A New Wave

Campbell Brown's Dishonest Criticism of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is fighting for its very existence. 

Since 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to defund Planned Parenthood in every budget authorization measure.

At least five states have stripped funding for PP, a move that affects hundreds of thousands of women who don't have resources to afford basic health care like annual mammograms, PAP smears and wellness checkups. 

Still other states - Arizona, Mississippi and Wisconsin - have enacted harsh new restrictions on clinics, including those requiring doctors to carry expensive insurance policies in order to provide health care and abortions, and new standards for the size of medical exam and operating rooms.

So it was shocking to read a recent op-ed in The New York Times by Campbell Brown, the "No Bias, No Bull" former CNN anchor, criticizing Planned Parenthood for being too partisan in its candidate endorsements. 

In the first place, its author is an unlikely choice to write such an opinion. What, after all, has she done or said in the past on the issue of abortion? Or defuding of Planned Parenthood and its clinics? Or reproductive choice? Or, for that matter, the flap over Komen's move earlier this year to deauthorize grants to Planned Parenthood? 

It's not that people like Brown can't weigh-in on important social policy issues. But why now? Out of the blue? Why is her opinion on this any more significant than, say, writers who actually report from the front lines of the culture war? And why The New York Times? Did I miss the part where Brown actually gained street cred on women's reproductive rights? Really! Where has she been - in her role as journalist - on the raging debate over abortion and reproductive choice in this country? 

There is also - and maybe more importantly - the wide range of options for criticism she had available for her article: the GOP, nationally and in state legislatures, specific GOP leaders in states like Arizona, or Texas, or Michigan, or Mississippi; the Catholic Church. But this was absent in her article.

Honestly, when I read this article, my first thought was, "Nothing like hitting an organization when it's down and fighting like hell for its survival."

Too bad, really, that she punted on a grand opportunity - with her name recognition - to chastise the Catholic Church for its unwillingness to compromise on women's health care, or its unwillingness to compromise on the Affordable Care Act, generally. Or, its pit-bull efforts to muzzle Nuns who publicly disagree with the all-knowing Catholic brotherhood.

 

GRAPHIC: Miss Revolutionaries

Instead of doing the hard, unpopular-but-more-honest-thing by taking on an institution that is so blinded by its anti-abortion and anti-women sentiment and beliefs that it is now willing to bring down health care reform via its Fortnight for Freedom and by its refusal to accept the Obama Administration compromise on contraceptive coverage for religious institutions, Brown took the easy route: swinging at Planned Parenthood for not supporting so-called pro-choice Republicans - one of whom, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine - has called their decision "infuriating". 

 

Brown's article is what's infuriating, particularly because of its one-sidedness.

I'd also call "infuriating" Collins' 'no' vote on Paycheck Fairness (along with every other female GOP senator). Or, GOP women senators' vote to cut SNAP funding. Let's remember that SNAP benefits many of the same women that utilize Planned Parenthood clinics.

And while Collins is generally pro-choice, she hardly stands with women on other important policy matters: she voted against the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act, for example, and the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011.

And she voted for the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, which would have cut some $60 billion from federal government spending, and for the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which would have devastated funding for safety net programs that many women and children depend on, especially during the harsh economic time we currently face.

So, what's really behind Brown's attack on Planned Parenthood?

Might it have something to do with her own political connections? She's married to Dan Senor, a Mitt Romney senior campaign advisor. The same Mitt Romney who has vowed to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood.

But this fact wasn't disclosed anywhere in the article. Tsk, tsk. Brown could use a refresher in journalistic ethics. 

This fact alone makes her concern for Planned Parenthood's "self destructive behavior" suspect. 

It's useful in discussions about partisanship to disclose one's own partisan affiliation before throwing stones.

It's also useful to remember that Planned Parenthood did not start the war on women. That distinction belongs to the GOP and the Catholic Church, frequently working hand-in-glove to keep women in our place, belittle, humiliate, shame and silence us in every way possible - using religious freedom as a cudgel to do so. Talk about partisanship!

Where, exactly, is their compromise? Where's their nonpartisanship? Where's their willingness to bend and do the right thing for a majority of this country's citizens? To be less "calcified"? 

Perhaps more to the point: Planned Parenthood isn't kneeling in submission. They're fighting back - using perfectly legitimate tools at their disposal - exactly like the Catholic Church is doing. 

Six Other V-words and Phrases and Why They Matter

It started last Wednesday.

Two Michigan State Representatives were censured by GOP House leaders for using v-words: vagina and vasectomy – apparently unmentionable when Democrats use them.  

The silencing of women’s voices this year alone on matters of health, life and death for women is sobering – as is the antidemocratic message it sends. I see it as part of a larger Election Year pattern that seems to be especially pernicious whenever a Democrat is in the White House, but that now goes well beyond even election year politics. More on this in a later post. 

To warm up the conversation about duck-taping women's mouths while taking away our rights I’ve prepared a list of six other v-words and phrases that alone and together are equally important to vaginas this year and the war being waged on us. 

Let’s start with this one –

Voter: As we know from Fifth Grade Civics/Government class, voters are the heart of our little democratic experiment. No voters. No democracy! Voters hold the keys: to who runs local, state and national government and determine whether schools, libraries, safety net programs and other worthwhile services get adequate funding. Voters increasingly have the power to support or deny rights like same-sex marriage and amendments defining when life begins, for example. Voters matter.

 

GRAPHIC: NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin

 

In 2010, the U.S. had 217 million voters, more than half of whom are female.

Politicians – especially those on the far-right – don’t much like voters. Rightwing politicians don’t like government or, apparently, democracy, given the zeal with which they put their thumb on the scale in every election, to tilt it in their direction, which is why we in turn have widespread cases of:

Voter suppression: Just as state lawmakers are working hard to regulate what vaginas can and can’t do, extremist lawmakers in other states are regulating who can and can’t vote. Over 5 million eligible voters are affected by voter suppression in 41 states via new photo I.D. laws, change in requirements for voter I.D., proof of citizenship measures, elimination of early voting, terminating same-day registration, disenfranchising those with past felony convictions, and outright purges of legal, registered voters.

Voter suppression matters for vaginas. Women outnumber men according to the U.S. Census, so when a group of people is denied voting rights – whether they’re older, college students, or minorities – women are affected disproportionately.

Voter participation: Here’s a news flash for all you vaginas: women are so important this year that the media are writing articles about us, candidates are designing strategies to “win” us, and women’s groups like the American Association of University Women and HERvotes are already engaged on the ground to register women nationwide and get us to vote in November.

As it turns out, vaginas DO vote and in higher numbers than men. In every presidential election since 1984, women have outnumbered men at the polls:

'84 -- 61/59 percent

'88 – 58/56 percent

'92 – 62/60 percent

'96 – 55/53 percent

'00 – 56/53 percent

'04 – 60/56 percent

'08 – 60/56 percent.

Women also outnumber men among registered voters.

Voter registration: Vaginas – especially unmarried ones – are the key this year to V-for-victory in November. 

A few salient facts about VR for Vaginas. There are 55 million single/unmarried women eligible to vote this year. Some of those – 22 percent (12.1 million) were registered to vote in 2010 but did not. Finally, 38 percent of those 55 million single vaginas (20.6 million) aren’t even registered to vote.

If just half of 20 million women register and vote in November, the difference in our politics will be the difference between elected officials that actually care about and support our rights and freedoms, as well as jobs and our economic well-being, and more of the same war on women.

Here’s what the unmarried vagina vote looked like in 2010:

 

GRAPHIC: www.voterparticipation.org

Of the 55 million eligible single female voters, over one-third weren’t registered to vote. Another 12 million (22.8%) were registered, but didn’t vote. 

 

GOTVote: Personally, I’d change this to GOTVV. If you’ve followed along this far, you’ll know what that extra V is. We already know that unmarried vaginas overwhelmingly support and vote for progressive Democratic candidates and issues. So, imagine what can happen if all 55 million of us vote. 

 

In other words, ladies, we are our own best friends.

Victory:  This is the last – and best – V-word in my opinion and the best possible outcome in November. But here’s the moral: unless we connect the vaginas to voter registration and voter participation, a lot of people – including women – will be in seriously deep trouble for a very long time to come. The gender gap, it turns out, does matter. A lot.  

There you have it: Six other V-Words and Phrases. 

News in the battle for women's rights: Sun breaks, followed by a downpour

The weather forecast metaphor for this week's news is perfect. I live in the Pacific Northwest where even in June the weather is marked by more rain than sun. I suppose if I lived in, say, Colorado, "Sun breaks" might become "periods of sunshine, through intermittent clouds, followed by rain." Perspective is everything!

Sun break: 

On Tuesday (6/12) voters in North Dakota defeated Measure 3 - an amendment to the state's constitution that would have greatly expanded the ability of individuals and institutions to do just about anything they wanted in the name of religious freedom - minus the pesky interference of church-state separation.  

"The language of Measure 3 stated that a person has the right to act or to refuse to act in a manner due to a deeply-held religious belief. It would then be up to the government to prove that it has a compelling government interest in infringing on one’s right to act or not act. The measure’s proponents said that it was needed in order to strengthen people’s religious liberty." 

On learning that the measure had failed (by a 64.5 percent to 35.4 percent margin), Christopher Dodson with the North Dakota Catholic Conference, said this: "We will not rest until religious freedom in North Dakota is protected in the law as a fundamental human right."

