.

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?

Why Emergency Contraceptives Must Be Sold Over-the-counter

"People drive to Reading to buy jeans."

"Even if that were the case, that you had to drive to Reading to get this [prescription], to me that does not rise to a compulsion that you have to pass laws that [doctors] have to do something,"

- Dr. Joe Kearns, former medical director of a Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Hospital , explaining why it was OK for an emergency room doctor to refuse to give a rape victim a morning-after pill when it was against his Mennonite religion.


"In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital,"

- Sen. Joe Lieberman explaining why he believes that hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so.

Emergency Contraceptive ("morning-after pill," sold as Plan B) is a legal drug, and yet, in Pennsylvania and other states a doctor can refuse to prescribe it and the state will back him up.

That means after you, me, your wife, daughter, sister, mother, best friend has managed to survive the trauma of a rape; makes the decision to report it and deal with being questioned by police officers; goes to an emergency room and suffers through the additional trauma of a rape kit; some doctor can tell her to "Hit the road: your medical needs conflict with my personal beliefs."

Yesterday, the FDA announced that it will reconsider making the morning-after nonprescription. The whole debate on how this pill is sold has been mired in politics:

Dozens of professional societies, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, also came out in favor of nonprescription sales, saying there is no evidence backing conservatives' claims that easier access to the drug would lead to an increase in promiscuity.

Yet in an apparent break from its tradition of hewing strictly to science, which a recent Government Accountability Office report termed "unusual," the agency repeatedly refused to approve the switch.

That refusal has persisted even as the manufacturer offered to restrict sales to women at least 16 years old; require that the drug be sold only at pharmacies and not at convenience stores or other nonmedical outlets; and mandate that it be kept behind a pharmacy counter so purchasers would have to ask for it and show proof of age. The company also proposed a plan to ensure that pharmacies enforced those rules.

Politics is also playing a role in the renewed talks on the drug:

The letter from acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to Duramed Research Inc. of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., came just one day before von Eschenbach's Senate confirmation hearing, scheduled for this morning.

Making this drug available without prescription will ensure that no more rape victims are told to "take a hike."

***************************************************************************

UPDATE: There's something that you can do about this right NOW:

The CARE Act (Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies) Senate Bill 990 and House Bill 2159 respectively

Once enacted, the CARE Act will improve medical care standards for victims by requiring all hospitals and healthcare facilities in Pennsylvania that treat victims of sexual assault to do the following:

- Provide medically accurate information about EC;
- Provide the full regimen of EC upon the victim's request;
- Provide information about the availability of a rape crisis counselor and the contact information of the local rape crisis center; and
- Contact the local rape crisis center upon the request of the victim so that she can have the opportunity for a personal and private consultation with the counselor while at the hospital.

You can find out all about it here.

They have lots of Action Items that you can do including signing a petition here.

MO GOP Lawmakers Promote Abortion

Republican & Religious Right Jihad Against Women, Families & Privacy Proceeding as Planned

From KansasCity.com by way of Fired Up! Missouri by way of AmericaBlog:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.

Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.

But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.

The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

[snip]

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.

"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.

The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.

[snip]

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.

The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.

"State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.

So what have we learned from this article? We've learned:

1. Because some poor single women may get birth control, Missouri Republican Lawmakers will not pay for family planning services for any poor Missouri families, including for married Missourians.

2. Missouri Republican Lawmakers believe that not paying for family planning services will prevent the poor in Missouri from fucking.

3. Missouri Republican Lawmakers would rather not pay for family planning services for the poor in their state then dare to offend the Religious Right.

4. The Religious Right believes that contraceptives, and not just abortions, are immoral and unethical.

5. Missouri Republican Lawmakers and the Religious Right would rather ensure that more abortions occur when poor people inevitably do have sex than pay for family planning services.

6. Missouri Republican Lawmakers and the Religious Right are either complete idiots or are members of some sort of Cult of the Blastula.

7. Missouri welcomes it's new Uterus Gestapo Overlords.

Why?

Question:

Why should I get my panties all in a twist because Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is likely an anti-choicer who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade when the Democratic party leaders are all telling me to support a known anti-choicer for senator of Pennsylvania (Bob Casey) who says he would sign a law to outlaw abortion if it one ever came across his deak?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Something else we women shouldn't worry our pretty little heads over:

(From Population Connection)

Is the U.S. House of Representatives Opposed to Contraception?

Evidence of a right wing attack on birth control continues to mount. Yesterday, the House, by a narrow margin, voted to eliminate contraception as a component of programs to prevent the occurrence of obstetric fistula - a devastating injury that has lifelong consequences for women.

