Courtesy RedBubble.com

I haven’t posted about the efforts by the right-wing reactionaries to relegate women’s health care back into second class citizenship in a while. It’s important to keep these issues in the spotlight, so I felt it’s high time we round up the latest news on GOP’s nationwide effort to nibble away at the constitutional right for women to seek an abortion.

First up, Kansas where Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law a bill that allows pharmacists to opt out of dispensing drugs they think would cause an early termination in a woman’s pregnancy:

Called the Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act, the new law will bar anyone from being required to prescribe or administer a drug they “reasonably believe” might result in the termination of a pregnancy. The law was signed Monday. Critics say the law will open the door for a pharmacist to refuse a request for something like the “morning-after” pill, which the Mayo Clinic says can prevent or delay ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

They argued that the law puts pharmacists and physicians in a position to refuse birth control and that it will affect many women, especially those in small towns and rural communities since the health provider wouldn’t be required to provide a referral somewhere else. Abortion opponents said the bill is a narrow upgrade of a 1969 Kansas law that said no one should be required to perform or participate in abortion procedures.

Yet another unfunded government mandate…Who would measure the viability of one’s reason, in this specific case? Why should women have to leave in the hands of their pharmacist whether they should have access to adequate reproductive health, including the morning after pill?

Next is Mississippi, which is always full of surprises. Republican State Rep. Bubba Carpenter is  a-okay with the health dangers lurking for women who perform self-induced abortions with coat hangers. No. Joke.

It’s going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all — but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to– Roe vs. Wade. So we’ve done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They’re like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger. That’s what we’ve learned over and over and over.’

But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we’ve decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi.

Yes, let’s allow women to utilize coat hangers to induce abortions if it’s in the name of starting somewhere. Let’s allow women to risk developing the numerous health complications with performing at-home pregnancy terminations. If it’s for the greater good and if it’s part of an effort to implement statewide moral values, then why not? A couple thousand deaths from complications of using coat hangers won’t hurt anyone.

Can someone please inform this asshat that the U.S. Constitution actually liberates women from using dangerous tools to terminate a pregnancy? Can someone please inform this asshat that self-induced abortions would actually be detrimental to the state as it would most likely cause a serious public health crisis? The reproductive health of women in Mississippi and across this country is much more worthy than resorting to self-induced abortions in poorly lit alleys, sketchy doctors’ offices or a woman’s home.

A judge in Oklahoma has tossed out the state’s law that would put restrictions on drugs used to induce abortions.

The court found that House Bill 1970 is “an unconstitutional law in violation of the fundamental rights of women to privacy and bodily integrity,” guaranteed by the Oklahoma Constitution, according to an order issued Friday.

The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice and Reproductive Services in Tulsa challenged the law. Gov. Mary Fallin signed the measure into law on May 11, 2011.

It was put on hold pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

The court found that the measure’s requirements were “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that it can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those women who do.”

The opinion said that a state regulation that puts a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion creates on an undue burden on her ability to make that decision.

The due-process clause of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to terminate pregnancy as a fundamental right, the opinion said.

One can only hope other judges will see through these Republican-led, thinly veiled attempts to roll back women’s

Courtesy Infinite Square

reproductive rights and access back into the pre-Roe v. Wade Era.

Not to be out done, Arizona continues to make a name for itself in the social issues arena:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has put an end to tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood by signing a bill that she says closes loopholes for funding abortions.

The bill, known as the “Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act,” tightens existing state regulations and prevents any government entity — city, county or state — from giving money to an organization that offers family planning that may indirectly fund abortions.

It “closes loopholes in order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly,”  Brewer said in a statement Friday after she signed the bill.

Arizona’s Republican-led Legislature passed other reproductive healthcare bills during a 116-day session that ended Thursday.

Brewer signed a bill last month banning most abortions after 20 weeks.

“Planned Parenthood’s abortion-centered business model does not need or deserve taxpayer dollars,” said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) in a statement for the Susan B. Anthony List, an advocacy group opposed to abortions.

However, Arizona already bans providing tax dollars for abortion unless the mother’s life is at stake and Planned Parenthood argues that the bill essentially stifles healthcare for women on Medicaid.

