If only women didn't have those drippy, icky parts that make God-loving conservative politicians so edgy, politicians wouldn't be forced to do things like this to us. But women do have those icky parts, and thus we should understand that our job is to hush up - and be grateful for whatever crumbs we get.

Those crumbs, however, do not include routine gynecological care, nor do they include birth control. (Why am I so convinced that somewhere in this bill, Viagra is covered?)

Thanks, Democrats, for standing up for women - again! So far this week, I've turned down two fund-raising calls for the state and national Democratic party. At first, I was just angry over the Stupak amendment, but now I know I'm going to have to save that money in case I need a gynecologist.

From The Nation:

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

Got that? The Pap test itself will be covered - but not the visit to the gynecologist to get it.

Granted, Congress can't--and shouldn't--get into the business of spelling out every possible cause for a trip to the doctor. No one wants the process to collapse under a mountain of requests from special interest groups à la the Clinton mess in 1993. But women, half of all adult patients, are not a special interest group. And since both the House and Senate bills include lists of specific services that must be covered by health insurance companies and be provided without asking patients for additional money, it's hard to understand why all the services provided in a basic well-woman visit to the gynecologist isn't on them along with maternity care, newborn care, pediatric dental and vision services, and substance use disorder services.

Uh, hello? Remember? Icky parts!

The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightning rods, even when abortion is not the issue.

Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."

Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines. The amendment passed by just one vote, with all the committee's Republicans as well as Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, voting against it. The committee's discussion of the amendment was dominated by Republicans' worry about the possibility of government money winding up in the hands of Planned Parenthood. Since there is no similar language included in the just-released House bill, the only hope for requiring full coverage for these essential services now lies with the Senate.

Good old Bob Casey! He's the same Pennsylvania senator who's now working on the Senate version of the Stupak amendment. (Hey, if you'd like to share your opinion with him, you can call him at 202-224-6324 or toll-free at 866-802-2833.)

While some within the anti-abortion movement have long opposed birth control, there is still widespread support for it among the general public, with virtually all women of childbearing age who have had sex using contraception. So why would senators treat birth control and other basic women's health services as a proxy for abortion? "People equate family planning services with Planned Parenthood, and they equate Planned Parenthood with abortion," says Adam Sonfield, an expert on funding for reproductive health services at the Guttmacher Institute. The senators who turned Mikulski's language into a referendum on abortion "either misunderstood or purposely distorted the amendment."

Such is the intellectual acumen of our elected officials. Either they're really that stupid - or pathological liars. (Or both.)

Either way, the irony of letting anti-abortion sentiment undercut the coverage of birth control is that it will likely lead to more abortions. "If women can't get this kind of primary care, there are three clear outcomes: cancer, abortions and infertility," says Anne Davis, medical director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and a practicing Ob/Gyn in New York City. Davis cites the facts that untreated sexually transmitted infections can lead to infertility, and that pelvic exams help diagnose cervical cancers. As for the importance of covering--and not requiring women to kick in additional money for--birth control, Davis says, "It's fundamental primary preventive care. So if we don't do this, we're causing a lot of abortions."

Still, some Democrats involved in the health reform sausage-making process counsel patience. Noting that both Pap smears and mammograms should be covered by a reform bill, Senator Al Franken said, "There's more we need to do for women's health, but this is a huge step forward for American women, many of whom don't get these recommended screenings right now. What we pass may not be perfect, but it will make progress in improving the lives and health of women."

Oh, Al. What would Frannie say? More to the point, what would your daughter Thomasin say?

Yet, before we resign ourselves to a very imperfect health reform bill, it's worth reminding lawmakers that women's health extends far beyond abortion. And while those who make our laws may fear the consequences of taking a stand for basic services for this half of the population, the cost of not doing it, both in terms of health and politics, is sure to be far greater.

As I said, I've already turned down two Democratic fundraising calls this week. I don't know about you, but I'm just not feeling it these days. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd swear the Democratic party just doesn't care about women.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (866)

PLAYS: (1913)

Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News Sunday this week and when asked by Chris Wallace if his thesis he wrote back in 1989 was advocating a "radical agenda", McDonnell did his best to downplay it.

Wallace: You enjoyed according to the polls, a solid lead in this race until it was revealed that in 1989 you wrote a master’s thesis in which you said, and let’s put up some of the things on the screen, this has obviously been a big issue here in Virginia-- The new trend of working women and feminism that is ultimately detrimental to the family. You criticize tax credits for child care. And you even opposed a Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for married couples. Mr. McDonnell, isn’t that a pretty radical agenda?