Fistula is most common among younger women whose bodies have not fully developed and also threatens women who have too many pregnancies or pregnancies spaced too closely together. Providing birth control is one of the best ways to help women delay or prevent these high-risk pregnancies.

The bill the House considered yesterday, H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, created a new program dedicated to fistula prevention and treatment and contained a provision authored by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) to ensure the programs funded made birth control available. But, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), one of the most outspoken foes of contraceptives in Congress, offered an amendment, that was adopted 223-205, to strip contraceptives from the list of prevention measures included in new legislation. A change of only nine votes would have changed the outcome of the vote.

109th Congress: Contraception Access

On Agreeing to the Smith Amendment to State Department Reauthorization Bill
07/19/2005
House Roll Call No. 389
109th Congress, 1st Session

Agreed to: 223-205

How the U.S. House from Pennsylvania voted:

• Rep. Robert Brady (D-1) N

• Rep. Charles Dent (R-15) N

• Rep. Mike Doyle (D-14) N

• Rep. Philip English (R-3) Y

• Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-2) N

• Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-8) Y

• Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-6) N

• Rep. Melissa Hart (R-4) Y

• Rep. Tim Holden (D-17) Y

• Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-11) N

• Rep. Timothy Murphy (R-18) Y

• Rep. John Murtha (D-12) Y

• Rep. John Peterson (R-5) Y

• Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-16) Y

• Rep. Todd Platts (R-19) Y

• Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-13) N

• Rep. Don Sherwood (R-10) Y

• Rep. Bill Shuster (R-9) Y

• Rep. Curt Weldon (R-7) Y

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!

Republican Policy: Keep Women Barefoot and Pregnant

... When Republicans say they want to reduce/stop abortions in this country what they seemingly want to do is to reduce the number of non-pregnant women. I don't know how you can conclude anything else when you take a look at their policies.

First Up: Paying, or rather, not paying for birth control

Surely one way to reduce the number of abortions is to increase access to birth control. (How many times have you heard a Rethuglican harp that women use abortion as birth control?) And yet we see that Republicans just can't stomach the idea that insurance companies would be required to cover birth control prescriptions. The most recent examples of this is Republican nominee for President, John McCain stumbling and bumbling over whether he believes insurance companies should cover birth control when they cover Viagra. Along with an excruciating eight-second pause, he remarks that he hasn't really considered the question and doesn't want to think about the question (despite already voting twice against any such protections.) Then, we have Bill O'Leilly insisting that while erectile dysfunction is a medical condition, pregnancy is not a medical condition -- it's a choice (whereas, of course wanting to get a boner is not a choice, it's a god given right).

Next Up: Limiting access to birth control

The current Republican administration now wants to enshrine in law the "right" for medical professionals to refuse to give information about/give prescriptions for/ fill prescriptions for birth control. So even if you can pay for it, someone can tell you: "No thank you, I don't feel like letting you have access to a legal substance." Yes, screw you if they're the only pharmacy in town, or if your secular hospital has been bought up by a religious hospital. And, while Republicans are quite clear that each state should be allowed to decide their own laws on access to abortion, they want to refuse the right for each state to mandate that medical professionals actually do their jobs As Feministe puts it:

"This proposal’s hiring section seems designed specifically to allow people to apply for jobs they don’t want to do per the job description, but which they don’t want others to do either. The goal then of this proposal is to help people and organizations deny patients their legal rights."

Last Up: Redefining abortion so that it includes pretty much everything except "Honest, honey, I promise I'll pull out"

A proposal that was circulated in the Department of Health and Human Services last week defines abortion as follows:

"...any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Guess what folks, that means they want to reclassify oral contraceptives and emergency contraception, among other birth control methods, as abortions.

So, to recap...

Republicans, while decrying abortion, want to make it as difficult as possible for women to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. These are the folks, after all, who want all women between the time they get their first period and the time they enter menopause to consider themselves pre-pregnant and to be treated by the health care system as pre-pregnant.

The Republican Party seems to be suffering from a mass case of Madonna-Whore Complex. On the one hand, their prominent members have no problem making jokes about women enjoying being battered and raped by gorillas, or spinning tales about bears being trained to rape little girls, or calling the wife a trollop and cunt in public, while on the other hand, they come up with uber creepy Purity Balls wherein girls as young as six pledge their virginity to their daddies until daddy transfers their purity over to their husbands (while simultaneously making sure they have no real Sex Ed to even know what human sexuality is).

Yes, women are scary creatures who will bang a gorilla and fuck everything else in sight because they know they can just abort!abort!abort! so you gotta wrest control of them as young as possible and make sure you keep them barefoot and pregnant by any means possible.

Or something like that.