To which I repeat my rejoinder that maybe he should move to a more Taliban-friendly climate...

More Sun break:  

Connecticut gave a big thumbs-up last Friday (6/8) to women and women's rights when state officials unanimously decided that abortion is an essential health benefit that must be covered in new health plans everybody is required to purchase in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act.

Ah, how refreshing.

Still More Sun break:

Huzzahs all-around for Democrat Ron Barber, who won Arizona's Special Election to replace Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords, as we know, was seriously wounded in a shooting last January and resigned her seat this January.

Barber's win is a big boost for Democrats, who are nursing a major loss to Scott Walker and the GOP in last week's Wisconsin recall election. 

The win is also a good omen for November: Barber will be running in a new and vastly changed district that reduces the current 26,000 GOP voter advantage to a razor thin 2,000. 

Maybe between now and Election Day, Barber's GOP opponent, Jesse Kelly, will rethink at least one of his campaign tactics and ditch ads that show him toting around automatic weapons. 

Downpour:

Michigan lawmakers join the Making-Life-Worse-for-Women-One-State-At-A-Time Party

An omnibus antiabortion bill, rushed through committee hearings to a floor vote in Michigan's GOP-led House, passed on Wednesday (6/13), 70-39. All Republicans and six DINOs voted in favor of the measure.

It isn't an understatement to call this bill the harshest in the nation: it increases insurance and regulations on abortion clinics, regulates the disposal of fetal remains, prohibits telemedicine for medication abortion, makes it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion, and proposes making abortions after 20-weeks illegal for any but a very narrow "health of the mother" exception. This latter provision is temporarily on-hold until supporters check its constitutional viability.

"Lawmakers want to make sure the proposed ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy — which doesn't include an exception for rape, incest or fetal anomaly — is constitutional..."

Wouldn't want to trample all over Roe v. Wade constitutional rights, for goodness sake!

NOTE TO RURAL WOMEN: The Michigan State GOP doesn't like you - really! 

"Under the omnibus bill, doctors would have to be physically present to perform a medical abortion, thus preventing a doctor from administering abortion-inducing medication by consulting via telephone or internet. This would especially hurt rural women, who may have to travel hours to meet in-person with a specialist."

NEWS FLASH: These regulations are good for women!

"'Even taking emotion out of the equation, this package (of bills) is good policy,' said Rep. Bruce Rendon, R-Lake City, the sponsor of omnibus legislation, House Bill 5711."

"Defenders say it will stop women from being potentially exploited by doctors and provide a tighter set of rules for the controversial procedure. ..." 

From Catholic fairy tales and other feel good stories:  

"'I am a strong believer in life and I believe the baby’s rights should be protected and I really want these bills to go through because I think they are also helping women. They are protecting them at the same time as the baby, too...'”

Time to send legislators a message?  

 

 

ELECTION 2012: The battle for women's rights, Part 2 - Reproductive Health

Recap and Update to Part 1

Part 1 addressed two key bills in Congress: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3541 (PRENDA). The latter was defeated in the House (246-168) on Thursday, May 31. Even though 246 representatives voted in favor of the bill, it failed to get the two-thirds majority needed under suspension of the rules that brought it to the House floor. 

Republicans, of course, made the talk shows to feign outrage that the bill failed.

At some point, it's useful to have a longer discussion about the real "war on baby girls", but let's leave it at this for the moment:

"Girls and women wouldn't need so much sanctimonious and hypocritical "protecting" if they had cultural equality and human dignity." 

The two pieces of legislation (above) are far from the only bills Congress has taken up as part of the war on women. And clearly VAWA is a pro-woman, pro victim's rights law that has already been reauthorized twice before extremist GOP lawmakers halted it by refusing to include commonsense provisions that protect Native populations, LGBTQ individuals, and immigrant women. Apparently these women don't bleed or bruise.

There is also the Paycheck Fairness Act which was blocked by GOP extremist lawmakers on Tuesday, 6/5. The bill needed 60 votes to pass; it received 52. All 47 Republicans - including five women - voted against it. The Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests say it would create “unprecedented government control over how employees are paid at even the nation’s smallest employers."

Any wagers on how they feel about "unprecedented government control" over women's reproductive health and choices? 

Part 2: Overview of State Anti-Choice Laws in 2012 

2011 and 2012 may set a record for the number of anti-choice, anti-abortion bills introduced and passed in State legislatures.

"In the first three months of 2012, legislators in 45 of the 46 legislatures that have convened this year introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights." 

The good news - little as there is - points to a drop in both the number of bills introduced so far this year, compared to last year, and those that have been enacted. But, the year is only half over and legislatures in 28 states are currently in session.

As of June 1, extremist lawmakers in 11 states have passed 28 anti-choice bills that range from banning abortions after 18 and 20 weeks, expanding or authorizing pre-abortion counseling and waiting periods, prohibiting the use of "telemedicine" to prescribe medication abortion, and limiting Medicaid coverage of abortions.

