Pregnancy

Governor: Pregnant Women, Breast Cancer Patients Are Free Health Care Moochers

The absurdity in this sort of thinking tells me that many GOP men say they are anti-gay but their disdain for women makes me wonder…

Think Progress

Pennsylvania Republicans have decided against expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, arguing that covering more low-income residents would cost the state too much money. But last week, Gov. Tom Corbett (R) went a step further, telling a local news station that poor residents who are already enrolled in the program, including pregnant women and breast cancer patients, are receiving too much free care and should pay into the system.

“What I hear all the time coming out of the administration in Washington is that it’s the working poor [who benefit from Medicaid],” Corbett told WTAE, a local ABC affiliate, on Saturday. “Yes it is working, but you should be investing five, ten dollars in co-pay to understand that you go to to the hospital or the doctors, you just can’t keep going and going and going and think everything is going to be covered. You have to know that you have some interest in what’s going on.” Watch it:

Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare website has a dedicated webpage to “Copayment Information for Medical Assistance Recipients,” which explains that while children, pregnant women, and breast cancer patients, among others, don’t pay the fees, many beneficiaries do contribute for the services they receive. Corbett appears to suggest that the exempt enrollees are abusing the free services and that everyone should pay more for health care.

In 2012, Corbett had to shelve a plan that would have required “thousands of families to help pay for Medicaid coverage for children with autism and other disabilities.”

 

GOP Congressman Channels Todd Akin: ‘The Incidence Of Rape Resulting In Pregnancy Are Very Low’

So, my question is this…are they purposely sabotaging their chances of winning a majority in the Senate or for that matter maintaining their majority in the House?  I truly hope they keep this line of dialogue going at least until the mid-term election.

Think Progress

Despite Republican strategists’ efforts to keep GOP politicians from making insensitive comments about rape victims, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) channeled former Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) infamous“legitimate rape” comment during a committee hearing on Wednesday. Defending his proposal to ban all abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions for rape and incest, Franks claimed, “The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.”

As the Washington Post reports, Franks went on to nonsensically argue, “But when you make that exception [allowing rape victims to get abortions], there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose of such an amendment.”

Franks is the latest male Republican lawmaker to opine on the validity of rape victims’ needs. In 2012, several GOP candidates lost the election after letting slip their ignorant and offensive beliefs about rape victims and what rights they deserve. Akin set off a media firestorm when he claimed that a woman could not get pregnant from “legitimate rape” because her body “has ways of shutting that whole thing down.” Soon after, Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock told rape victims to embrace pregnancy as “a gift from God.”

These claims quickly collapse under cursory scientific scrutiny. By claiming rape-related pregnancies are “rare,” Franks is dismissing an estimated 32,101 women who get pregnant from rape per year. One study found that about 32.4 percent of victims did not find out they were pregnant until their second trimester — beyond the strict 20 week limit Franks is seeking to impose on American women seeking abortions. Half of those victims chose to undergo an abortion rather than keep the fetus or put it up for adoption. Some research suggests that rape victims are actually more likely to get pregnant, putting the number of women who became pregnant from rape in one year around 83,000.

“Pro-Life” Is A Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions They Won’t Like

touch my sign

Addicting Info

There’s a lot of terms floating around that people use to describe themselves when they want to make their position sound more appealing, even if those terms are a completely (and very deliberately) misleading. One such lie term is “pro-life.”

John Fugelsang said it best: “Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself ‘pro-life.’” Indeed, the term “pro-life” has come to represent a group of people whose values have nothing to do with protecting life, and living people, and more to do with protecting unborn fetuses to the exclusion of all other considerations.

The only way to effectively kill a misnomer, such as “pro-life,” is to replace it with a more accurate description. I would encourage everyone to pick one of these terms, and start using it in place of the words “pro-life,” when discussing abortion.

1. Anti-Abortion: People who call themselves “pro-life” oppose abortion. Since that’s the only argument the “pro-life’ moniker is applied to we should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman’s right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity.

2. Anti-Choice: This term works because the people who proclaim that they are “pro-life” are using that term to describe their position in regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and absolutely nothing else. See the Fugelsang quote above. Therefore they are anti-choice. “Life” does not even enter the equation.

3. Pro-Fetus: This term works because a large swathe of the “pro-life” movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers and children. If they were really concerned with “life,” and not just the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they are clearly pro-fetus.

4. Pro-Birth: Same reasoning as “pro fetus,” this term works because so many people who consider themselves “pro-life” stop caring about whether or not the baby is adequately taken care of the instant it’s born.