[sigh]

If you actually want to cut down on the number of abortions, watch the video and sign the pledge

If you agree with Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray that:

"This is a gratuitous, unnecessary insult to the women of the United States of America. … It is an end-run around the rights of women to make choices about our own health, and we are not going to stand for it. … We will fight you every step of the way."

Then sign the petition to Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services here.

Let the Pro Life Forced Birth Republican Party know that The Handmaid's Tale was a novel and not an owner's manual.


(Full transcript at Shakesville)
.

Republicans: Not Just Birthers, But Forced Birthers

Many of you have probably heard of the recent poll of self-identified Republicans commissioned by Daily Kos (conducted by a non partisan research firm). It's chock full of frightening findings such as 39% of the Republicans polled believe that President Barack Obama should be impeached with another 29% not sure; 63% believing Obama to be a socialist; a total of 58% either not sure if he was born in the US or sure that he wasn't; and 57% either not sure or believing that our President "wants the terrorists to win."

What hasn't got as much play is their thoughts on social issues such as: 73% believe that out gays should not be allowed to be teachers and 77% believe that "public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world."

And then there's this:

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18

Do you consider abortion to be murder?
Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16

That would be a third of Republicans polled who want to outlaw contraceptives and a majority who either aren't sure or who believe that birth control pills equal abortions.

Just more proof that as I've said time and time again, the real goal of the anti choice crowd is not just to end abortion, but to end most forms of birth control and to end women's reproductive rights PERIOD.
.

In Case You Missed It, There's This

From The NY Times:

The Senate on Wednesday took a crucial step toward passing landmark legislation to provide federal protections for same-sex marriages, as 12 Republicans joined Democrats to advance the Respect for Marriage Act, putting it on track to become law in the twilight of the Democratic-held Congress.

The 62-to-37 vote, which came only days after the midterm elections in which Democrats retained control of the Senate but lost the House to Republicans, was a rare and notable last gasp of bipartisanship by a lame duck Congress as lawmakers looked toward an era of political gridlock.

This is the legislation, by the way.

And it says:

In general.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

Why is this important? Let's go back to The Times:

The push to bring it up for a vote began over the summer, after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in his opinion in the ruling that overturned the 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision, which had established abortion rights, that the court also “should reconsider” precedents enshrining marriage equality and access to contraception.

Here's what Justice Thomas wrote:

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives); Lawrence v. Texas, (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised.” Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

So, yea.

Your body is a battleground

Barbara Kruger, 1989

Health insurance companies say that victims of domestic violence have a "pre-existing condition" and deny coverage.

Republicans ensured that health insurance companies could continue the above practice.

Pregnancy is also considered a pre-existing condition.

Ever had a Caesarean-section pregnancy? This is also considered a pre-existing condition by many insurers who refuse to cover women who have ever had the procedure.

Anti-choicers boycott the Susan G. Komen's Race for the Cure (the largest breast cancer charity in the world) and call it a "menace to women," because SGK does not warn women about the (nonexistent) "abortion/breast cancer connection" and because SKG grants local Planned Parenthood clinics support for breast cancer screening for poor women.

The "Personhood" movement promoting constitutional rights for fertilized eggs gets a fresh shot in the arm with ballot initiatives gearing up in Florida and renewing efforts in Colorado and Montana.

Personhood amendments aim not to just ban all abortions, but also attempt to make many forms of contraception (including oral contraceptives and the morning after pill) illegal.

So ladies, DO NOT: survive abuse, get pregnant, try not to get pregnant, have a C-section, try to prevent breast cancer -- oh hell -- just don't be a woman.

_________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Welcome, Crooks And Liars readers.
.

Video of Luke at 14th Ward Meeting

Courtesy of Agent Ska, you can now see for yourself exactly how Interim Mayor Ravenstahl answered a question about contraceptives and the Bubble Zone Bill at the 14th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting. While Ska does not have video of the 7th Ward meeting, Ravenstahl does at least seem to confirm that there was some discussion of this subject at that meeting.

Luke as farce

According to Sue at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents, Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl must be worried about the gay vote because:

It would seem that Luke's people realized what a huge gaffe he made last week by saying he does not favor civil unions. Thus, he has scheduled a meeting with representatives from the Steel City Stonewall Democrats at 2:30 PM Monday. To clarify.

Apparently, Luke has stated that he doesn't know what a civil union is.

The Mayor of Pittsburgh -- a Democrat under the age of 40 -- does not know what a civil union is.

That is so blissfully ridiculous that there's simply no need for further comment.

