Pages

Showing posts with label Reproductive Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reproductive Health. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Cranky Fat Feminist's Cranky Rant Summarizes My Thoughts Exactly

This cranky rant from Cranky Fat Feminist on UniteWomen handily summarizes my thoughts on the GOP's policy stances regarding my personal bodily autonomy. The whole thing is good, especially this part:
“Life begins at conception.” Did you learn in your health/sex ed class that its quite common for eggs to be fertilized but simply fail to implant in the lining of the woman’s uterus? So then is the woman a murderer for failing to have the perfect uterus for that particular egg to implant in?
I've had a similar thought myself: Should I have a funeral every time my period is a week late?

When I graduated college, I was no longer covered by my parents' health insurance. I turned to Planned Parenthood for birth control in the months between graduating and finding a salaried position with benefits. Under ObamaCare, I would not have been kicked off my parents' plan. I could have stayed on several more months until I had an employer-provided plan. Under a Ryan/Romney government, not only would I be kicked off my parents' plan upon graduation, but I also would no longer have Planned Parenthood available as an alternative. I would have been SOL. These assholes refuse to acknowledge that these programs allow people to fully realize their economic potential and become productive members of our economy. They prevent us from becoming dependent on government, not the other way around.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Willke: Raped Women are Uptight, Spastic, and Emotional

In an earlier post, I inquired of Rep. Akin, "what are these mystical powers that a woman's body has to prevent impregnation in the event of rape? And what doctors told you this?" Well I've learned the answer to that.

NY Times states that one Dr. John C. Willke seems to be a major proponent of the absurd idea that rape will not result in pregnancy. Why? Because
“This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight,” Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”
Ooooohhh I get it... she's uptight. Like, if she wasn't so damn uptight then maybe you wouldn't have to forcefully take it from her. Her tubes are spastic, like she's spastic right now because you have to take it from her because she is so damn uptight in the first place. 

An article written by this quack describes how the physical trauma of rape prevents pregnancy:
"To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy."
You know how women are, they are so damn emotional. Any little thing will just send them over the top and mess up all their hormones, preventing pregnancy or, in the event of pregnancy, prevent them from nurturing that pregnancy. Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

This article was cited by one homophobic Bryan Fischer, supporter of Akin, who was the motivating force behind the resignation of Romney's openly gay national security spokeman, Richard Grenell (the Atlantic). So you KNOW he's a man of upstanding character. I recommend reading Willke's full article. It's simultaneously hilarious and maddening. 

One Dr. Fred Mecklenburg wrote an article in 1972 (yes, 40 years ago) called "The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician's Perspective" which was part of a collection of articles comprising the book "Abortion and Social Justice" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch). The article has apparently been the basis of biological knowledge for the anti-choice folks ever since. Interestingly enough, Mecklenburg cites as evidence studies of women subjected to trauma in Nazi death camps. Wow. Sounds like good science to me!

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

You Should Read This: Reflections on the Twentieth Anniversary of ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey.’

ACS law Blog has an essay called Reflections on the Twentieth Anniversary of ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey.’ It is very informative and I learned a great deal from reading it and doing a little light research on some of the topics mentioned. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey,
"the Justices rooted protection of a woman’s right to reproductive choice, not in a generalized right of privacy as Roe had, but in a woman’s right to bodily integrity, to personal liberty, and to equal citizenship."
Yes! Thank you! This is a conclusion that I have come to, although without this level of eloquence, on my own. Two points in this essay are that
1) "the Constitution affirmatively protects substantive fundamental rights, including rights not explicitly enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution."
and
2) "our Constitution’s text and history also buttress Casey’s recognition that a woman’s right to reproductive freedom is essential to the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equality for all persons. "
I'd love to sit here and spill all of my thoughts into this keyboard, but it's late and I have obligations that require me to be well-rested. Let's just say that the SCOTUS's recent ruling on the ACA, which deferred to precedent, give me hope that this court will continue to defer to precedent. Now we just need to make sure that whomever has the power to appoint the next Justice(s) does so in an honest and non-partisan manner...

