It's Still A Man's World

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett published 4/2/13 in the Lexington Herald Leader and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge.)

There's nothing too surprising in this brief article in the Los Angeles Times (quoted in its entirety):

It's a well known fact that men still out-earn women in the working world.

That gender gape [sic] means that a full-time working woman will earn $443,360 less than her male counterpart over 40 years, according to a recent study by the National Women's Law Center.

Translated another way, a woman needs to work 52 years compared to a man's 40 years just to break even with him.

The study came to its conclusion by taking the 2011 wage gap between full-time men and women -- $11,084, according to the U.S. Census Bureau -- and simply multiplying that over four decades, which is taken as the average span of a career.

The results assume the earnings gap stays steady through the years. Although woman have made made significant strides at closing the difference, the gap actually widened last year. In 2012, women earned 80.9 cents per every dollar earned by men, compared to 82.2 cents the year before, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

That can partly be explained by the recession and its aftermath, when government cuts disproportionately affected women in the public sector. And as the economy recovers, many women are finding jobs in low-wage industries such as retail and hospitality.   [Emphasis added]

 It's one thing to still be behind;  it's another to be losing ground.

Finally

While Congress slipped out of town Thursday without addressing the sequester issue, they did manage to pass one piece of legislation that has been hanging around since the last Congress:  the Violence Against Women Act.  House Republicans in the 112th Congress didn't quite get the message of November's election back then.  Apparently enough of them have since then.

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times took note of the bill's passage in what for members of that "center-left" group was pretty strong language.

After more than a year of bitter partisan fighting, Congress on Thursday finally reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, including new provisions that will extend the law's protections for gay, lesbian, transgender and Native American victims of domestic violence. It's about time.

There is no rational explanation for why lawmakers took so long to reauthorize this legislation, which was first enacted in 1994 and had been renewed twice with broad bipartisan support. Admittedly, the revised law covers a broader group of victims. That was apparently too much for some Republicans in the House, who sought to substitute a weaker bill for the one passed by the Senate, arguing that the new protections either went too far or were prone to fraud.

What the newly reauthorized legislation will actually do is provide help to all victims of domestic violence, regardless of their sexual orientation, immigration status or where the assault took place. ...  [Emphasis added]

What the editorial doesn't mention is that 138 Republicans in the House still voted against the bill.  If you go here, you can check to see just who was still digging in their heels.  There aren't too many surprises.  Among those voting against the bill are Tea Party champions Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann.  House Speaker Boehner is discovering that herding cats, is even more difficult when at least some of them have painted a target on his back.

Well, at least the 113th Congress got something done.

Try, Try Again

The Violence Against Women Act is being reintroduced into the Senate, hopefully this week.  The act was allowed to lapse in the last Congress because the House refused to move on it. 

From AP:

Senate Democrats worked toward picking up Republican allies Monday as they launched a new attempt to broaden a law protecting women from domestic abuse by expanding its provisions to cover gays, lesbians and Native Americans.

The legislation to renew the Violence Against Women Act appeared on a smooth path toward passage in the Senate, possibly by the end of this week. Monday's procedural vote to make the bill the next order of business was expected to easily clear the 60-vote threshold. ...

House Republicans, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, say reauthorizing the 1994 act, which expired in 2011, is a priority. But resolving partisan differences remains an obstacle: last year both the House and Senate passed bills but the House would not go along with Senate provisions that single out gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders for protection and give tribal authorities more power to prosecute non-Indians who attack Indian partners on tribal lands.

As always, the devil is in the details, but given the trouncing the GOP in 2012 when it came to the women's vote, the Republicans just might be a little more circumspect and at least some form of the bill will make it through.  Unfortunately, I don't think the Republicans will be willing to expand the protection to include the gay community and Native American women.

What would be nice is having a law such as this one without a "sunset" provision.  Why should violence against women, especially in a domestic situation, ever be tolerable or tolerated?  Why should we have to renew the law every few years?  If it needs tinkering, then pass a bill which strengthens it by way of an amendment.