McDonnell: No. I think those are a couple of quotes out of a 100-page document, Chris, and what the whole purpose of the, of the thesis was to say, look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.

Look, it’s been twenty years ago and some of my views over time have changed. I strongly support women in the work force. That was one of the criticisms my opponent made. My daughter’s been in Iraq, my daughters both work, my wife is working and outside the home, I mean… those allegations that I think have been inferences from a quote or two out of an old thesis is simply not accurate.

Wallace: But if I may, your opponent says and I’m going to represent his interests here because he’s not here to speak for himself, that it isn’t just what you wrote twenty years ago when you were age 34 in a master’s thesis, that you have followed these as a state legislator. Let’s put up an ad that Creigh Deeds is running.

After playing the clip Wallace points out McDonnell's voting record.

Wallace: In face we checked the record. As a legislator you voted against a resolution that would have called for ending wage discrimination based on gender. You voted against extending child care services and you voted against extending or requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control. So it’s not just a thesis.

McDonnell’s defense… "You have to look at my entire record" and he claims that many of the ads run against him are “outright lies” and are not honest, but he does not say just what those distortions are. Of course Wallace doesn’t follow up and make him give specifics as to what he disagrees with in the ads. That said I think when even Chris Wallace is calling you "radical", that's not a good sign for what the voters are going to think as they learn more about this guy.

Remember during the stimulus debate, when the Republicans told us birth control funds didn't have a damned thing to do with the economy - and the Democrats, as usual, knuckled under to them?

The Guttmacher Institute has just released a report on the impact of the recession on family planning, and the results are predictable - at least, if you're a normal (i.e. non-wingnut) person. Via Salon:

This summer, researchers surveyed 947 women between the ages of 18 and 34 with household incomes of less than $75,000. They found that women are preoccupied by worry about money, medical costs and childcare. Most of the women hope to get pregnant later on or have decided against having kids because of these tough times -- and that's even more common among women who are less well-off than they were a year ago. A total of 64 percent agreed with the statement, "With the economy the way it is, I can’t afford to have a baby right now."

These findings are all rather intuitive, but what this actually means for pregnancy prevention is less straightforward. A total of 29 percent say they are "more careful" than before about using contraception every time they have sex. There is a flip-side to that, though: Eight percent of women are using birth control less regularly as a means of saving money and, among women in financial decline, that number rises to 12 percent. Things are even sketchier among women on the pill: 18% are popping hormones irregularly to save some cash -- either by missing pills, filling their prescription late, taking at least one month off or picking up fewer packs at a time. That number balloons to 25 percent when it comes to the category of worse-off women.

Overall, 23 percent are having a tougher time than a year ago covering the cost of birth control and -- again, say it with me now -- that number is higher among women whose finances have dwindled. The upshot: Those who are least capable of affording the cost of a child are putting themselves at the greatest risk for an unplanned pregnancy. Women also report avoiding appointments with their gynecologists in the last year -- especially those who have recently lost their health insurance.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1157)

PLAYS: (2358)

We always knew it would come to this. It's never really about abortion, it's about sex - and punishing the people who think they can act like sluts and get away with it instead of feeling God's wrath!

TALLAHASSEE -- A nationwide anti-abortion group launched an effort in Florida Friday to outlaw all abortions and certain types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill.

The religion-infused movement, called "Personhood Florida," would define conception in Florida's constitution at the "biological beginnings," supporters said -- when the sperm meets the egg. The group filed its amendment today but the exact ballot language is still being worked out, said Secretary of State Spokeswoman Jennifer Krell-Davis.

The amendment seeks to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Also criminalized: the morning-after pill and oral contraceptives taken by women, known as the pill. "There are some (birth control) methods that kill a child," said Pat McEwan, who is leading the Personhood Florida group.

The amendment faces extremely long odds. First, supporters must gather 676,811 signatures to make the ballot -- by Feb. 1, to go before voters in 2010.

And Florida has a 60-percent threshold for constitutional amendments to become law, a very difficult hurdle even for less radical ideas. In Colorado, the only state where the "personhood" amendment has appeared on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea by an almost three-to-one margin.

Even if adopted by voters, the amendment runs counter to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that held the U.S. Constitution grants women the basic right to an abortion.

Supporters say they're pushing the personhood amendment not only in Florida, but in a dozen other states.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2239)

PLAYS: (7669)

Here we go again. Another phony pro-life or should I say, anti-choice republican gets exposed in dirty dealings. He's not so much against the idea of sex as wanting the young ones for himself.