Texas Monthly article on the "Climax in Government Intrusion"


Texas monthly discusses what goes down when you use icky words and wave vaginal probes around:

The scene: Sid Miller, sponsor of the 24-hour ultrasound bill, described what is required of doctors by the law. After he spoke, Carol Alvarado took the podium:
“I do not believe that we fully understand the level of government intrusion this bill advocates,” she said tersely. The type of ultrasound necessary for women who are less than eight weeks pregnant is, she explained, “a transvaginal sonogram.” 
Abruptly, many of the mostly male legislators turned their attention to a fascinating squiggle pattern on the carpet, and for a rare moment, the few female legislators on the floor commanded the debate. Representative Ana Hernandez Luna approached the back mike and sweetly asked Alvarado to explain what would happen to a woman undergoing a transvaginal sonogram.
“Well,” Alvarado answered helpfully, “she would be asked by the sonographer to undress completely from the waist down and asked to lie on the exam table and cover herself with a light paper sheet. She would then put her feet in stirrups, so that her legs are spread at a very wide angle, and asked to scoot down the table so that the pelvis is just under the edge.” 
At this point, if there had been thought bubbles floating over the heads of the male legislators, they almost certainly would have been filled with expletives of embarrassment or further commentary on the carpet design.
“What does this vaginal sonogram look like?” Luna asked, ever curious.  
“Well, I’m glad you asked,” Alvarado answered, “because instead of just describing it, I can show you.”
And so the state representative from Houston’s District 145 put both elbows on the lecturn and held up in her clenched fist a long, narrow plastic probe with a tiny wheel at its tip. It looked like some futuristic instrument of torture. “This is the transvaginal probe,” Alvarado explained, pointing it at her colleagues as she spoke, her finger on what looked like a trigger. “Colleagues, this is what we’re talking about. . . . This is government intrusion at its best. We’ve reached a”—she searched for the word—“climax in government intrusion.”
Those who could still focus gaped at Alvarado. No one spoke. The silence seemed to confirm for Alvarado something she had long suspected: most of the men in the House chamber didn’t know the difference between a typical ultrasound—the kind where a technician presses a wand against a pregnant belly and sends the happy couple home with a photo for their fridge—and this. She locked Miller in her sights. “What would a woman undergo in your bill?” she asked. 
Miller seemed confused. “It could be an ultrasound, it could be a sonogram,” he began. “Actually, I have never had a sonogram done on me, so I’m not familiar with the exact procedure—on the medical procedure, how that proceeds.”
“There are two different kinds of sonograms,” Alvarado said, trying again to explain. “The abdominal, which most of our colleagues may think [of as] ‘jelly on the belly’—that is not what would be done here. A woman that is eight to ten weeks pregnant would have a transvaginal procedure.” Miller stammered a response, but Alvarado was not done with him. She continued the grilling for several more minutes, keeping Miller on the ropes with a sustained barrage of icky female anatomy talk. Ultimately, however, the room was stacked against her. 
On March 7 Miller’s bill passed 107–42. 
This is a fantastic article that discusses what went down when the ultrasound bill was in debate, the rise of women to political power in Texas, and the decline in support of public funding for family-planning services. I consider it a must-read.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Why I Don't Want the Law Between Me and my Doctor

Missouri congressman Todd Akin is a shining example of why we don't need lawmakers legislating our medical care. With all this new emphasis on contraception and personhood, politicians feel ever more comfortable opening their mouths and revealing just how little they actually know about reproductive biology and medicine.

Todd Akin, in a TV interview, on his stance against abortion even in the case of rape (from Huffington Post):
"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
What?!? Seriously? Do tell, Rep. Akin, what are these mystical powers that a woman's body has to prevent impregnation in the event of rape? And what doctors told you this? Probably the same doctors that qualify for funds in the "pregnancy crisis centers" touted by anti-abortionists in TX.

But wait, there's more (from TPM):
“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
This is fantastic. He mentions the rapist and the resulting child, but NOT THE WOMAN WHO WAS RAPED. That's because to Todd Akin, and to the scores of other crusty old male lawmakers, WOMEN ARE INVISIBLE. They don't even factor into the equation. It obviously hasn't occurred to this oblivious asshole that being raped is absolutely horrific, but carrying to term and birthing an unwanted child conceived of the rape will punish the victim for the duration of the pregnancy and longer, possibly for life.