“The problem is the state does not actually contract with Planned Parenthood or any healthcare providers,” Bryan Howard, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Arizona, told the Los Angeles Times in a telephone interview Saturday.

Feel free to drop your knowledge of other Republican-led states using their power to make our uteri the top priority for government regulation.

Courtesy ABC/Dancing with the Stars

President Barack Obama’s endorsement for marriage equality has drawn some push back in many circles. Of all people, Bristol Palin has joined in on the criticism. I think it’s worth posting Palin’s entire comments so you can try to understand where she’s going:

Let’s pause for just one second.  When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission.  Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval.  (I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)

So are all those reporters who feared excessive family intervention in the White House all up in arms over the President’s announcement yesterday?  Um.  Not quite.

Liberals  everywhere are applauding him for his bravery and his wisdom.

So let me get this straight – it’s a problem if my mom listened too much to my dad, but it’s a heroic act if the President made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters?

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.  In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.  Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.  Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.

In this situation, it was the other way around.  I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.

Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking.  In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.

It’s so fascinating when people who are in glass houses feel that urge to throw stones. We all remember Palin when she first came onto the scene in 2008: an unwed pregnant teenager who was paraded around the campaign trail by her über Christian mother while she and GOP presidential candidate John McCain campaigned for the oval office.

I can’t be surprised at Palin’s assertions. She went on a homophobic, hateful rant last year at a bar when an on-looker criticized her mother. Palin and ger sister Willow took to Facebook and also went on a homophobic binge and they both later apologized for publicizing their bigotry.

Palin’s double standards are way too easy to ignore–and is just to easy to rip apart. One could easily argue that Palin should take a page from her own opinions and consider raising her son in a loving home with her child’s father.

Since I don’t believe that loving households for children automatically consist of two heterosexual parents, I won’t encourage Palin to fit her life into the mold of the outdated nuclear family model. I won’t encourage Palin to eat her own words and marry Levi Johnston just so she can give her child the illusion of a happy home. I won’t encourage Palin to fit into what society believes she should do and instead I would encourage her to follow her heart when it comes to her and her son’s happiness.

I will tell Palin to take a page from the Obamas–and other tolerant, loving individuals–and learn to accept that families come in all shapes, sizes, partnerships, marriages and include people who are asexual, homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. I would tell Palin to jump on off that pedestal and join the growing legions of people who are opening up their minds, arms and homes to individuals who not only love people of the same gender, but are also raising families with their same-sex/gender partners. I would encourage Palin to drop the homophobic attitude and, for the sake of her son, begin teaching tolerance, acceptance and social justice in an effort to stamp out the possibility of yet another generation corrupted by bigotry.

We need more states like California that are willing to consider banning this offensive, discriminatory faux therapy.

Sen. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Torrance, says so-called “reparative” or “ex-gay” therapy wrongfully treats homosexuality as a disease and can be dangerous to minors. If his bill becomes law, California would become the first state to ban therapy aimed at turning gay and lesbian teens straight.

“Some therapists are taking advantage of vulnerable people by pushing dangerous sexual orientation-change efforts,” Lieu said before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve the bill on Tuesday. “These non-scientific efforts have led in some cases to patients later committing suicide, as well as severe mental and physical anguish.”

SB 1172 now goes to the full Senate. No date for a vote has been set, but it will likely be in the next month, according to Lieu. If it passes there, it would face action in the Assembly.

“For decades, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people — particularly youth — have suffered psychological abuse by those who are entrusted to care for their emotional and psychological well-being,” Clarissa Filgioun, board president of Equality California, an advocacy organization that sponsored the bill, said in a statement. “It’s long past time to do everything in our power to put an end to the use of therapy tactics that have no sound scientific basis and that cause lifelong damage.”

The bill would ban children under 18 from undergoing so-called “sexual orientation change efforts,” often referred to by the acronym SOCE. It would also require adults seeking such treatment to sign informed-consent forms indicating that they understand potential dangers of reparative therapy that the bill lays out, including depression and suicide, and that it has no medical basis.

The bill’s movement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama’s announcement of his support for marriage equality for GLBTQ individuals. And, just so y’all know, presumed GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is well more than content with keeping his views in the 20th century, noting “I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. I have the same view I’ve had since, well, running for office” (SOURCE)

This also, as you know, comes on the heels of a sizable majority in North Carolina confirming its wishes to remain hostile to extending marriage equality to GLBTQ individuals–just like other states in the heart of Dixie.

