tl;dr: a pro-life woman applies for a nursing job at a family planning clinic that requires nurses to prescribe birth control to patients, but refused to do so because she believes that birth control = abortions. so, she’s suing them for not hiring her for a job she refuses to do.
Well, they did take away her Jebus (and SCOTUS) granted right to shame and harass women and other people with uteruses for their reproductive choices. HOW DARE THEY?!
Unqualified Person Sues Clinic Because They Suck at Job Hunting
"Unqualified, Lazy Moocher Wants to Be Paid for Not Doing Her Job."
Yep, I’m actually back. I’ve lately felt the urge to blog again. I’ll ease into it with the laziest of blogger tricks: the link round-up!
- The Department of Homeland Security is recognizing same-sex relationships as a reason to delay deportation. Unfortunately, it does not mean gay immigrants can apply for visas based on same-sex marriages to citizens.
- When it comes to foreign policy, Obama has doubled down on troubling Bush-era tactics. So is it moral for lefties to vote for Obama?
- Thank goodness someone’s said it! The Myth of Male Decline or why the loss of male privilege isn’t “the end of men”:
Fifty years ago, every male American was entitled to what the sociologist R. W. Connell called a “patriarchal dividend” — a lifelong affirmative-action program for men.
The curtailment of…male entitlements and the expansion of women’s legal and economic rights have transformed American life, but they have hardly produced a matriarchy. Indeed, in many arenas the progress of women has actually stalled over the past 15 years.
- On how physically and mentally taxing it is to be president and how much worse it would be for a female president.
- The New Yorker has an excellent piece on the invention of political consulting
- Should we be advocating for strong ‘traditional’ families? Countries “where the family ties were weakest tended to have the strongest levels of civic and political engagement and generalized social trust”
- Interesting piece by The Guardian on how ordinary women are starting to be treated like celebrities by creepy men with cameras: Creepshots and revenge porn: how paparazzi culture affects women
A very interesting list that discusses some recent-ish trends in religion— from Judaism to Latino Catholicism to the ‘new nihilism’—that haven’t been widely covered in the press. I’m particularly irked by #6 Upside-down Ideas about Religious Liberty:
The dramatic new push for religious liberty exemptions for faith-connected providers of taxpayer-supported health services underscores the radical way in which understandings of religious liberty have changed in recent years. It’s not that the push for exemptions hasn’t made the news; it’s that no one is writing (at least in the MSM) about the radical nature of the shift. In the past, the social service arms of religious bodies understood that if they wanted public money they would need to honor public law regarding the disposition of the money: i.e., provide the full range of mandated services on a universal basis. We used to say to objectors, “If you don’t like the mandate, don’t take the money.”
Apparently such a commonsensical response is now insufficiently deferential to religion. More and more people seem willing to say that if a Catholic health care provider doesn’t “believe” in providing reproductive health care to women, that private belief can trump public law. This is a particularly thorny problem because of the many regional health care system mergers involving Catholic partners: there are now many places in the country where, if a dominant provider that toes the bishops’ line won’t provide the service, area women will be out of luck and deprived of benefits they are entitled to receive by law.
See also the refusal of religious pharmacists to fill orders for Plan B, the repeated attempts by fundamentalists to force public schools to teach creationism, and the mandate of abstinence-only sex. ed. by politicians and school boards (despite the fact that it’s led to dire results). Absurdly deferential treatment of religious folks (Christian ones, at least) is becoming the new normal in this country (here’s one example from this past year). I fully blame the GOP for courting evangelicals in the ’90s and fostering an atmosphere in which the views of far-right Christians have become privileged over everyone else’s.
This state of affairs completely undermines what the Founders intended with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Freedom to practice your religion without state interference does NOT mean that government must therefore privilege your rights over everyone else’s. If a Catholic hospital is funded with taxpayer money, then they can’t use religious reasons to restrict the use of that money, i.e. not provide reproductive healthcare.
When the GOP supported birth control: Letter from George H. W. Bush shows he was pro-Planned Parenthood.
As Jodi Jacobson notes, Republicans were supportive of women’s health programs and family planning long before they denounced it. In May of 1972, then-UN ambassador George H.W. Bush wrote a letter to “Alan Guttmacher (founder of the Guttmacher Institute) congratulating him on creation of a ‘family planning’ stamp commemorating (gasp!!) Margaret Sanger.”