Ken Whitehouse:

State Sen. Paul Stanley (R-Memphis) will resign his chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow, NashvillePost.com has learned, in the wake of the revelation that he was the subject of an attempted blackmail scheme over a sexual relationship with an intern in his office.

Nashville Post:

In April of this year, I and a group of Planned
Parenthood supporters from Memphis met with Sen. Paul Stanley in his
office. We told him about all the good Planned Parenthood does in
Memphis by providing basic gynecological health care and birth control
to teens and young people and also providing medically-accurate
sexuality education programs. I had hoped to convince him that there’s
a real need for our services, especially in Memphis, which has the
highest sexually transmitted infection rates in the nation and one of
the highest teenage pregnancy rates as well. Planned Parenthood
Greater Memphis Region tries to help young people and low income
people, almost all of whom are already sexually active protect
themselves from pregnancy and disease. Sen. Paul Stanley is my state
senator, and he made it clear at our meeting that he didn’t care about
my concerns about these issues that have a major impact in the Memphis
area and that he would not ever support Planned Parenthood.

He told us that he didn’t believe young people should have sex
before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to
him, and he wants to promote abstinence, blah, blah, blah. Now I
realize that when he said those things, he had already been sexing it
up with an intern and her boyfriend was trying to blackmail him with
dirty pictures. In retrospect, I think maybe Sen. Stanley meant that
he just doesn’t want young people to have sex with each other, thereby
saving the cute young things for himself. Hypocrite, anyone?

No sex for you....Is Stanley saying that after marriage you should be able to have sex with everybody?

For once, I am firmly in Nancy Pelosi's corner. Of course an economic stimulus program should include family planning funds.

And God, how I hate these cynical Republicans - and the spineless Democrats who roll over for them. Only someone who's never been poor is breathtakingly stupid enough to believe that birth control doesn't have an immediate effect on the economic health of a family - or someone who's cynical enough to draw a line in the sand over something he doesn't believe anyway - like John Boehner.

What, an additional wage earner has no economic impact on a family? Or have we suddenly awakened in a world where free daycare, diapers and formula abound?

What makes me so furious is, we don't need the Republicans to pass this package, anyway. Why, oh why are we knuckling under to the people who have already demonstrated their utter indifference to the poor - and their economic incompetence? We voted for Democrats because we didn't want to see important legislative decisions based on right-wing memes:

Call Waxman's office and give him an earful:
DC: 202-225-3976
CA offices:
323-651-1040
818-878-7400
310-652-3095

And contact President Obama by email here, or call:

Comments:
202-456-1111
Switchboard:
202-456-1414

WASHINGTON – House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services — including contraceptives — under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.

Democrats considered the politically-potent change as congressional budget experts estimated it would take slightly longer for the overall legislation to achieve an impact on the economy than the administration projects.

Oh look, now Obama is throwing mortgage modifications under the same bus!

  File this under: If Only Barack Obama Said It. After being asked a question on the "Suck Up Express" yesterday about his position on insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control, McCain became visibly uncomfortable and was unable to reconcile his past vote against requiring the coverage of birth control with a statement one of his top advisers made just earlier this week.

Download | play   Download | play  

WSJ:

When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said—with a nervous laugh–“I certainly do not want to discuss that issue.”

The reporter pressed. “But apparently you’ve voted against—“

“I don’t know what I voted,” McCain said.

The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. “Is that still your position?” she persisted.

During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. “I’ve cast thousands of votes in the Senate,” McCain said, then continued: “I will respond to—it’s a, it’s a…”

It's pretty sickening to watch the cast of "Morning Joe" laugh it up and fail to acknowledge that this is a pretty big stumble by McCain. Not only is his campaign sending mixed messages about a rather important issue to millions of Americans, the Senator is so clearly confused and caught in the headlights as he's called out on a blatant flip-flop.

Imagine if Barack Obama had been stumped like this. It would have been the story of the day, with the blaring headline: Obama Stumbles On Key Women's Issue; Will He Lose Their Support? Then talking head after talking head would be paraded on television to lecture seriously about Obama's "women problem" and whether or not this will doom his chances at winning them over.

But instead, McCain said it, and everyone has a laugh and moves on.

UPDATE:  (Nicole) McCain hasn't spent a lot of time on these issues at all.  In fact, as The Political Base recounts, last year he couldn't tell reporters if condoms stop STDs or if he supported Bush's abstinence-only education.

Continue reading »