I guess that would be make it too difficult to keep women in line.

Morons.

Some Rights Are Less Important

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett published 1/23/13 by the Lexington Herald Leader and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then kindly return.)

Forty years after Roe v Wade and a woman's right to abortion is still under attack.  The right to privacy, upon which the decision hinged, is simply not as important to many as the right to own and flaunt military type semi-automatic rifles.  We really have not yet come a long way, baby.

From a Los Angeles Times editorial:

Unlike many landmark Supreme Court cases that have become accepted parts of our culture — such as Brown vs. Board of Education, which declared school segregation unconstitutional, or Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned state bans on interracial marriage — Roe did not lead to a clear national consensus on abortion.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that although most Americans support the court's decision, 29% said they would like to see Roe overturned. Nearly half of Americans say they believe abortion is morally wrong. Those positions have changed little in recent decades.

Sadly, the Roe decision remains under attack in many quarters from politicians, conservative religious groups and others. Fueled by their belief that abortion is murder, they are intent on taking away or substantially curtailing the right to choose, even though the Supreme Court has correctly concluded that abortion is a private matter.

Today, most states have some kind of law that affects access to abortion. ...

In some cases, state restrictions have been declared unconstitutional by courts as violations of Roe vs. Wade. But even where they have not, they often seem to be efforts to drive a wedge into the debate or to make it increasingly onerous to get an abortion, particularly for low-income women.   [Emphasis added]

The editorial details the forms of those attacks on the right to abortion, most coming from state legislatures, which include not just time delays but also invasive procedures including sonograms, a further invasion of a woman's body.  And, even more horrifying, one national party would not allow for any exceptions such as incest, rape, the health of the woman.  Women are just not as important as that cluster of fetal cells and certainly not as important as men's right to have instruments of death.

This makes me crazy.

Mittology

(Editorial cartoon by Jim Morin / Miami Herald (October 26, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then be kind enough to return.)

Nancy Pelosi has come up with one of the best neologisms of this election season.  She introduced it while appearing on "The Daily Show."

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, appeared on “The Daily Show”  on Sunday and coined a new term for Mitt Romney’s shifting political positions – “Mittology” – as she campaigns for Democratic congressional candidates and President Obama. ...

But Pelosi’s sharpest zinger was aimed at Romney’s shifting positions, particularly on abortion rights, as both presidential candidates court women voters in the increasingly tight race for the White House.

“The president calls it Romnesia, I have my own, what I call Mittology,” Pelosi said.

Since then, of course, we've had another GOP candidate chime in on abortion, once again when conception occurs as a result of rape.  This time it was  Richard Mourdoch, the Indiana GOP Senate candidate, a man Mitt Romney has endorsed.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, "that's something God intended."

Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

 Mitt didn't withdraw his endorsement;  he merely stated that he disagreed with Mourdock on the issue.  Bad theology, bad politics, but good Mittology.

At this point, the GOP regulars are probably tearing their hair out, as Jim Morin's cartoon suggests.  The election is close and women voters are key to the outcome.   Still, it's hard to feel too bad for Republicans.  The "pro-life" stance is, once again, a key part of the Republican platform.  Did they think nobody would notice?

What we are seeing is the members of the white daddy party continuing to exert their patriarchal authority over all women.  For some superb analyses of the issues I would urge you to read the posts from Echidne and Hecate, two women who have nailed it much better than I could.  Go read them both.  You'll soon see what I mean.

Another Skrmish In The War Against Women

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (October 22, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then be good enough to return.)

As the campaign season draws to a close and many races still remain too close to call, things have gotten downright wacky.  Nowhere is that more evident than in the attempt to woo women voters, usually with hilarious results.  Romney managed to give Democrats a viral meme with his "binder" comments at the last debate. 