From the halycon years before the rabid Christian Right took over the GOP.
If you’re anything like me, you probably spend a lot of your time fretting because right wingers have grown incredibly bold about bald-faced lying, and so far it seems there’s literally nothing that can be done about it. We have extensive freedom of speech protections, which is a good thing of course, but leaves us with few options to stem the ever-growing tide of lies emanating from a right wing that knows that it can’t make an honest argument. The mainstream media has basically abandoned its mission to correct lies with the truth. Some publications continue to fact check claims made by pundits, activists, and politicians, but it’s just not enough to counter the endless stream of lies and misinformation coming from the right….
Well, there is one door that is available, but not used especially often: lawsuits. Part of that is that it’s difficult to show damages with some of the lies that right wingers float, but not always. Some lies are actionable. Which is why I’m glad someone fought back against the aneurysm-causing lie that was in non-stop rotation during the health care debate, which is that health care reform somehow meant taxpayer-funded abortions.
"A judge is allowing former Ohio congressman Steve Driehaus to sue the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List for defamation, because as he sensibly pointed out, they were lying about whether abortion is "taxpayer-funded" under the Affordable Care Act.
The irony is that Driehaus is anti-choice. He did, however, vote for health insurance reform, which meant that SBA decided to run the above billboards against him. Despite the fact that abortion is never paid for by federal funds (except extremely limited cases of rape and incest victims on Medicaid) and the ACA didn’t change the status quo, anti-choicers have been obsessed with insisting that it does by focusing on federal subsidies to private plans….
Colbert on the shift in health care regulation mandating that birth control be covered as preventative care.
Pure gold, as usual.
Great News of the Day. As per new recommendations by the Dept of Health and Human Services, birth control, as well as other methods of contraception like voluntary sterilization, will be covered by health insurance plans as preventative care. All plans beginning on or after August 1, 2012 will include this and the new requirements will go into full effect in January of 2013. Katie Rogers at WaPo is absolutely right to call this a “historic development in the debate over women’s health care.” It’s pretty monumental. (CBS News photo).
Read the Washington Post story.
Ready to hear arguments of why this plan will morally send the country down the toilet in 3…2…1….
You know what else is free? KEEPING YOUR LEGS TOGETHER, YOU SLUTS!
I’m kidding. Huzzah!
The moon will punish us for making it easier for her daughters to forsake her. Mark my words. Mark them well.
See, anti-choicers? Giving women more control over our bodies does not, in fact, lead to an orgy of abortions. Giving women better access to reproductive care, including abortions, leads to fewer abortions and, I’ll add, healthier women and children.
Spain brought its abortion laws in line with most other European countries last July allowing abortion on demand up to 14 weeks of pregnancy and up to 22 weeks if there is fetal malformation or threat to the health of the mother.
Before its introduction abortions were offered under restricted circumstances and rarely in a public hospital. Terminations were allowed only until the 12th week of pregnancy in cases of rape or until the 24 weeks if a woman’s mental or physical health was in danger.
The legislation saw a series of huge demonstrations by pro-lifers on the streets across Spain supported by the Catholic Church and the conservative opposition Popular Party (PP) who said it would cause a leap in the number of terminations.
But associations for abortion clinics across Spain said the number of terminations had in fact declined to various degrees depending on the region over the year.
Spain’s Health Ministry has yet to publish official figures but confirmed a pattern of decline which it attributed to a number of measures.“The sale of the ‘morning-after pill’ over the counter, pregnancy prevention programs and the advent of new subsidised contraceptives are all helping reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies,” said Jose Martinez Olmos, Secretary General for Health
An amazing graphic from the Third Wave Foundation detailing what it really takes to get an abortion. It points out a lot of important things that it’s easy to forget about, like a permanent residence, or money for a mandatory sonogram, or transportation costs.
Check out the report on TWF’s Emergency Abortion Fund, which provides monies for female-bodied persons seeking abortions around the US. There’s a lot of fascinating data in there about who needs money and why, and the sorts of costs faced by those seeking abortions.
Thank you! Getting an abortion is not at all the cakewalk anti-choicers make it out to be.
