Posts Tagged 'abortion'

The no concession consession


I have to rescind my assessment last night that John Boehner got nothing out of the late negotiations on the 2011 budget. Apparently, he won the restoration of a ban on the District of Columbia spending its own money to help poor women obtain abortions. President Obama and the Democrats had lifted that ban earlier in his presidency, and now it is back. Boehner also won funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which spends federal money on private schools in the District. In addition to these concessions, there is another rider that was left unresolved. Will the DC government be able to spend money on a needle-exchange program? The answer will come out of negotiations between the House and Senate. So, it appears that DC Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s fears have been realized; as the District took the hit for a budget deal.

Obama is an anti-abortion extremist. He keeps blocking access to abortions in a way that other players take the blame; but the result is always the same, less access to abortion. Obama is a truly horrible person.

Neither health, nor care, nor reform

What Natasha said:
Choice, dying by inches, is already a near fiction for many (4.00 / 4)
If you can’t get something, choice is meaningless. Right now, for example, 87 percent of counties don’t have any facilities that perform abortions, and a third of US women live in them.

Because the required travel costs more, and takes more time to raise money for, women may require later term abortions. Both later term abortions and abortions with complications can run many thousands of dollars, which just isn’t an amount many families can pay up front.

There’s more about the Nelson language here, but the two-check rule, as well as the mandate that equivalent plans be made available that don’t cover abortion, means that a lot of women will find themselves needing an abortion that their employer or male head of household already decided not to bother covering. That’s two levels of approval a woman has to go through, as well as facing the social stigma of even wanting the option.

The administrative overhead will be such that it isn’t even clear many providers will offer such coverage. And the likelihood that only a very small pool of people will even be willing to purchase it guarantees higher costs anyway.

The promise from the administration and Congressional leadership at the beginning was that this bill would be choice-neutral and that people could keep the coverage they had. It isn’t choice-neutral, and it will strip abortion coverage from many women who have it. We were lied to and sold out.

Further, reproductive justice advocates were hoping to campaign against the Hyde amendment. Now, Obama has forestalled action on that until 2014.

And let’s take on that class issue. Of the women who get abortions, 61% are already mothers who don’t believe they can care for their families adequately with another mouth to feed. This bill has taken contraception coverage out of the required benefits, and IIRC, the expanded conscience clause would pre-empt state mandates for contraception mitigating this. Further, women with one child often find, or know already, that having a second child can mean extreme damage to her future income potential, with the pay and promotion discrimination extended to mothers increasing near exponentially with further children.

It’s a recipe for permanent impoverishment of women and their families, so we can expect to see the number of poor people under that threshold go up. Instead of making it easier for women to delay childbearing, and many women who have abortions go on to have children later when they’re better situated, this bill makes it more likely that they’ll be stuck in a lifelong cycle of poverty that their children will inherit.

Reproductive health care and empowerment to determine their own family spacing is the core issue of female poverty, as well as the feminization of poverty. The president and Congress decided that didn’t matter, though.

And as an aside, the bill also did very little for those 55-64, many of whom have been rendered all but unemployable by the recession and the higher costs of their coverage compared to younger workers.

So while there’s help in it, while there’s a team victory in it, this bill perpetuates both corporate rent-seeking and systemic discrimination against women. Being probably the only bite at the apple we’ll get, yes, I’m angry. Having been defined as some wiggy, far left-wing thing, when it’s the unholy love child of Romney and McCain’s plans, yes, I’m angry.

This was handled badly and the ‘center’ has been pushed farther towards unapologetic misogyny. So no, I’m not happy.

Women are going to walk


To me, one of the most egregious things in this bill is the way that women are treated. When we are considered at all, our reproductive health seems to be in a special category, one where a bunch of old guys in red beanies and pointy hats, have the final say as to what is or isn’t acceptable. If the Senate bill passes, it will perfectly acceptable to force women to identify themselves as considering abortion as a healthcare option when they sign up for insurance. It’s to shame them. No, no, don’t try to sugar coat this. That is the intention. To keep abortion as a shameful procedure. …

… This is a Congress that we elected and it is a president that the deluded foisted upon the rest of us. We expected them to be different from their immediate predecessors. Well, we expected some congress members to be different. The Confluence never expected anything different from Obama but we thought he could be prevailed upon to not veto what Congress passed. And this Congress is overwhelmingly Democratic. These are the very same Democrats who scared the deluded into voting for Obama in 2008 because they convinced young women of child bearing age that only he and they could protect the reproductive rights of women.

They made that promise and we will hold them to it.

Mark my words, Democrats will go down in flames in 2010, and a handful of liberal third party candidates will win congress and possibly even a senate seat.

Why so many women don’t trust Obama

US President Barack Obama has promised the Pope that he will try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.

Why should the Pope have any say in American health care?

Dems to women: shut up and vote

Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play

Mercy Abortions

Hot Flash Report

Who are the women who delay into the second and third trimester? There are several characteristics:

1. In general, they are younger.
2. They are less educated.
3. They are more rural, where healthcare is more inaccessible.
4. They tend to be poorer than women who get early abortions.
5. And they have more lifestyle and emotional issues. Oftentimes, the unintended pregnancy is the easiest of their problems to solve.

Now, I’m sure your first concern is Why. Why would a woman wait so long? Here’s a few of the many reasons why women delay getting abortions:

1. Money. Many women don’t have $400 sitting around in a savings account to pay for an early abortion. Delay happens in raising the money, borrowing it, pawning stuff for it, etc.
2. Denial. Many young women especially so want not to be pregnant that they deny their obvious symptoms of pregnancy and attribute them to other causes. They’re missing their period because they’re irregular. They’re gaining wait because they’ve been eating too much. They’ve got the flu. Many young women even hide their pregnancies from their parents with big baggy shirts, fake periods, etc.
3. Fetal anomalies.