At the same time, however, Republican candidates continue their war against women.  Todd Akin has moved on from his misbegotten comments on "actual" rape to chide his opponent for not being ladylike and likening her to a dog (and you know where that is going).  The latest entry comes from Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois who has some rather peculiar views on abortion.

“There’s no such exception as life of the mother,” Walsh said, according to this report from Bloomberg News. “And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology. Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions any time, under any reason.”

Within hours, women’s heath advocates — and physicians — attacked his remarks. ...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) fired its own salvo, calling the congressman’s comments “inaccurate” in a widely distributed response.

“Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health,” the doctors’ organization said. The group reported that more than 600 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes and that “many more would die each year if they did not have access to abortion.” ...

Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill who has provided abortions for four decades and formerly led a department that studied abortion safety at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, described some potentially life-threatening circumstances.

In his practice, he said, he’s often cared for women who are newly diagnosed with breast cancer or leukemia whose oncologists refuse to administer treatment until the pregnancy is over. Type 1 diabetes can be severely aggravated by pregnancy, and an abortion may be necessary to save a patient’s eyes or kidney function. And in some severe cases of pre-eclampsia, the liver can begin to die — and the only treatment is ending the pregnancy.   [Emphasis added]

The general consensus of physicians who actually treat women during pregnancy is that legislators like Walsh should just shut-the-fuck-up when it comes to telling doctors how to treat their patients and stick to issues they have at least rudimentary knowledge of.

But it's not just the abortion issue.  The war continues on several fronts:  the right to contraception, and the right to have that contraception covered by health insurance the way Viagra is covered; the right to equal pay without restriction; the right to maternity leave with continuing health coverage; the right to assistance for child care and child feeding for single mothers and poor families.

Here we are in the 21st Century and women are still not considered as important as corporations and the Pentagon.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I reserve the right to be appalled and, yes, depressed.  We are still a long way from the scenario envisioned by Joel Pett and his cartoon.

Malala Yousafzai

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (October 11, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

One of the most horrific stories coming out over the past weeks has been the story of the Taliban's targeting a 14-year-old girl for being "immodest," i.e., insisting on going to school.  The Taliban don't want girls to get an education so she was to be assassinated

The police said Friday that they had made several arrests in connection with the Taliban’s shooting of Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old education activist who was critically injured, but militant commanders in northwestern Pakistan reiterated their intention to kill the schoolgirl or her father.

“The next 48 hours will be critical,” Mr. Ashraf told reporters. Extremists targeted Ms. Yousafzai, who was shot in the head while riding in a school bus on Tuesday in Mingora, because, he said, “they were scared of the power of her vision.”

“She is the true face of Pakistan,” he added. ...

Sirajuddin Ahmad, the spokesman for the Taliban in the Swat Valley, said that Ms. Yousafzai became a target because she had been “brainwashed” into making anti-Taliban statements by her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai.

“We warned him several times to stop his daughter from using dirty language against us, but he didn’t listen and forced us to take this extreme step,” he said.

Both father and daughter remain on the Taliban’s list of intended victims, he said..

 Malala is still alive, but in critical condition.  Her story has stirred the world, and, in a refreshing bit of news, many Muslim clerics in Pakistan have condemned the Taliban for this monstrous act.

Islamic clerics across Pakistan appeared to overwhelmingly join in the global condemnation of the Taliban’s shooting of a 14-year-old education activist as mosque-goers devoted their Friday prayers to the grievously wounded girl.

Friday afternoon services often serve as a barometer of public sentiment in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world, and with seemingly rare exceptions, many prayer leaders included mention of Malala Yousafzai, who survived an assassination attempt this week in the northwestern Swat Valley.

“Malala is a brave child who raised her voice for the education of girls and women in Swat, and she was cruelly punished for that. And we condemn it,” one Islamabad cleric, Maulana Ishaq, told his congregation in representative remarks.

