There’s a lot of talk about what would happen to Roe v. Wade should John McCain get elected. Most people that seriously enjoy a woman’s right to reproductive health have no issue discussing this. They recognize the danger of McCain being able to potentially pick two John Roberts-style Supreme Court judges. We don’t want that. The PUMAs though, well, they’re all fucking insane. They say stupid shit like “The Democratic Congress won’t allow that to happen!”
Really? Just like the Democratic Congress has stood up to The King for the past two years? Oh, wait, that’s right. Most of you are either new to the “party”1 or have never participated in politics before in all your decades of voting a straight Dem ticket. Sorry, I forgot.
Here’s a clue. The Democratic Congress that you’re depending on isn’t doing shit to stop King George and his minions from continuing their reign of terror. OK? Let’s move on.
I think going the RvW route is probably wrong. The PUMAs have decided that they’re “not going to be bullied that way” and have put their collective fingers in their ears- “La la la la.” They don’t hear you. But RvW isn’t the only attack to women’s reproductive health that we’d be facing were McCain to get the job. Think something more simple. Something that, I dunno, controls your period.
The Bush administration has consistently opposed providing funding for international birth control programs, but until now has not tried to limit the use of contraceptives inside the United States.
That could change in the president’s final months in office. Health and Human Services officials are considering a draft regulation that would classify most birth control pills, the Plan B emergency contraceptive and intrauterine devices as forms of abortion because they prevent the development of fertilized eggs into fetuses.
The rule, which does not require congressional approval, would allow health care workers who object to abortion on moral or religious grounds to refuse to counsel women on their birth control options or supply contraceptives. It would forbid more than half a million health agencies nationwide that receive federal funds from requiring employees to provide such services. Pharmacists could use the rule as a justification for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, and insurance companies could cite it as a basis for declining to cover the costs.
The bolded part is especially important. Bush does NOT need congressional approval to change this rule. Not only could health providers and/or pharmacists refuse to discuss and/or provide birth control on moral grounds the new rule would effectively void the laws in some states that mandate birth control be covered by insurance2.
And Congress has no recourse here. Do you hear that PUMAs? It’s not just the attack on the wombs of younger women but an attack on EVERY woman who uses BC for anything- including period control.
Now, if this new “rule” is enacted, it would only be “good” until the end of Bush’s regime. However, if McCain gets elected, with his abysmal record on women’s reproductive health, the rule would stand. And then, if our Congress finally finds their collective spine, there will be a HUGE battle on whether women and girls have a RIGHT to the pill (or other internal contraceptives like the shot, the patch and IUDs).
Where do the candidates stand?
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has signed a letter of protest written by a group of U.S. senators. (Republican candidate John McCain has not taken a position.)
Gee, I wonder why.
The article goes on to say that proponents of the rule change say that the only thing to change (besides the definition of birth control) would be that health care workers who fundamentally oppose birth control would be able to deny it to their patients without fear of reprisal. So, if they believe in their heart of hearts that your daughter shouldn’t be on the pill – because the pill encourages young women to engage in the S-E-X- then they can not only safely refuse to counsel her on the advantages of said contraceptive, but refuse to provide it to her (in the form of the actual medication or a prescription).
Let’s go further. If your daughter’s doctor is not fundamentally opposed to the pill and write’s her a prescription, which you take to the pharmacy you’ve been using for the past 15 years, your pharmacist has the RIGHT to refuse to fill that prescription. Don’t think this could happen? Think again. Look at both of those posts. Then do a Google search. This is not new. But instead of telling these health care workers that they are bound to respect the patient and look out for their best interests, Bush wants to say “Yeah. Preventing the egg from attaching to the uterine wall really is murder. So, guys, you really don’t have to do the job you agreed to do.”
If you think that John McCain will not allow this to continue, then you really are smoking crack and you should find help- while you still can. Who knows what the next treatment will be on the chopping block. The man has been on the front lines of the War on Women for years- and that’s not likely to end just because he’s sitting in the oval office. If he’s willing to pimp his wife at a biker rally, he’s willing to sign away your right to a healthy body.
Update:
I wanted to add something for those folks that will undoubtedly argue with “Well, I can go to a different pharmacy.”
Imagine that you live in a small town with only one pharmacy. You don’t have a reliable vehicle and can’t get to the next town over. Suddenly your pharmacist develops a moral objection to dispensing birth control. What can you do?
Now, imagine that you find a ride to the next town over. That town is larger and has a total of 3 pharmacys. But all of those pharmacists have also developed that moral objection (maybe they all go to the same church). Should you have to continue driving to other towns- perhaps other counties – to get your prescription filled? What if you live in that town and the only OB/GYN available to you refuses to give you the prescription at all- even though the pill is the only thing outside of major surgery that will bring your crazy periods under control? What recourse will you have?