5. Pro-Controlling Women: It’s irrefutable that the people who would deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If someone thinks they’re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide what she does with her body, without her input, that’s control, pure and simple.

6: Pro-Abuse: Attempting to dominate or control another person in a relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to control women whom you’ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarrage. How are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.

7. Anti-Sex: My friend Justin insisted for a long time that the people who oppose abortion do so because they think that a baby should be punishment for premarital sex, and I was admittedly skeptical, but he actually proved it, here. I’ll let his words on this topic speak for themselves, he makes an excellent argument.

8. Pro-Religious Control: A lot of the arguments that fuel the anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not all of the “pro-life” movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion. Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion, he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What’s more controlling than that?

9. Misogynist: Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what’s more hateful to women than treating them like they’re too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the responsible choice to make? I can’t think of many things more hateful than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist’s baby to term, because you think you’re more qualified to make their medical decisions than they are.

10. Hypocrite: I thought I’d end with this one, because after the previous examples it should be glaringly obvious that this isn’t a debate about “life,” it’s a debate about abortion and what women are capable of deciding in regards to their own bodies. History, and extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications. According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a hypocrite.

I consider myself pro-life because I support programs and policies which help people to thrive, including abortion. There’s nothing “pro-life,” or noble, about forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term, especially when that fetus could put her life in danger, was conceived through rape or incest, or would be subjected to a life of difficulty and poverty because the mother is unable to provide for a child.

We can’t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, “No, that’s not what you are, and I’m not going to let you lie about your position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life. If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of protesting at abortion clinics.”

 

In Just Three Months, States Proposed An Astonishing 694 Provisions About Reproduction

Think about that for a second.  A majority of male politicians across the country have proposed over 690 provisions about reproduction.  It’s amazing and horrifying all at once…

Think Progress

In the first quarter of 2013, states have proposed 694 provisions related to a woman’s body, how she gets pregnant, or how she chooses to end that pregnancy.

A new report released on Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute takes a comprehensive look at how the War on Women has continued past the election cycle and into 2013. It shows that the new legislatures across the country are still very much dedicated to restricting sex education, availability of medication, and abortion access for women. Indeed, 47 percent of the 694 provisions were directly related to abortion:

During the first three months of 2013, legislators in 14 states introduced provisions seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. These bans fall into three categories: measures that would prohibit all abortions, those that would ban abortions after a specified point during the first trimester of pregnancy and those that would block abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period, the conventional method physicians use to measure pregnancy). All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Legislators in 10 states have introduced proposals that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions. In eight states (AL, IA, MS, ND, OK, SC, VA and WA), legislators have proposed defining “personhood” as beginning at conception; if adopted, these measures would ban most, if not all, abortions.

Seven states are edging closer to achieving full approval for laws that would reduce or essentially eliminate abortion access.

Enforcing unconstitutional abortion laws isn’t just a threat to women’s rights — it’s also costly to the states caught up in legal battles. Last year, Kansas spent $628,000 defending its unconstitutional abortion restrictions. North Dakota is in the middle of spending $400,000 to defend its ban, and Arkansas is set to do the same.

But if the number of proposed abortion restrictions is discouraging, the upside of the Guttmacher report is that states are moving toward the prevention of unintended pregnancy through sex education: It finds that two states — Montana and North Dakota — are pushing for more restrictive, less informative sex education laws, but that both Colorado and Hawaii are pushing for more comprehensive, inclusive, and scientific sex education for students. Colorado’s would even prohibit abstinence-only instruction, which has been proven to be more harmful than effective. ThinkProgress’s own survey of state legislation has found a total of five states that, like Colorado, are pushing for better sex ed. These findings track with popular opinion that increasingly recognizes the value of sex education.

Schools Force Children To Take Pregnancy Test Or Face Expulsion

Now they’re targeting teenage girls…sheesh!

Addicting Info

A Charter school in Delhi, Louisiana has mandated that it must be allowed to see inside a girl’s uterusif she wants to attend their classes. If she objects to this invasion of privacy – or, worse, submits and has a positive pregnancy test – she risks being banned from the school, and forced into home-schooling.

Please note, this is not from The Onion or a Saturday Night Live skit ridiculing the south. This is a real school, with real kids and now, a real ACLU challenge.

So, being pregnant and under 18 in this Louisiana school means you not only have to notify your parents (or go to court and beg a judges approval) if you want an abortion, thanks to their Parental Consent Law – victims of incest and child abuse are not exempt from this requirement, raising serious child safety concerns – you also get to worry about being tossed out of your school, regardless of how you became pregnant or whether you even intend to carry to term.

The school’s policy isn’t just illegal under Title IX, it’s downright nauseating; the shame society heaps on to pregnant teens is bad enough without making them pee in a cup on command. The creators of this draconian punishment are probably the same people who spread the “welfare queen” myth because oh-shit-oh-my-god-the-injustice 0.2% of their taxes go to feed poor children.

Not surprisingly, this isn’t even the first time charter schools have embarrassed the great state of Louisiana. Just this past June, the institution calling itself “Accelerated Christian Education” was caught teaching students that evolution is just a conspiracy, holding up the Loch Ness Monster as proof of Creationism. Shortly after that little scandal, Rep. Valarie Hodges was shocked to discover that the education bill funding religious schools in her state would go so far as to cover all religions, not just her brand of Christianity. She promptly withdrew her support.

History demonstrates that fact-based sexual health information, teaching kids how to avoid unintended consequences in the first place, remains the most effective course of action for a school so worried about teen pregnancy. Sadly, there are those in the Republican party which is against common sense, wishing to base health decisions on biblical sources and claiming that as moral.

The executive director of Louisiana Association of Charter Schools admitted to The News Star that this may be “problematic”. The school itself has yet to respond to the ACLU or the press.

Dekalb County Police: it’s within policy for our officers to kick pregnant women in the stomach

This makes me ill…

BoingBoing

When Dekalb County, Ga., police officer Jerad Wheeler tased her brother, Raven Dozie started crying and demanding to know why.  Wheeler kicked the heavily-pregnant woman in the stomach. While he is now under criminal investigation, his superiors on the force squelched an internal affairs complaint and explicitly approve of his conduct.

“What kind of a human being kicks a pregnant woman? I mean, forget whether or not it is a police officer that is supposedly protecting people,” Dozier’s attorney Mark Bullman said. Dozier filed a complaint with the DeKalb police department’s internal affairs unit, but it was never investigated. Instead, four supervisors and an internal affairs detective signed off that Wheeler’s use of force met policy. … Fleischer filed an open records request and found two more use-of-force complaints against Wheeler within the last nine months. In all three cases, the victims were not the focus of the original police incident.

Wheeler was accused of twisting a 53 year-old woman’s arm in 2011. This January, he shot a family’s chained dog after showing up at the wrong home on a call.

…………

The Youngest Victim of Police Abuse

Levii Dozier is only four months old, but he’s already been assaulted by the police.

Roughly five months ago, Levii’s mother Raven Dozier was present when her brother got embroiled in a child custody dispute with a girlfriend. After the police arrived, Raven did what she could to calm her brother down. Eventually one of the officers shot the agitated man with a Taser.   A thugscrum quickly coalesced as several officers inflicted gratuitous punishment on the prone and helpless man while his sister – who had been assisting the police – looked on in horror.

“He’s on the ground!” shrieked Dozier, who was in tears. “You don’t need to do that!”

“Shut the f**k up!” replied one of the gallant officers. When Dozier failed to act on that thoughtful suggestion,  Officer Jarad Wheeler strode up to her and kicked her in the stomach with sufficient force to open a door.

At the time, Raven Dozier was nine months pregnant.

For about fifteen minutes, the DeKalb County officers conferred with a supervisor outside the house — within earshot of Raven’s brother, who was sitting, handcuffed, in the back of a police car.

“He kicked a pregnant woman,” one of the officers reported.

“You’ve got to charge her with something,” another replied, pointing out that doing so would magically transmute aggravated assault into a “justified” use of force.

Following the discussion outside, several officers re-entered the home, where Dozier was on a couch trying to regain her composure.

Continue reading here…

Georgia lawmaker compares women to cows and pigs

There’s gotta be something in the water, or the red dirt or some other anomaly that make some of  these “southern gentlemen” say the most batsh*t crazy things!

The Raw Story

Republican Georgia state Rep. Terry England says that his experience with cows, pigs and chickens has proven to him that women should be forced to have their babies after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In a debate over Georgia House Bill 954, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks even if the baby is not expected to live, England recalled the time he had spent with livestock.