What remains uncertain is whether the collective revulsion of religious leaders, politicians and the military toward the Pakistani Taliban, which carried out the attack, will reduce Pakistan’s embrace of extremism in other ways.

My first response, besides outrage, is that at least our version of the Taliban isn't shooting women and little girls, but then I got to thinking about it.  Our patriarchs haven't pulled guns on uppity girls and women (at least not yet), but they have done such things as demand that our girls not get the vaccine which would prevent HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cancer, because it would make them more liable to become sexually active before marriage, just like they don't want realistic sex education for any of our kids.  Abstinence only programs are the only ones our Taliban feel are necessary.

Our Taliban don't want contraception devices available to our kids, and they don't want them available to women.  The result is sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy.  And then they don't want abortion available in any form for any reason.  And then they don't want to provide any financial assistance for the newborn (WIC, ADC, paid family leave, accessible and affordable day care).

Yes, there be monsters, but they're not only located in Pakistan.

Meanwhile ...

So, because of the debacle of the 2010 election in which the GOP lost essentially every state-wide election, both of the major parties are pretty much ignoring California.  The presidential candidates come into the state only to raise money.  Being used simply as a super-sized ATM machine is, I suppose, disrespectful, but it has its upside.  We are not being barraged by television commercials and robo-calls.

And so the state has gone its merry way, doing things that lots of countries (not to mention states) wish they could.  This is not to say that my state doesn't have problems.  It does.  Major problems.  We still have unemployment in the double digits and the state budget continues to hemorrhage red ink.  Education at all levels is being gutted, as are programs which protect the vulnerable.  Still, there is some good news in California.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed 25 health-related bills, including controversial legislation that extends for two years a study program that allows non-surgical abortions to be performed by a limited number of nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants.

Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) introduced SB 623 to expand access to abortion for women, especially in rural areas where physicians are not as available. ...

Brown also signed legislation that would improve breast cancer detection and give women easier access to birth control.

SB 1538 mandates that women who go in for screenings be informed if they have dense breast tissue and how that may affect the results of their mammogram and their risk of cancer. It also encourages women to speak with their physicians about whether additional screenings might be warranted. ...

Earlier in the day, Brown was in South Los Angeles to sign legislation that allows registered nurses to give out hormonal contraceptives to women under a standardized procedure.

That law "also allows RNs to dispense drugs and devices upon an order by a certified nurse-midwife, a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant while functioning within specified clinic settings," the governor's office said. ...

Brown signed the bill Saturday morning at Planned Parenthood's local headquarters and cast the event as a reaffirmation of "every woman's basic constitutional rights."   [Emphasis added]

There are lots of reasons I enjoy living in California.  These are just a few of them, but they are important ones.

Because We Need Daddy's Help

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / Charlotte Observer (August 24, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

Mitt Romney spent the last few days campaigning in Ohio before the GOP convention. One of his main goals was obviously to reach out to women, to reassure them that the whole notion of a Republican War Against Women was an Obama fabrication. He handled the issue in typical Romney fashion.

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney declared Saturday that "women need our help" as he promised to promote women-led businesses should he defeat President Barack Obama in November's election. ...

"Just a word to the women entrepreneurs out there, if we become president and vice president, we want to speak to you, we want to help you," Romney said with running mate Paul Ryan at his side during an outdoor rally that drew an estimated 5,000 people to the Columbus area. "Women in this country are more likely to start businesses than men. Women need our help." [Emphasis added]

So there, Barack Obama! Mitt is too going to look out for women's interests, because they need help, help only a man can give them.

Notice how it's not all women who would get protected by this manly man, just the entrepreneurs. He, a very successful businessMAN will help them. The rest of us? Eh, not so much.

Evidence of that came as he took on the issue of women's reproductive rights.

Addressing contraceptives, Romney said he and other Republicans “of course … recognize that people should have a right to use contraceptives. There’s absolutely no validity whatsoever to the Obama effort to try and bring that up.”

Romney has, however, vowed to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood, which, along with other services, provides contraceptives to those who cannot otherwise afford them. ...

On abortion, Romney said: “That is something where men and women have alternative views on that, or different views. We look at an issue like that with great seriousness and sobriety and recognize that different people have reached different conclusions,” Romney continued. “But it’s not just men who think one way, women also in many cases are pro-life. There are two lives at stake: the child — the unborn child and the mom — and I care for both of them.” [Emphasis added]

I guess we needn't bother our pretty little heads over such issues. Big Daddy Mitt will handle them, just like his party has in adopting a plank in its platform which would not allow abortions for any reasons, including rape, incest, or the health of the woman.

Since I doubt Mitt carries any change, someone really ought to loan him a quarter so that he can buy a clue.

The Scarlet Letter

(Editorial cartoon by Tom Toles and published 8/21/2012 by the Washington Post. Click on image to enlarge and then please hustle your fanny back here.)

I'm still fuzzy-brained from the allergy meds, but that hasn't stopped me from continuing to re-read Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel The Scarlet Letter. I am reading this now as part of my drive to re-read novels from my past, but also because I wanted to consider the historical underpinnings in American (and, for that matter, world) history when it comes to misogyny. Needless to say, not much has changed in the 160-some years since the novel's publication. Many men still want to control the lives, the bodies, and the destinies of women.

As some of you may recall from your high school English class, the novel takes place in 17th Century Salem, Massachusetts at a time when the Puritans still ruled in New England. The heroine, Hester Prynne, has been condemned by the authorities for being an adulteress and bearing an illegitimate child. Her punishment is public shaming, including having to wear a scarlet "A" on her clothing for the rest of her days. Complicating her life further, she refuses to name her partner in this "crime", who, it turns out, is her pastor.

Something I had forgotten about the story was that Hester was already married. Her family arranged a marriage to a man who was older and physically deformed while both still lived in England. He decided to go to the New World (America) to make his fortune and she followed after him. He disappeared and was presumed lost at sea, but she no definite proof of that, so she was still married but without a husband. He, of course, turns up at the moment of the first public shaming of Hester and swears to find and punish the man who cuckolded him.

I'm more than a third of the way through the book and today I read the part where the town's leaders (all men, including a couple of religious leaders and the governor) have met to decide whether or not to take Hester's child from her so that she could be raised as a good Christian, something her mother clearly is not. The pastor (and father of the child) persuades them not to remove the child, but does so once again without revealing his true role in the matter.

The utter hypocrisy and misogyny of that culture reminds me a great deal of today's brand of Puritans, people like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan who see women only as sluts to be branded and handcuffed and put to shame in the public square. Toles' cartoon touches only one aspect of the war against women (victims of rape), but the war itself extends to women being able to control their bodies when it comes to conception and other health issues, and being able to control their destinies when it comes to careers and pay.

We really haven't come a long way, baby.

But That's Not All

(Click on image to enlarge and then come on back.)

It's pretty clear that the primary focus of coverage on Paul Ryan, the chosen running mate for Mitt Romney, has been on his economic plan which contains a provision to gut and destroy Medicare. That was pretty much the focus of David Horsey's recent column. However, Horsey also raised another set of issues (albeit obliquely) concerning Ryan in his discussion of what the Ryan selection meant for former presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

In endorsing the Romney-Ryan ticket on Saturday, Santorum described Ryan as “a full spectrum conservative” who shares not only Santorum’s fiscal ideas but his “solidly pro-life, pro-family” philosophy, as well. What happens if voters convincingly reject Ryan’s hard-line conservatism? That is the one thing that could kill his chances to become the Republican heir apparent. But if such a rejection is bad for Ryan, it would be bad for Santorum too, along with any other “full spectrum conservative.” [Emphasis added]

In other words, Ryan is not just a "dead-eyed granny killer," he's also a full-on anti-choice, anti-woman's-health warrior, as noted in this New York Times article.

Though best known as an architect of conservative fiscal policy, Representative Paul D. Ryan has also been an ardent, unwavering foe of abortion rights, has tried to cut off federal money for family planning, has opposed same-sex marriage and has championed the rights of gun owners. ...

In an interview with the conservative Weekly Standard in 2010, Mr. Ryan, an observant Roman Catholic, played down the possibility of a truce on social issues, which had been suggested by Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, a Republican.

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Mr. Ryan said then. “You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”

In nearly 14 years as a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan has not only voted for legislation that would cut off federal money for Planned Parenthood and the Title X family planning program, but also backed bills to establish criminal penalties for certain doctors who perform the procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

He is a co-sponsor of a bill that would define fetuses as people entitled to full legal protection, a proposal that has become the latest focus in the battles over abortion The bill declares, “The life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” [Emphasis added]

It's clear that that the Romney campaign was looking for more than just a deficit reduction hawk to fill out his ticket and that he was playing to more than just the Tea Party wing of his party. Ryan provided the very mix Romney needed.

While it was refreshing to see a major newspaper point out the cultural warrior aspect, it would be even nicer to see the Obama campaign and Democrats in general paying some attention to this part of the equation. As we move closer to the conventions and to the election I hope to see some solid portrayals of Ryan as totally out of the mainstream and just wrong for this country.

There's more at stake than a "balanced" budget.

When The Frame Doesn't Fit The Picture

(Political cartoon by David Horsey and published 2/20/12 by the Los Angeles Times. Click on image to enlarge and then come back.)

Yes, it's Tuesday, but it's one of those rare Tuesdays when there is no GOP primary. The next one is two weeks away. There's still, however, some news from that race. Newt Gingrich admits that Mitt Romney will undoubtedly be the Republican nominee, but Newt is staying in the race to keep Romney from the etch-a-sketch and to make certain the party platform remains as conservative as Newt wants it to be.

Newt has some ideas on what he wants included in the platform and in the campaign, but he-of-the-grandiose-ideas has not come up with anything new, according to Los Angeles Times columnist Jon Healey.

Gingrich continues to hope that his ideas will find their way into not just the party platform – after all, who reads that? – but also into the GOP’s orthodoxy over the long run. He cited four in particular: energy independence, personal Social Security accounts a la Chile, religious liberty and debt repayment.

Here’s hoping he comes up with a better list before he officially drops out of the race, because those are four surprisingly stale ideas.

Healey's right: there's nothing particularly new or surprising about any of them. Healey also does a pretty good job at pointing out the flaws in all of them (and you should read the fairly short column), but I do have some disagreement with his explication of the "religious liberty" aspect.

Gingrich’s point on religious liberty is simple: “The government should not force its values on any religious institution.” But he probably doesn’t intend it to be as grand an idea as it sounds. The government’s values include not discriminating against people on the basis of their race, and there’s no carve-out for church-affiliated hospitals to deny care to blacks or Asians. It’s doubtful that Gingrich would want to give religious institutions carte blanche to ignore U.S. law. Instead, he seems focused on the requirement that employers affiliated with religious institutions include contraceptive coverage in their employee health insurance policies, although the cost would have to be covered by the insurer. [Emphasis added]

Healey is right as far as he goes, but he is being far too charitable to Gingrich. This isn't just about "religious liberty." If it were, the ban on coverage would extend to more than birth control pills. That's why I ran the Horsey cartoon at the top of this post.

This is about the social conservatives (including the Roman Catholic American Bishops and the Religious Reich) and their war on women's rights to control their own body. No contraception, no abortion. Men can have their Viagra or Cialis, because they are the bosses when it comes to sex. Women are just the receptacles, willing or not. Calling this a matter of "religious liberty" is a dodge, an outright lie.

The Democrats need to start pointing this out more forcefully. We don't need to have the true picture forced into such a dishonest and ugly frame. It doesn't fit.