One more thing to keep in mind is that only the definitions of the only available pharmaceutical female contraceptives (including the shot) are on the chopping block here. Condoms are not. You know what else is not? C’mon, take a guess. That’s right! vlagra.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Update Part Deux
This has been slightly modified (for language, of course) and crossposted to The Anti-Puma. Thanks to Christina for letting me share on her site.
McCain: Warrior against Women
There’s a lot of talk about what would happen to Roe v. Wade should John McCain get elected. Most people that seriously enjoy a woman’s right to reproductive health have no issue discussing this. They recognize the danger of McCain being able to potentially pick two John Roberts-style Supreme Court judges. We don’t want that. The PUMAs though, well, they’re all fucking insane. They say stupid shit like “The Democratic Congress won’t allow that to happen!”
Really? Just like the Democratic Congress has stood up to The King for the past two years? Oh, wait, that’s right. Most of you are either new to the “party”1 or have never participated in politics before in all your decades of voting a straight Dem ticket. Sorry, I forgot.
Here’s a clue. The Democratic Congress that you’re depending on isn’t doing shit to stop King George and his minions from continuing their reign of terror. OK? Let’s move on.
I think going the RvW route is probably wrong. The PUMAs have decided that they’re “not going to be bullied that way” and have put their collective fingers in their ears- “La la la la.” They don’t hear you. But RvW isn’t the only attack to women’s reproductive health that we’d be facing were McCain to get the job. Think something more simple. Something that, I dunno, controls your period.
George Bush is trying to get birth control redefined as abortion.
The bolded part is especially important. Bush does NOT need congressional approval to change this rule. Not only could health providers and/or pharmacists refuse to discuss and/or provide birth control on moral grounds the new rule would effectively void the laws in some states that mandate birth control be covered by insurance2.
And Congress has no recourse here. Do you hear that PUMAs? It’s not just the attack on the wombs of younger women but an attack on EVERY woman who uses BC for anything- including period control.
Now, if this new “rule” is enacted, it would only be “good” until the end of Bush’s regime. However, if McCain gets elected, with his abysmal record on women’s reproductive health, the rule would stand. And then, if our Congress finally finds their collective spine, there will be a HUGE battle on whether women and girls have a RIGHT to the pill (or other internal contraceptives like the shot, the patch and IUDs).
Where do the candidates stand?
Gee, I wonder why.
The article goes on to say that proponents of the rule change say that the only thing to change (besides the definition of birth control) would be that health care workers who fundamentally oppose birth control would be able to deny it to their patients without fear of reprisal. So, if they believe in their heart of hearts that your daughter shouldn’t be on the pill – because the pill encourages young women to engage in the S-E-X- then they can not only safely refuse to counsel her on the advantages of said contraceptive, but refuse to provide it to her (in the form of the actual medication or a prescription).
Let’s go further. If your daughter’s doctor is not fundamentally opposed to the pill and write’s her a prescription, which you take to the pharmacy you’ve been using for the past 15 years, your pharmacist has the RIGHT to refuse to fill that prescription. Don’t think this could happen? Think again. Look at both of those posts. Then do a Google search. This is not new. But instead of telling these health care workers that they are bound to respect the patient and look out for their best interests, Bush wants to say “Yeah. Preventing the egg from attaching to the uterine wall really is murder. So, guys, you really don’t have to do the job you agreed to do.”
If you think that John McCain will not allow this to continue, then you really are smoking crack and you should find help- while you still can. Who knows what the next treatment will be on the chopping block. The man has been on the front lines of the War on Women for years- and that’s not likely to end just because he’s sitting in the oval office. If he’s willing to pimp his wife at a biker rally, he’s willing to sign away your right to a healthy body.
Update:
I wanted to add something for those folks that will undoubtedly argue with “Well, I can go to a different pharmacy.”
Imagine that you live in a small town with only one pharmacy. You don’t have a reliable vehicle and can’t get to the next town over. Suddenly your pharmacist develops a moral objection to dispensing birth control. What can you do?
Now, imagine that you find a ride to the next town over. That town is larger and has a total of 3 pharmacys. But all of those pharmacists have also developed that moral objection (maybe they all go to the same church). Should you have to continue driving to other towns- perhaps other counties – to get your prescription filled? What if you live in that town and the only OB/GYN available to you refuses to give you the prescription at all- even though the pill is the only thing outside of major surgery that will bring your crazy periods under control? What recourse will you have?
One more thing to keep in mind is that only the definitions of the only available pharmaceutical female contraceptives (including the shot) are on the chopping block here. Condoms are not. You know what else is not? C’mon, take a guess. That’s right! vlagra.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Update Part Deux
This has been slightly modified (for language, of course) and crossposted to The Anti-Puma. Thanks to Christina for letting me share on her site.
Related posts: