Posts Tagged ‘anti-choice’

Healthcare Reform Passes Congress…at what cost?

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Shame on you President Obama,

I read your excited message about the healthcare reform bill passing Congress tonight and I burst into tears of joy. I felt like the change we have been seeking for so many years, that we have been working so hard to bring about was finally coming to fruition. Only to learn it ‘passed’ in exchange for the tens of millions of women in this country. When should we expect the government to send their lackeys to pick up our shoes so we can stay home proper, barefoot and forced pregnant? When did the promise of change become the promise of positive change for men and a reaffirmation of women as second-class citizens?

I am absolutely appalled that you or any member of our government would allow such draconian measures to be perpetrated against women. You are pushing to get this healthcare reform bill passed but at what cost?

The Stupak-Pitts anti-choice amendment renders health care insurance companies incapable, financially, to support women’s’ reproductive health. In order to survive financially under this amendment, they would be forced to drop current coverage for women’s reproductive healthcare. This is a monumental step backwards. It is not simply a matter of not covering costs for the women who are currently uninsured. It goes a mile further and ensures an economic stranglehold on all insurance companies to drop current benefits provided to women.

Choosing to throw women under the bus to get the new healthcare system passed is a galling cop out. This decision is nothing more than the vehicle the opponents need to undermine Roe v. Wade. The provisions of this ‘amendment’ sets women’s healthcare back a century and delivers a devastating blow to those millions of women who enthusiastically supported Obama and this healthcare reform bill.

Women’s healthcare should not be targeted and denied because of political or moral objections. These are not our views or our opinions. These are OUR bodies, OUR choices and OURinsurance companies should cover it–period, particularly when the majority of insurance companies currently cover comprehensive reproductive health services. It was one thing to leave out coverage under the new healthcare bill. That was already a negative aspect. However, it becomes a completely different story when you add an amendment that takes away current coverage, in addition to limiting the alternative options for the coverage taken away.

How dare all of you yellow-belly Democrats who approved this Stupak-Pitts amendment decide to not only NOTinclude reproductive health services in the new health-care system but to endanger the barely-adequate coverage that exists currently. This decision sends a loud message to women in this country: YOU are not important; your needs, your body, your health and your rights are not important. Are we to understand that ‘the millions of people’ that this new system is supposed to help does not include women? Is this the new, improved, sensible healthcare system for men only?

I must have missed that part of the inspirational speeches.

I no longer support this bill or its blatant disregard for women’s reproductive health. And I am extremely angry that I and millions of other women, are being discarded at the whim of two senators in a futile attempt to appease those inconsiderate, selfish people opposing healthcare for all. Are these people who oppose healthcare for all anything more than medical and/or financial terrorists? I thought we had a policy of no negotiation with terrorists?Why then were tens of millions of women conceded in these terroristic negotations to provide adequate healthcare to our citizens?

When did women become so unimportant in this country and to our President that our reproductive health and control over our own bodies are offered up on a silver platter in exchange for the Congress to approve a watered-down, ineffective version of healthcare reform that will punish and neglect no longer by economic status but rather by gender?

I wonder what will happen to this bill once we take away the flattened, discarded feminine support that has so eagerly backed Obama. You can count me out until the dissolution of this backwards Stupak-Pitts amendment.

I see where I rank in importance in your vision for change. If Congress got tens of millions of uteri, what will the Senate get?

One More Crazy ECT

Sunday, May 31st, 2009

Today, as I sat reading literature from women in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries—reading snippets of how our foremothers struggled before us—risking everything to find their voices—to free ours—to demand respect and equal rights—forging their way towards independence with a pen—some religious zealot, undoubtedly an Extreme Christian Terrorist, ECT, (aka conservative, Christian Anti-Choice Fanatic who believes violence is a necessary mean for whatever end their preacher or priest arbitrarily dictates is ordained by God) shot Dr. Tiller, an abortion provider, in his church in front of his family, friends and fellow church members.

I read this news and wept.