For once it would be nice to see the Democrats take charge of an issue and not back down.

It Shouldn't Have Been Close

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (February 28, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge)

No, this isn't a another post dogging Rick Santorum, at least not specifically. What it is about, however, are all the people in Congress who agree that it's OK to strip women of rights, especially reproductive rights. It's about yesterday's vote in the Senate to defeat the Blunt Amendment.

The measure, an amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to a highway funding bill, was tabled—and therefore effectively killed—by a vote of 51 to 48.

Only one Republican Senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine voted against the measure. Three Democratic senators supported it, Robert Casey (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), and Ben Nelson (Neb.).

The measure was among the most sweeping of several congressional efforts to broaden the current religious exemption in the birth control rule, which only fully exempts explicitly religious organizations such as churches from its requirement that worker health plans include contraceptive coverage with no out-of-pocket charges. [Emphasis added]

"Sweeping" is an understatement. The amendment would have allowed any employer, not just religious employers, to deny health care coverage on any treatment the employer had an objection to. In other words, women could be denied birth control pills or devices if the employer claimed his morality was offended. Of course, it also leaves the door open to deny coverage for blood transfusions if the employer's beliefs consider them of the devil, but the real target was women.

This shouldn't have been close, and yet it was. Three Democrats crossed over and voted for it. Only one Republican, Olympia Snowe crossed over, but only because she thought it was too broad and would allow for the denial of any kind of treatment as noted above.

Are we really going backwards in time, back even behind Roe v Wade?

That's why I chose the Kevin Siers cartoon.

I am not encouraged.

Questionable Strategy

(Editorial cartoon by Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (February 20, 2012)and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge.)















(Political cartoon by David Horsey (2/20/12) and published by the Los Angeles Times. Click on image to enlarge.)

No, I haven't gone off the rails with my obsession for political cartoons. It's just that nearly every one I checked out the past couple of days had essentially the same theme and the same mocking tone. These two were the best and both got published on the same day.

Apparently the Republicans have decided that campaigning on the economy isn't real viable right now because the economy is beginning to improve. Corporate profits are up and unemployment is down, if only a little bit. So, instead, they've settled on "social issues." It appears to be working for Rick Santorum right now, and the rest of the party has decided to get on board.

David Horsey thinks that's a dangerous strategy, and I happen to agree with him. His focus, as the cartoon illustrates, is on Rep. Issa's poorly designed House hearing on the birth control issue.

Republicans are trying hard to play this dispute to their advantage and win over religious voters, but they are not playing it smart. President Obama has already blunted most of the impact this issue might have among Catholic voters by compromising on the coverage requirement. As a result, Republicans do not seem to be gaining much traction with their accusations of an attack on religion, except among voters who are already on their side. But they are succeeding in scaring off independent females who are beginning to believe the real Republican agenda is to turn back the clock and limit access to contraceptives. [Emphasis added]

I think the Republicans are scaring off moderates of both sexes who have come to accept and appreciate contraceptives as part of their intimate lives. And it might also be scaring off the libertarian and Tea Party wings who don't want the government in their lives, much less their bedrooms.

But, hey! Have at it GOP. Ignore Mr. Horsey's very sage suggestion:

Republicans should check their calendars and take note that the year is 2012, not 1912.

Some lessons just never get learned.

Granny Bird Award: Komen Foundation

This edition of the Granny Bird Award, given from time to time to those who in some impair the rights or welfare of the elders, goes to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization for their weak-kneed yanking of grants to Planned Parenthood.

From an AP report:

The nation's leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups. [Emphasis added]

As even the anti-choice people must know, abortions comprise a very small portion of the services which Planned Parenthood provides. One of the services provided which is key to women's health is breast exams and access to mammograms to women who could not otherwise afford them. This, of course, includes elders who do not have health insurance and who do qualify for Medicare for any number of reasons, including the fact they have not yet reached age 65.