But while that fertilized egg may or may not signal the beginning of personhood, there’s one thing it definitely does not begin. Medically, at least, fertilization does not mark the beginning of pregnancy.
“The medical community has really been quite clear about when pregnancy begins,” says Dan Grossman, an obstetrician/gynecologist at the University of California, San Francisco, “and that definition is that pregnancy begins once implantation occurs.”
That would be the implantation of the fertilized egg into the woman’s uterus. One reason doctors don’t consider a woman pregnant until after implantation is a practical one — that’s when pregnancy can be detected by hormone changes in her urine.
But there’s another reason, Grossman says. “It’s really only about half of those fertilized eggs [that] actually result in an ongoing pregnancy.”
The rest of the fertilized eggs either never begin dividing or never implant. Or they do implant but spontaneously abort. That can happen so early in pregnancy that the woman never even knows she was pregnant.
So from a medical point of view, considering every fertilized egg a person, with a person’s full rights, wouldn’t make a lot of sense, he says.
This practically made me cry. How could this ever be okay?
[Image: An illustration is labeled as a “partial birth abortion”. It shows a person performing an intact dilation and extraction, which is described at the bottom of the image: “The surgeon pulls the fetus into the breech position. He forced scissors into the skull, removes them and inserts a suction catheter through which he suctions out the skull contents.”]
I’m going to tell you a story that my tenth grade biology teacher told me.
So, my teacher had a friend. She was happily married, a Christian, and pregnant. She and her husband were extremely excited about the pregnancy and they couldn’t wait to be parents. She was pretty far along - probably about 7 month in. She went to get a check-up, and her doctor checked out the fetus. Well, it turns out her fetus had hydrochephalus. In this particular case, the fetus’s head had not and would not form enough to even hold the brain inside the skull. If the woman continued the pregnancy, she would give birth to a dead baby, and that’s if it didn’t die in utero and possibly cause sepsis before she had the opportunity to give birth.
So, and this was before the “partial birth abortion ban” was enacted (not when the story was told, but when it took place), the woman opted to get an intact dilation and extraction procedure (since that’s the proper medical term, “partial birth abortion” is a made up term and has no medical relevance).
Do you know what that allowed her to do? What that allows a lot of uterus-bearers in the same predicament to do?
She was able to hold her dead, intact fetus and mourn for it.
Now, she would have to get a procedure that literally rips the fetus apart, since apparently anti-choicers looking for a means to chip away at Roe v Wade think that this is a better alternative to the described procedure above. As the law currently stands, it is now impossible for people like the woman I described to have their fetuses aborted intact so that they can hold them like they wanted to. It is impossible for women like the one I described to have a body to mourn over.
So good job. Because you’re too ignorant to actually know why uterus-bearers get late-term abortion, specifically intact D & X procedures, you’ve essentially made it much harder for those that are experiencing the difficult choice to end a wanted pregnancy to mourn and move on.
But hey, go ahead and continue to consider yourself compassionate. I guess ignorance really is bliss, especially when you can hold up illustrations of medical procedures you don’t understand and hide behind them as if they have any meaning in the face of the reality that you refuse to acknowledge.
Like, gosh, we’re in a majority black neighborhood, so we’d better keep the glucose tablets locked up! Condoms too!
I mean, if I have to ask a pharmacist who’s already busy as hell to come unlock the cabinet just so I can get my medical supplies, I’m probably just not going to buy those supplies. Why is it so important to keep these things from being shoplifted? Why only in DC and not in Virginia? Hmmm???
Reblogging myself because I was just thinking about how fucked up it is to keep condoms locked up in a city where HIV is considered an epidemic. We just don’t need any more barriers between people and this city and potentially life-saving prophylactics, you know?
It’s definitely fucked up, but the fact is: condoms get stolen a lot. So do pregnancy tests, batteries, and certain over-the-counter drugs. I’m always surprised when I’m in a store that doesn’t have all that shit locked up.
There ought to be vending machines that sell condoms, lube, and pregnancy tests everywhere. It would cut down on people shoplifting them because they’re embarrassed to bring that shit up to the counter to be rung up.
We made this chart back when Congress was debating whether to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Now that Indiana has done just that at the state level, we figure it’s time to revisit this important point, even though the numbers above refer to federal programs.