Starting with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week, we got the welcome news that for the first time, the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal in all or most cases. As you can imagine, the sex-hating religious extremists are working to spin those results. And of course they continue to place every possible legal obstacle between women and an affordable, safe, legal abortion. (Hell, they even oppose contraception, which would seem to be the logical solution to their abortion qualms!)

But eventually that tide will change, just as is now happening with gay marriage. The most significant long-term news is this new study in the American Journal of Public Health, whose lead author was Tracy Weitz, associate professor and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at UCSF.

This is significant because the shrinking number of abortion clinics (and more importantly, the declining number of physicians willing to perform abortions) has made the legal right to have an abortion an empty promise in many states. And many doctors now graduate medical school without ever learning how to perform an abortion.

The public health solution? The six-year study says that abortions performed by midwives, nurses and nurse practitioners are just as safe as those performed by doctors. We now know for a fact that there's no medical basis for requiring higher-paid doctors to provide first-term abortions, and that means eventually the policy will shift:

Currently in the United States, a patchwork of state regulations determines who can provide abortions, with several states specifically prohibiting non-physician clinicians from performing the procedure.

The new study was designed to evaluate the safety of early aspiration abortions when performed by nurse practitioners, physician assistants and certified nurse midwives trained in the procedure. The study was conducted under a legal waiver from the Health Workforce Pilot Projects Program, a division of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. California law requires a legal clarification about who can perform aspiration abortions.

The researchers report in their study that the results show the pool of abortion providers could be safely expanded beyond physicians to include other trained health care professionals. They found that:

• Nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants can provide early abortion care that is clinically as safe as physicians;

• Outpatient abortion is very safe, whether it is provided by physicians or by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives or physician assistants.

Nationally, 92 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester but studies find that black, uninsured and low-income women continue to have less access to this care, according to the researchers.

In California, 13 percent of women using state Medicaid insurance obtain abortions after the first trimester. Because the average cost of a second trimester abortion is substantially higher than a first trimester procedure and abortion complications increase as the pregnancy advances, shifting the population distribution of abortions to earlier gestations may result in safer, less costly care, according to the research team.

“Increasing the types of health care professionals who can provide early aspiration abortion care is one way to reduce this health care disparity,’’ said lead author Tracy Weitz. “Policy makers can now feel confident that expanding access to care in this way is evidence-based and will promote women’s health.’’

Currently, non-physicians are allowed to perform aspiration abortions in four states: Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire and Vermont. In other states, non-physician clinicians are permitted to perform medication but not aspiration abortions. In recent years, in an effort to limit abortion availability, several states have put laws on the books to prohibit non-physician clinicians from performing abortions.

In the study, 40 nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants from four Planned Parenthood affiliates and from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California were trained to perform aspiration abortions. They were compared to a group of nearly 100 physicians, who had a mean of 14 years of experience providing abortions.

Altogether, 5,675 abortions were performed in the study by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants, compared to 5,812 abortions by physicians. The abortions were performed between August 2007 and August 2011 at 22 clinical facilities in California.

And skilled abortion doctors can be reserved for the higher-risk second- and third-term abortions. It won't happen overnight (the Republicans still control too many state legislatures for that), but this is an important piece of science that will eventually make it easier and safer for women to have abortions.

DOWNLOADS: (139)

PLAYS: (1221)

Embed

Before long, Mitt Romney will be saying that he wants to raise taxes on the rich and curb global warming.

Mitt Romney today said no abortion legislation is part of his agenda, but he would prohibit federally-funded international nonprofits from providing abortions in other countries.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the GOP presidential candidate told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board during a meeting today before his campaign rally at a Van Meter farm.

If you recall, Romney's sister said basically the same thing in August.

So, if you're a one issue, "pro-life" voter -- Romney just told you that there's absolutely no reason to vote for him at all.

DOWNLOADS: (179)

PLAYS: (886)

Embed

Modern American politics is replete with what may be called “Asterisk Republicans.” These are conservatives who adhere to the GOP’s ideological orthodoxy* until such time as someone they care about is personally impacted by it. Dick Cheney’s support for same-sex unions, Fred Thompson’s stand for the right of families to make end of life decisions for their loved ones and Orrin Hatch’s conversion on stem cell research are just some of the examples the GOP’s “for me, not thee” approach.

That’s what makes Mitt Romney’s gymnastic reversal on the reproductive rights of American women so unique – and all the more shocking. After all, years before Romney’s statement last week that Roe v. Wade constituted “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,” he told Massachusetts voters he would “sustain and support it.” As it turns it out, Romney no longer mentions the "dear, close family relative" whose death from an illegal abortion once inspired his formerly "unwavering" pro-choice position.

On January 22nd, Mitt Romney marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by issuing the following statement:

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.”

But once upon a time, Mitt Romney’s good heart was concerned about the life and health of the mother, one of whom happened to be a member of his own extended family.