As I commented at her blog the day before:

by Maria in Pgh on Fri 02 Nov 2007 02:28 PM EDT Profile Permanent Link
I heard that Lukey stonewalled the Stonewall Dems -- promising to get back to them with answers to their questionnaire and never delivering.

Small wonder since his real answers on such a questionnaire would have "outed" him before he got whatever cash he could grab.

Someone else commented there that "Luke blew off the Steel City Stonewall Democrats reception Saturday afternoon in Shadyside with Barney Frank."

This reminds me ever so much of his position on contraceptives:

1)Try to remain as neutral and uncontroversial as possible in public.

2) But, whisper to the bubbas in private that he's doing the "right" Catholic thing.

3) Then flail around and lie when outed.

What a nice, principled, young man!

Once again, it behooves us to mention that Ravenstahl -- who is always claiming that he stands for Democratic Party principles -- is extremely anti choice and anti gay, while his Republican challenger, Mark DeSantis is pro choice and pro gay.
.

Mayor Luke and the Question of Contraception

I was lucky enough to attend the 14th ward Democratic Committee meeting this evening. It was described at the committees's website as:

14th Ward Democratic Committee Candidate Night at the Sixth Presbyterian Church, corner of Forbes and Murray. Candidate night for Mayor, City Controller, School Board, City Council, and non-judicial County Offices. Doors will open at 6:30. Only candidates that have submitted "Letters of Intent To Seek the Endorsement" will be provided the opportunity to address the committee at this meeting. Candidates will be scheduled to speak at specific time.

And I was disappointed to hear the moderator say that only members of the committee would be allowed to ask questions. Bummer - I had a great one planned out for Mayor Luke.

In any event after the mayor spoke, the floor was opened for questions. A woman in the second row (or was it third?) asked our young mayor a rather probing question. She began by saying that she'd heard that Mayor Luke had mentioned in private to some committee members that he didn't think people should be using contraceptives. The woman then basically asked whether that was true and if not, for him to ease her concerns about his committment to privacy - considering he'd voted against the Peduto/Shields "bubble zone" ordinance.

Over the murmurs of the crowd ("What does that have to do with anything?" was one murmur I heard), Mayor Luke began a very interesting answer. First off, he denied ever having had a conversation about contraception with any committee member. Then he went on to say that while he DID vote against he ordinance, it's now the law and he's going to uphold the law.

Notice what's missing? Whether he thinks people should be using contraception (and it's only a short jump from there to whether women should have access to abortion services).

It may have been an oversight on his part. It may have been a dodge. And while the question may have come from left field, since it was asked, don't you think the people of Pittsburgh deserve a clear answer to the question?

We certainly didn't get it tonight.

Horses: Yes; Women: No

Via Blog for Choice:

Politico and RH Reality Check are reporting that anti-choice Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has introduced an amendment to a spending bill that would promote contraception--for wild horses.

But, they strip all federal funding for Planned Parenthood (mind you, this would be funding for contraceptives, cancer screenings, basic health care, etc. and not abortions) and want to stop all funds for all family planning for low-income Americans (Title X).

That would be:

Horses 1, Women 0

At least you know where you stand, ladies (barefoot and pregnant).

Via Digby, during the course of the debate on defunding Planned Parenthood:

Rep. Jackie Speier listened to debate on the House floor on Thursday evening as a Republican Rep. Chris Smith read a long, detailed description of an abortion and a "mangled image of a dead, tiny baby." Finally, Speier stood up and told her colleagues she had undergone an abortion in the early 1990s following a complication nearly four months into her pregnancy.

"As the night wore on, the vitriol and grotesque commentary got worse and worse," Speier, a second-term Democrat from California, told HuffPost. "I sat there thinking, none of these men on the other side have even come close to experiencing this, and yet they can pontificate about what it's like. It just overwhelmed me."

[snip]

"This was a wanted pregnancy, it was the second miscarriage I had had," she told HuffPost. "What they express doesn't come close to the experience that a woman goes through when she is losing a baby or when a pregnancy is terminated. It's a painful, gut-wrenching loss."

[snip]

Representative Speier shouldn't have to bare her personal life to the whole country. But she did because cynical, paternalistic Congressmen like Smith and Mike Pence thinks she is a child, a cruel child, who like all women cannot be trusted to make her own decisions. They have no clue about these experiences and no respect for the agency and autonomy of those who have to deal with them. (The women who support these patriarchal nincompoops are just as disrespectful.) It is a rare woman who has an abortion without understanding the seriousness of it and no one but she can rightly make the decision.

If you haven't already, watch Rep. Speier speak here:


Of course, here in PA, women are used to being treated as children (stupid and cruel children at that) as there is a mandatory lecture and waiting period for all women who seek an abortion in this state.
.