While I would like for California’s law and Obama’s stance would signal a seismic shift in national policy, my pessimism is just too strong to believe anything positive will come out of these two developments for my GLBTQ brothers and sisters. While the president did note he believed it was up to states to decide how they should stand on this issue, you can’t ignore the historic nature to have the country’s first black president stand on the side of equality for all individuals.

Just to be sure, Obama has taken an unprecedented step. He is the first Democratic president to come out in support of marriage equality. While President Bill Clinton appointed some GLBTQ individuals to his cabinet, his presidency has produced the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, both laws that essentially rolled back the rights of GLBTQ folks. Along with rolling back Clinton’s DADT, Obama has also extended hospital visitations for GLBTQ individuals and signed the federal hate crimes bill into law.

His record and his stance on marriage equality will now compel future Democratic presidential candidates to openly declare their support or opposition to whether GLBTQ individuals should be able to wed. Furthermore, it would also compel the party to officially adopt the support of marriage equality in its platform at the Democratic National Convention this summer.

But, we can’t set aside the fact that states have a track record of refusing to extend marriage equality to GLBTQ individuals, with North Carolina becoming the 30th state in the country–and the last in the Deep South–to put a ban in place. We can’t ignore the fact that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act remains held up in the United States Congress. We can’t ignore the fact that, along with gay, lesbian and bisexual folks, transgender individuals continue to face discrimination, harassment and violence. We can’t ignore the fact that while marriage equality is a huge step towards GLBTQ individuals obtaining the same rights straight, cisgendered individuals, the fight for equality can’t end there.

We can’t ignore the fact that many GLBTQ teens are struggling with their sexuality and some have been drive to commit suicide. We can’t ignore the fact that many family members continue to ridicule and shun their GLBTQ relatives all in the name of some twisted view of religion and bigotry. We can’t ignore the fact that the fight for GLBTQ people to gain full-fledged equality in every facet of American society continues to remain an uphill battle.

Any who  (sorry for the rambling!!!)…

Obama’s stance is sure to cause some reflection and private discussions among other Democrats in power who have remained silent on the issue of marriage equality (The GOP’s position on this issue is moot as Romney is pretty much unwavering in his position). It would be interesting to see other high-powered Democrats would be willing to step into the 21st century behind Obama and support marriage equality.

Thoughts?

From the NY Times story linked above:

“Certain precincts in this county are not going to vote for Obama,” said John Corrigan, clerk of courts for Jefferson County, who was drinking coffee in a furniture shop downtown one morning last week with a small group of friends, retired judges and civil servants. “I don’t want to say it, but we all know why.”

A retired state employee, Jason Foreman, interjected, “I’ll say it: it’s because he’s black.”

For nearly three and a half years, a black family has occupied the White House, and much of the time what has been most remarkable about that fact is how unremarkable it has become to the country. While Mr. Obama will always be known to the history books as the country’s first black president, his mixed-race heritage has only rarely surfaced in visible and explicit ways amid the tumult of a deep recession, two wars and shifting political currents.

Breaking news!!! Not only does racism still exists in the good ol’ U.S. of A., but there are people who still won’t vote Obama the second time around because he’s a black man! Thanks to The New York Times for pointing this out because I just was just sure some white people had gotten over that whole race thing. More excerpts from this eye-opening article:

“I’ll just come right out and say it: he was elected because of his race,” said Sara Reese, a bank employee who said she voted for Ralph Nader in 2008, even though she usually votes Democrat.

Did her father, a staunch Democrat and retired mill worker, vote for Mr. Obama? “I’d have to say no. I don’t think he could do it,” she said.

But the main quarrels Democratic voters here have with Mr. Obama have nothing to do with race. They include his rejection of one proposed route for the Keystone pipeline, a stance they say will harm this area, whose backbone, the Ohio River, is lined with metal mills and coal mines.

And the economy, on the rise nationally, is still stuck here. About one in three residents in Steubenville live in poverty, double the national rate. Shale gas, which has begun to bring profits to some counties in Ohio, has yet to take off here, and downtown is a grid of empty storefronts behind dusty glass.

“The big word was ‘change,’ but there’s not been much of that,” said Christopher Brown, a union leader in Steubenville, who said more than 200 of his members were still out of work. “Members are saying, ‘What has President Obama done for us?’ ”As for race, he said, “It’s not on the front table, it’s in the back seat.” …

Many who raised race as a concern cast Mr. Obama as a flawed candidate carried to victory by blacks voting for the first time. Others expressed concerns indirectly, through suspicions about Mr. Obama’s background and questions about his faith.

“He was like, ‘Here I am, I’m black and I’m proud,’ ” said Lesia Felsoci, a bank employee drinking a beer in an Applebee’s. “To me, he didn’t have a platform. Black people voted him in, that’s why he won. It was black ignorance.”

Louis Tripodi, a baker in Steubenville who voted for Mr. Obama, blames talk radio and Republican rhetoric for encouraging such attitudes. “ ‘He’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s not born in this country,’ ” he said. “It’s got a lot to do with race.”

Race has also helped Mr. Obama. It increased voter turnout among blacks in 2008, and some younger voters said it was part of why they voted for him. But now that history has been made, it is less of a pull.

“It was kind of like a bandwagon that a lot of young people jumped on because it was history,” said Dee Kirkland, a 22-year-old working in a pizza shop in nearby Yorkville. “It was a fad to like him,” she said, adding that “race shouldn’t hinder you, but it also shouldn’t help you.”

Mr. Obama still has a number of enthusiastic supporters here. Diane Woods, the owner of Pee Dee’s Brunch and Bar, a diner in downtown Steubenville, described him as “regal, and presidential,” and said she would vote for him again because “when he talks, it makes sense to me.”

The fact that race came up at all in 2008 “really showed how divided we still are,” she said, cooking eggs one gray morning last week. “Blacks came out to vote for the first time because he was black, and you had all these whites saying, ‘Oh, there’s another vote from some drug addict.’ ”

I’m really honored The New York Times decided to finally publish something activists and bloggers like myself have said in the last four years since Barack Obama became a household name: there are certain white people out there who simply won’t like the president because he’s black. I mean, we black folks just had no idea that there are a small minority of people who simply won’t vote for the president because of his race. I can’t help but to give The New York Times a major side eye on this article.

The cold hard reality that some people will simply not like a black person because of his or her’s race is something that’s been instilled in black folks since they are old enough to begin to ask questions about race and racism. It’s something I’m sure the president had to learn while coming of age and it’s something he and Michelle Obama have expressed to both Sasha and Malia.

While I think the newspaper did a wonderful service in exposing the latent racism hidden in the mindset of these individuals in deciding who’ll they’ll support in November, I felt the article was lacking in discussing why people have these racist feelings about Obama and, consequently, black folks in general. The article left me wanting to know more about the demographics of the county and whether there had been a history in the county of racial tensions.

The article read like the same superficial news analysis on racism in America: some white people hate black folks and it’s the role of journalists to not only portray this reality as the feelings of a small few, but it’s also the part of the news business to find a social commentator to provide the most delicate reason as possible on why racism remains a plague. In other words, this article not only makes whiteness feel okay about racism being a problem of a small few, it also soothes the feelings of whiteness in reassuring white people that they are genuinely good people, despite the majority of them tolerating and accepting their own racial biases.

The reasons those quoted in the article on why they have problems with Obama’s race were not even explored, so the reader is left with a lingering question of why these staunch Democrats would feel so strongly about Obama’s race that they’d consider breaking political ranks and voting for other presidential candidates.

What did you think of The New York Times’ article?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az0BJRQ1cqM

I must say I’m more than ecstatic that someone finally called Harvey out for his anti-woman, homophobic spin on relationships. It’s hard for me, as a woman, to take any man seriously when his advice depends on my subjugation to what Harvey obviously believes as the stronger, more intelligent gender. It’s hard for me to respect and help financially support any man who advocates for such disparaging, restrictive gender roles in relationships. People are more complex than Harvey’s sophomoric take on relationships and gender roles are always evolving. I won’t even mention his questionable marriages in the past as they remain the elephant in the room.

What do you think of the video?

H/T Clutch Magazine