| |
| HHS Moves to Define Contraception as AbortionSOURCE: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. twistedchick: The Religious-Right-run US Department of Health and Human Services is redefining contraception as abortion, in order to make it harder -- or impossible -- for women to avoid pregnancy. They're doing this by claiming -- without any evidence -- that hormonal contraception acts to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, and they're defining "prevention of implantation" as abortion because they're defining "the beginning of human life" as fertilization.
Feministing has plenty to say about this:You might think Bush has done all the damage he possibly can to reproductive rights. But he's not done yet:The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.
Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign "written certifications" as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services. The rule defines "abortion" so broadly that it could also apply to birth control pills and emergency contraception. And because the rule would apply to federal health programs, low-income and uninsured women will be most affected.... Read her full post here, she has lots more to say on the subject and has more links. What the fuck has happened to this country that we've allowed this kind of regressive bullshit - are we more collectively stupid than I thought? I wonder how many are aligned with these dumbasses. | |
|
|  |
John McCain (R-Cunt Whore) |
Oh, I am PISSED. McCain on Roe v. Wade, Washington Post, 8/24/99: “I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Scott Lemieux, 2/19/07: Given the news that John McCain has forcefully denounced Roe v. Wade, the understandable liberal reaction is to point out the inconsistency of this legendary Straight Talker (TM). And I agree, in general, that the media myths about McCain's increasingly risible claims to independence need debunking. Given the unpopularity of his position, though, when it comes to forced pregnancy it should be pointed out that his record is in fact fundamentally consistent: he's for it. He has a 0% NARAL rating. He's never met a federal abortion regulation he doesn't like. He voted for Robert Bork, which would have meant Roe being overturned 15 years ago. He favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion. It's true that he has said that he wouldn't want his daughter forced by the state to carry a pregnancy to term, but basically all American social conservatism comes with an implicit self-exemption for rich white people, and John McCain's daughter won't have a problem obtaining a safe abortion if Roe is overturned.
So while McCain made some egregious panders about abortion when running in a primary in which his major opponent already had the social conservative vote locked up, McCain is in fact a consistent supporter of criminalized abortion. Further emphasis on the key fundamental summation here, the topic at hand notwithstanding, is this gem: "...basically all American social conservatism comes with an implicit self-exemption for rich white people" | |
|
|