“Life gives us many experiences,” he explained. “I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive — delivering pigs, dead and alive. … It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”

England continued: “You know a few years ago, I had a man come to me in our store, it was when we were debating, talking about dog and hog hunting, I believe, and at that point there was some language inserted in there that dealt with chicken fighting. And the young man called me to the side and he said, ‘I want to tell you one thing.’ And y’all, this is salt of the Earth people I’m talking about, someone I would have never in a hundred years expected to tell me what he told me that day.”

“He said, ‘Mr. Terry, I want to tell you something. You tell those folks down there when they quit killing babies, they can have every chicken I’ve got.’”

House Bill 954 easily passed last week by a vote of 102-65.

Opponents have said that the so-called “fetal pain” bill would force women to carry stillborn fetuses or to have a Cesarean delivery. Doctors could also face 10 years in prison if they are involved in illegal abortions.

Watch this video from the Georgia State Assembly, uploaded March 6, 2012.

(H/T: Better GeorgiaPoliticusUSA)

CNN Contributor Dana Loesch Defends Virginia ‘State-Sponsored Rape’ Bill As No Different Than Consensual Sex

Dana Loesch received an Accuracy In Media award from CPAC last week.  I’m not sure why, except that to CPAC folks, lying about an issue is called accuracy in their world.

Think Progress

This week, a Virginia state House committee overwhelmingly approved a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound before they can have an abortion. Because the majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, many women would have to undergo an invasive procedure “in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced,” as Dahlia Lithwick explained last week.

CNN contributor and Andrew Breitbart blogger Dana Loesch, however, sees no problem with a law that effectively legalizes state-sponsored rape, saying the procedure is no different than penetration that occurred during consensual intercourse that “resulted in the pregnancy,” as Little Green Footballs reported:

LOESCH: That’s the big thing that progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth. […] There were individuals saying, “Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.

Listen:

Unfortunately, such a radical view isn’t unique to conservative talking heads like Loesch. According to Lithwick, an unnamed Republican delegate made the same argument in support of the bill, saying women consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”

Pregnant Seattle protester miscarries after being kicked, pepper sprayed

The Raw Story

A woman who was pepper sprayed during during a raid on Occupy Seattle last week is blaming police after she miscarried Sunday.

Jennifer Fox, 19, told The Stranger that she had been with the Occupy protests since they started in Westlake Park. She said she was homeless and three months pregnant, but felt the need to join activists during their march last Tuesday.

“I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in,” Fox recalled. “I was screaming, ‘I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.’”

She claimed that police hit her in the stomach twice before pepper spraying her. One officer struck her with his foot and another pushed his bicycle into her. It wasn’t clear if either of those incidents were intentional.

“Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,” Fox said.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer photographer Joshua Trujillo snapped a picture of Fox in apparent agony as another activist carried her to an ambulance.

Continue reading here… 

Related articles

TSA Agents Confiscate Pregnant Woman’s Insulin

If I say that our country’s  TSA agents are the most incompetent in the world, would that be too harsh?

AOL 

TSA agents confiscated a pregnant woman’s insulin at Denver International Airport, prompting her and her husband to file a formal complaint with the agency, reports ABC 7 News.

The woman, who asked to remain nameless, was headed to Phoenix for her baby shower on Thursday when she was stopped by airport security.

“He’s like, ‘Well, you’re a risk.’ I’m like, ‘Excuse me?’ And he’s like, ‘This is a risk … I can’t tell you why again.  But this is at risk for explosives,'” she told ABC 7 – this despite the fact she had a doctor’s note and had correctly labeled the medication.

“He’s like, ‘Well, you’re a risk.’ I’m like, ‘Excuse me?’ And he’s like, ‘This is a risk … I can’t tell you why again. But this is at risk for explosives,'” she told ABC 7 – this despite the fact she had a doctor’s note and had correctly labeled the medication.

She was, however, able to get through security with a bottle of nail polish, hair spray bottles and syringes.

Her husband, Aaron Nieman, talked to ABC 7 and said, “It made me feel upset and made me feel somewhat helpless.”

The unnamed woman has since arranged for additional insulin to be delivered to her in Arizona.

The TSA would not comment on this specific case.

According to the TSA website, passengers “may bring all prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including petroleum jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes.”

There is no limit on the amount of these materials that may be carried on, but quantities over three ounces must be declared to a TSA official. Additionally, insulin is specifically listed on the website as being allowed through security.

The TSA has been in hot water lately for its handling of passengers with medical concerns. In July, TSA agents soaked a man in his own urine – for the second time. And, in June, screeners forced a 95-year-old woman to remove her adult diaper.

Related articles