These ridiculously misguided statements come on the heels of a radio interview where he demonstrated his ignorance of the difference between emergency contraception and the abortion pill (from The Raw Story):
“As far as I’m concerned, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion,” he told KCMO’s Greg Knapp, “and I think we shouldn’t have abortion in this country.”
As  Planned Parenthood Missouri Advocates points out
"The fact is that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy. Abortion ends a pregnancy."
And also:
"Representative Todd Akin’s false statement illustrates exactly why politicians should not be meddling in women’s personal medical decisions" 
Why is this guy getting so much press anyway? Because he is the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri. Let's hope that Democrat and women's advocate Clare McCaskill wins that one. In the words of my friend in MO, "Fuck you, Akin!"

(Also, check out the slide show at the bottom of the Huffington Post story, "Lies GOP tells about women's bodies")


More on the Akin flap (8/21/12):


Compares the changing political stance regarding women to that of climate change:

An open letter to Akin from Renee Davis, the National Alliance Director for UniteWomen.org:

Discusses Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri and her support for Akin in the Republican primary. I generally disagree with these types of tactics, but wow the implications could be huge. This article makes it seem as though McCaskill ran ads in favor of Akin, whereas another source (I can't remember where I saw it) stated that she ran attack ads against all three Republican contenders, and that the ads against Akin were decidedly less negative. :\

Despite Paul Ryan's support of a personhood amendment, Romney's belief in a rape exception for abortion is the official Republican ticket stance:

However, apparently the GOP platform drawn up in preparation of the RNC includes no exceptions for rape or incest:

Is it terrible to hope tropical storm Isaac hits the RNC in Tampa? Yeah, probably so. 

Surly Thor has Words for Todd Akin LOLZ
http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2012/08/22/surly-thor-has-words-for-todd-akin/

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Rick Perry Seems to Hate Poor Folks and Women (and especially poor women)

Rick Perry hates poor folks and women (and especially poor women, and extra-especially slutty poor women)

Health and reproductive news here in Texas always leaves me with a combination of "OMGWTF?!?" and "eh, what the heck else should I expect from the good ol' boys club?" Our governor, pride of Aggieland, Rick Perry, has of course declined to expand medicaid as outlined in the recently-approved-by-SCOTUS Affordable Care Act (ACA). That was an obvious one, since they ruled that states actually could not be coerced into the expansion. In the linked article on RH Reality Check, Grimes points out that we have the highest rate of uninsured folks of any state with 25% of our population lacking health insurance. Health policy expert Elena Marks told Grimes that leaving this population uninsured doesn't decrease the cost of their healthcare, it just shifts it to the privately insured population. Apparently, the Texas Medical Association (TMA) says "insured Texas families pay nearly 80 percent more than the national average in premiums to cover the cost of care for the uninsured." (Quote from RHRC piece, link is to TMA page with lots of good info that I haven't had time to check out.)

Wait....WHAT?!? So my ridiculously high-priced premiums, paid partly by me and partly by the UT system, amounts to robbery of my income to pay for uninsured folks' care?!? So we COULD be accepting federal money to try and set up insurance to get these folks preventative services, and instead we are taking money for emergency room visits out of my paycheck?!? Okay, less "meh" and more "OMGWTF" over here.

Let's not forget that this is just the "health" part of the news to which I refer, we haven't covered the "reproductive" part. We have already rejected federal money for the Women's Health Program, specifically so that we could make sure no funds will go to Planned Parenthood. More on that to be found here. Now the Texas Department of Health and Human Services has proposed new rules that not prevents physicians accepting Medicaid from affiliating with abortion providers, they cannot "promote" abortion. As in: they cannot even discuss it with their patients, or provide any information about abortion at all to their patients. So economically disadvantaged women, the ones least likely to have means of caring for an unplanned child, are disproportionately affected by these rules. Of course, they might not find themselves asking about abortion if they had just been able to get into Planned Parenthood for some affordable, effective contraceptives. 


Let's just hope we don't end up like Mississippi. Though the woman running the last clinic there is putting up a good fight. 

Just so we don't end on a sour note.... In happier news, "Melinda Gates Challenges Vatican by Vowing to Improve Contraception." Go on, girl!