I am sad for his family, for his friends, for the poor people who were standing next to him. I am sad for the women who will be forced to continue a pregnancy they do not wish to continue. I am sad for those children who are thrust upon their mothers, shackled to their ankles like dead, unwanted weight. I am sad for the women who are imprisoned by their gender and by the male dominated society in which they are born. I am sad for the men who want to support women in their right to choose—who will now cower in fear of violence at the hands of some other ECT. I am sad for the women who still publish under male pseudonyms to gain equal recognition for their words and thoughts. I am sad for the women so lost in the land of men—they fail to see how their religion has tainted their minds against themselves, their bodies, their minds, their sisters, mothers and daughters.

I am outraged at the idiots who spew forth gleeful ignorant remarks chocked-full of misspellings and grammatical errors—using God as their shield—remarking how Dr. Tiller got what he deserved–filling up comment boards–raising ratings of hate-filled, idiotic talk show hosts like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Are you really that ignorant—that intolerant of women’s rights? Can you not see the paradox of your own hateful thoughts—the same derisive, unhealthy thoughts that drove this lunatic ECT to shoot Dr. Tiller?

I am inundated with thoughts to share, choking in a sea of emotion over the bigger picture here. For now, I will leave you with a quote from LeRoy Carhart, an American physican who worked with and respected Dr. Tiller:

“Men have had unlimited availability to ‘abortion’ since the beginning of time. Men can walk away from unwanted pregnancies with virtually no response from government. I believe that, unless women are given an equal right to determine whether or not they remain pregnant, they will not be considered equal. I think that’s what the anti’s are most afraid of-women becoming equal.”

McChange?

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

McBush

The only policy change McCain has demonstrated during this election is his willingness to forego his own honesty, transparency and straight talk policies. Change is not John McCain’s strong suit (please see the following footnote for some examples reinforcing this statement)1. Does anyone, besides me, remember that this was NOT even his campaign slogan before the Republican National Convention? That he basically stole Obama’s campaign slogan?

McCain voted with Bush policies over 90% of the time.2 So, why should we believe he will do anything differently if he is elected? We already know he lies.

McCain mocked Obama for wanting change, until the polls indicated Obama was ahead. In response, he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. And together they jumped off the Straight Talk Express and hijacked the change bandwagon. Desperate for a few extra voters, he chose an inexperienced, unknown Palin to get some attention. Did he really think picking a woman would somehow shock or enamor people enough to believe he really wants change despite his own voting record and words indicating otherwise? Did he really think he could sway Hillary supporters simply because Palin was a woman? Did he assume we were vagina voters?

(more…)

  1. http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000994.htm []
  2. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html []

Irony in the 3rd degree…

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

“Value voters” tend to be the biggest hypocrites. They go on and on about the importance of voting based on family values, abstinence, no abortions…blah, blah, blah…etc. Despite their superior morals, they seem to be plagued by the exact same symptoms of immorality as the rest of us. Their teenage daughters get pregnant and have abortions, even more so than liberals apparently1. They have drinking and drug problems. They cheat on their spouses2 and taxes3. They lie. They steal. Their priests molest children. They have gay sex.456789 None of this seems to distract them from asserting their superior morality and insisting people vote accordingly.

Quickly blaming the lefties for our immorality, curiously they are being ever-so-forgiving of Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter who is pregnant10. Rumors are even circulating questioning whether Palin’s youngest child is actually her child and not her 17 year old’s first child. Now, in and of itself, this is not something I would normally even comment upon, save the sadness you feel whenever someone too young gets pregnant. However, this is irony in the third degree given the “value” politics Mrs. Palin espouses and moreover, the hypocrisy of the “value voters” who are jumping to her defense.

Why is it when a liberal’s teenager gets pregnant the focus becomes the immoral way of life they have chosen, the evil of their ways? Lack of supervision, poor parenting, bad values, immorality, sexy clothes, access to inappropriate media are all the causes given by these value experts. Yet, when one of their own gets pregnant, they are quick to say, “Do not judge,” while foolishly rushing the kids to the altar to do what is right in their eyes. Teenage marriage doesn’t right teenage pregnancy. Nor does it reconcile the contradictory morals and unrealistic standards to which you expect the world to live.