These laws are just part of the story, however. Our very own U.S. Taliban extremist lawmakers are using other ways to thwart contraception and abortion. 

Such measures include requiring abortion providers to have hospital privileges at nearby hospitals (instead of a wider acceptance of privileges at any hospital), and limiting to OB/GYNs those that can perform abortions; enacting abstinence only sex education, repealing requirements for contraception education, broadening religious exemptions for providing contraception and abortion coverage, excluding family planning organizations from state funding, and prohibiting states from contracting with abortion providers for family planning services.

One of the most breathtaking is the fetal homicide law. It specifies that a fetus of any gestation (including an embryo) may be a victim of homicide and was passed by Tennessee lawmakers. 

State by State

Alaska: Authorizes the creation of "Choose Life" license plates, proceeds from which go to support adoption services in the state; limits Medicaid funding for abortions for low-income women.

Arizona: Requires providers to have hosptial privileges; targets regulatation of abortion clinics; restricts abortion after 18 weeks; enacts state-mandated counseling; authorizes the use of outdated FDA protocols for medication abortion; eliminates disclosure by doctors if birth defects would lead to abortion; authorizes state-mandated ultrasound.

Indiana: Eliminates coverage for contraceptive devices from family planning authorization/funds.

Maryland: Limits public funding of abortion for low-income women.

Mississippi: Requires providers to have hosptial privileges; mandates surgical and medication abortion to be done only by physician (OB/GYN, other).

Oklahoma: enacts state-mandated counseling requirement.

South Dakota: Women must be told about negative consequences of abortion - no requirement for scientific/medical accuracy; bans abortion coverage in new state health insurance exchanges authorized by ACA; enacts state-mandated counseling requirement.

Tennessee: prohibits telemedicine for medication abortions; mandates abstinence-only sex education requirement; passes Fetal Homicide bill that specifies 'embryo' as victim of homicide.

Utah: Enacts state-mandated counseling requirement and mandatory waiting period.

Virginia: Enacts state-mandated counseling requirement and mandatory waiting period; state-mandated ultrasound prior to abortion.

Wisconsin: bans abortion coverage in new state health insurance exchanges authorized by ACA; enacts state-mandated counseling requirement; prohibits telemedicine for medication abortions; requires surgical and medication abortion to be done only by physician (OB/GYN, other); removes contraceptive education from sex education provisions.

ELECTION 2012: The battle for women's rights - Part 1

Over the next few months A New Wave will devote its blog posts to the battle for women's rights and those mobilizing and organizing to fight it. 

Part I and II are an overview of what's happening nationally and around the country in state legislatures. None of this will come as a surprise to readers of this blog, but since extremists stay busy 24/7/365, what's happening changes almost daily. So stay tuned. 

Let's start with Congress.

Example A: This year the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) came up for reauthorization, as it did in 2000 and 2005, after being introduced in 1994, when it passed both the House and Senate, and was signed into law by President Clinton.

But VAWA has become "a heavy lift" for Republicans to support: the party of the white male wants to rewrite this law to exclude Native American women, LGBTQ individuals and battered illegal immigrant women from its protections, in addition to watering down how the Act is funded.

So, two weeks ago the GOP-controlled House passed its own VAWA that eliminates these protections and sets up another battle with the Senate, which passed its version on April 26 - including these protections. 

Example B: Although there are any number of examples that qualify as extremist "war on women" measures from the U.S. House, the most recent is symbolic of how laser-focused Republicans are on dismantling women's reproductive rights.

This time they've dressed it up as "nondiscrimination": The Prenatal Nondiscimination Act (PRENDA) seeks to ban sex-selective abortions by making it a federal crime to abort a fetus based on its gender and prescribing prison time for medical providers that engage in this practice.

The bill solves a problem that is almost non-existent in the U.S. and does not one thing to solve the many gender inequities that lead to male favoritism - even in the womb.    

The rhetoric, however, is heavy with irony: The National Right to Life Committee, along with Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), chief sponsor of PRENDA, says this law is needed to "stop the war on baby girls." A truly heartwarming focus group phrase meant to soften the blow of how Republicans really feel about women - even "baby girls". See here, here and here for examples.

And, like so-called voter fraud that the GOP cites as reasons for voter ID laws that target minorities, poor, elderly, and college students, PRENDA targets Asian American women, who will risk "intense questioning" about the decision to seek an abortion if this bill becomes law.

And so, this bill is just one more missile launched in the war on women by a Party that is hemhorraging women's support as fast as it is introducing extremist anti-woman bills.

Part II will look at the battle for women's rights in states. Here's a sneak peek at one major piece of that battle: Anti-choice bills.