As Salon's Justin Elliott documented in "The Abortion That Mitt Doesn't Talk About Anymore," it was his own family story which informed his pro-choice position during his 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy labeled him "Multiple Choice Mitt," during their debate, Romney responded with a tale of personal loss:

"On the idea of 'multiple-choice,' I have to respond. I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

Reading Kathleen Parker's account, you wouldn't know of the existence of Ann Keenan, the sister of Romney's brother-in-law who died at the age of 21 in 1963 after a botched, illegal abortion. Of course, as this 2007 exchange with Tim Russert showed, Mitt Romney no longer wants you to know about her, either:

RUSSERT: You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure? ... So back to your relative.

ROMNEY: Mm-hmm.

Romney went on to explain the consequences (loss of license and possible prison time for doctors, though not patients) of his new-found anti-abortion views. But he never did get back to his relative.

As it turns out, Mitt Romney also threw his mother under the right-wing's anti-abortion bus.

Continue reading »

Can you believe this is the same man who got an endorsement from NARAL in 2002, because he said the pro-choice organization needed "a friend like him" in office? Boy, was that a big flip flop from today:

Romney made the following statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.”

What a load of crap, pardon my French. The "pro-life" movement has done nothing to protect the weakest and most vulnerable, because they do nothing to educate mothers, they do nothing to raise the circumstances of these babies they demand must be born, they offer nothing to help the family. They hold the fetus in higher regard than the mother and ignore the child once it's born.

That is the very opposite of being pro-life. I wonder if any of these Republicans have learned the lessons of what happened in Romania after Nicholas Ceausescu outlawed abortion and all forms of contraception and sex education. Hint: it didn't turn out too well for him.

Erickson really doesn't appear to be able to help himself. It's a sickness, really. But what does it say about CNN that Rick Sanchez can get fired but Erickson is still working, even after writing such violent prose like this?

CNN's Erick Erickson is also Editor-in-Chief and "Dear Leader" of the conservative blog Red State, so this charming passage posted by "The Directors" is presumably his doing:

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

That "only if" construct means that -- according to Erick Erickson's Red State -- "mass bloodshed" will be "necessary" if elected officials don't overturn Roe v. Wade. Again: Red State doesn't say "mass bloodshed" may occur if elected officials don't do what is "necessary to earn our support" -- it says such bloodshed will be "necessary."

Truly, I don't think you could expect the man who referred to Justice Souter as a "goat-f@#$ing molester" and Michelle Obama as a "Marxist harpy" to elevate the dialogue. It's just not within his sad, over-compensating little wheelhouse.

But this kind of carelessly eliminationist rhetoric--especially in the light of the Tucson shootings and the Dr. Tiller assassination--is frightening to see so unabashed. And it would be irresponsible not to speculate if CNN was aware of it when they touted Erickson for their SOTU analysis.

Perhaps you might ask CNN. Politely, of course. Edie Emery is listed as the contact person for CNN's SOTU coverage. Maybe Ms. Emery is unaware of the Son of Erick's body of work.

For the second time in six weeks, John McCain has challenged the press and the public to "name a single issue" where's he changed positions since 2000. Sadly for the supposed maverick, his growing list of reversals, flip-flops and turnabouts now numbers in the dozens.

None of which deterred McCain from pretending otherwise in an interview Wednesday with the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC. Asked, "where is the John McCain from 2000?" and "has something changed," Mr. Straight Talk responded:

"You’ll have to tell me what’s changed. I love it when they say, 'Oh McCain has changed.' And I say, 'What have I changed on?' They can’t name a single issue or they’ll name an issue and it's false. I’m the same guy. I’m proud of our campaign."

Last month, McCain threw down the same gauntlet during his disastrous appearance on ABC's The View. When host Joy Behar lamented, "I don’t see the old John McCain…I understand why - you want to get elected," McCain instinctively went to battle stations:

"I’ve been through this litany before, where I say, 'ok, what specific area have I quote changed?' Nobody can name it...I am the same person and I have the same principles."

As it turns out, not so much.

Continue reading »

The question was the overturning of Roe V. Wade and Rudy Giuliani's response was so bad that Chris Matthews had to go back to him for clarification. Meh, he could live with Roe or without it. "Metronome" Mitt Romney claims that a debate on cloning changed his mind on abortion a couple of years ago, but the kicker had to be the answer from Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas;

Download | play Download | play

Brownback: "It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom."

Well...except for women.

"Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned...read on"

Arlen Specter should have some fun with James Dobson soon

Armando links to a WSJ article that says Mr. Dobson and other religious leaders were assured on a conference call Oct. 3rd:

" ...in which two judges close to Miers assured him that they had spoken with her about Roe v. Wade and that she had indicated she would vote to overturn it."...read on"

If this is true, Dobson lied to everyone about his Karl Rove conversations and methinks Arlen Specter will have his revenge on Dobson when the time comes. As I've stated before, Dobson tried to derail Specter in the past and I'm sure Arlen will have a grand old time calling the dog beater in front of his committee to explain this newest revelation.

Kilgore on Abortion

Joe says: Love it when the right wingers can't answer a simple question....if their opposition to abortion is based on their morals, and if it's supposed to be such a great issue for the GOP

"...But Kilgore faltered under a series of questions by moderator Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press. Asked by Russert whether he would sign a bill to outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade , Kilgore refused to answer, calling the question hypothetical."

Check out the video on the WaPo page here