It is irony that the highest abortion rates are found in the very “conservative” states that opposes abortion the most.11

(more…)

  1. http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=734 []
  2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html []
  3. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin []
  4. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/03/foley.scandal/index.html []
  5. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html []
  6. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/ []
  7. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/mccain.campaign/index.html []
  8. http://www.news-tribune.net/breakingnews/local_story_219210228.html []
  9. http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/ []
  10. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html []
  11. http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=734 []

How low can you go, McCain?

Friday, August 29th, 2008

McCain’s campaign is all over the place. Picking the inexperienced Alaskan Governor Sarah “Barracuda” Palin1for his Vice Presidential running mate is the political equivalent of peeing in your pants to get attention. John McCain was getting no press coverage. Obama ran a political home run last night and McCain could not stand it, so he chose to announce his vp candidate, a token woman. And I emphasize the use of lower case ‘vp’ on purpose. This signifies what is to come for her if they should win office. She will be the token woman aiding McCain into the White House but quickly disregarded on every level of decision making once there. She will undoubtedly become the scapegoat for all that goes wrong and the puppet through which the greedy, power-hungry people will do their opportunistic bidding. Can you imagine how far back this will set the country, let alone the fight for equal opportunities for women? Her inexperience will be the folly that adds fuel to the anti-American rhetoric abroad, as well as the anti-feminist movement.

This is such a slap in the face to anyone who wanted Hillary to break through the glass ceiling. Her support did not come from just being born a woman. That was a side note, an added bonus if you will, to people who do wish women had equal rights and equal opportunities. However, I digress, despite my urges to explain in detail how important equality is today (and always), I will get back on topic. Hillary has experience and cares about this country. She has made positive, real change in our country’s policies, especially with regards to health care for children. Now, I am not saying Palin has not done anything positive, I do not know what she has done, yet. What I am saying is as a feminist, I am cringing. And as a political citizen, I am retching.

The fact that very little is known about her works in the McCain camp’s favor but against logical reasoning. She is wet behind the ears politically speaking, what if something happens to McCain? Is she really ready to become president? The irony almost goes without saying, almost. McCain has attacked Obama for months now on his “inexperience” while stealing his ideas only a few days later and now he chooses someone with even less experience? This defies logic, unless the logic is to gain political attention and perhaps the attention of some fringe voters completely fixated on getting any woman into the White House at any cost.

This is what I have read about Sarah Heath Palin so far… she is anti-choice (aka Pro-Life)2, supports teaching creationism in schools3, a lifetime member of the NRA, a former beauty pageant contestant (see picture) 45, pro death-penalty6, supports the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), opposes privatizing social security (even funded a relief bonus check to senior citizens for extra aid), “strongly opposes” shifting our reliance to alternative fuel sources7. I need to do some more research but I find it particularly interesting her husband, Todd Palin, works for BP — the oil company and there is controversy over this and some legislation she tried to push through which would affect BP to the tune of multi-millions8. She agreed with Obama’s energy plan in as much as the gas line she wants to lay across her own her state to get cheaper gas to the U.S., she wants to open ANWR9, this being a long-term debate between capitalists and environmentalists over the effects. She doesn’t even believe humans have an effect on global warming and wants to remove the endangered species protection on the polar bear.10

(more…)

  1. Johnson, Kaylene 2008. “Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down”. Epicenter Press. []
  2. http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm []
  3. Kizzia, Tom October 27, 2006. “‘Creation science’ enters the race”, Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-08-29. []
  4. http://www.televisioninternet.com/news/pictures/sarah-palin-beauty-queen-1.jpg []
  5. , against same-sex marriage ((http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm []
  6. http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Sarah_Palin_Crime.htm []
  7. http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Sarah_Palin_Energy_+_Oil.htm []
  8. Ross, Mike (August 21, 2007). “Mr. Palin goes back to Prudhoe”, KTUU-TV. Retrieved on 2008-08-29. []
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge []
  10. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/124640/036/945/578739 []