The Komen Foundation claims that under a newly adopted rule that forbids grants to organizations under investigation by authorities. Planned Parenthood, a favorite target of the Religious Reich, is currently being investigated by a House Committee to see if it illegally has provided abortions with federal money. Launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the investigation is just a little grandstanding by the right in its attempt to roll back women's rights. That a foundation which claims to be deeply concerned with an important health issue for women -- breast cancer -- would cave in to such a despicable ploy is both astounding and shameful.

It is also worthy of the Granny Bird Award.

Politics As Usual

Kathleen Sebelius, head of the Department of Health and Human Services, has over-ruled the FDA in making "Plan B" pills available to women under the age of 17 without a prescription.

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season. [Emphasis added]

This moves comes from an administration that promised in 2008 to stop ignoring science in favor of political expediency. That Plan B has been demonstrated to halve pregnancy if used properly apparently doesn't matter to Barack Obama when an election campaign is underway. That Plan B would obviate the need for abortion doesn't either. Rather than acknowledge that women under 17 just might be having sex (consensual or not), Mr. Obama would rather avoid the battle.

What is so particularly disturbing is the effect this political calculation will have particularly on younger women, according to medical experts:

Several major medical groups reacted swiftly Wednesday to denounce the federal government's decision to limit over-the-counter access to emergency contraceptives for younger teens. ...

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine and American Society for Reproductive Medicine said Sebelius made the wrong call.

“As advocates for the health and well-being of all young people, the AAP recommends that adolescents postpone sexual activity until they are fully ready for the emotional, physical and financial consequences of sex,” said Dr. Robert Block, AAP president. “However, as physicians who care for our nation’s children, it is our responsibility to protect the health of our teenage patients, and an unintended pregnancy can have significant implications for adolescents’ physical and emotional health.” ...

The ASRM issued a statement from Dolores J. Lamb, the organization's president, that said in part: "We are very disappointed that Secretary Sebelius opted to insert herself into what should be a scientific decision made by the experts at FDA. The data are clear that emergency contraception can be safely used by adolescent women without requiring a prescription. Sadly, it appears that once again our leaders are putting political expediency ahead of reproductive health." [Emphasis added]

I guess some things are just more important than the health of women of any age, but particularly younger women. Things like four more years of power, four more years of doing the non-controversial, four more years of taking the easy path rather than the right one.

So much for change.

Welcome To The Race, Mr. Pawlenty

Tim Pawlenty has formally announced his candidacy for the 2012 GOP nomination for President, declaring himself a serious man for serious times. In a sense he's right: he's seriously anti-women's rights. George Zornick gives us a peek at T-Paw's record as governor of Minnesota in a blog post at The Nation:

In reality, however, Pawlenty's views on a woman's right to choose are among the more extreme in the emerging GOP field. National Review dubbed Pawlenty as possibly “the strongest pro-life candidate in 2012.” Under Pawlenty, who is an evangelical Christian, Minnesota was the first state to give women bogus information on “fetal pain” in an effort to dissuade them from having an abortion. He also signed laws providing women with information about “alternatives” to abortion, which became a model for other states, and has engaged in years of direct outreach to extreme antichoice groups. [Emphasis added]

Here are some of the details from his term as governor:

Less than one year into his governorship, Pawlenty signed the Women’s Right to Know Act of 2003. The law required physicians to provide women with information about abortion alternatives at least twenty-four hours prior to the procedure, including a list of adoption centers, detailed information about fetal development, and a description of the risks associated with abortion procedures. ...

Two years later, Pawlenty signed the Unborn Child Prevention Act, making Minnesota the first state in the nation to mandate that pregnant women considering an abortion receive information about “fetal pain.”

Though the position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is that there is “no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain,” the law requires abortion doctors and referring physicians to inform pregnant women seeking an abortion that “pain-reducing medication” is available for their fetus. Women in Minnesota seeking an abortion must now sign a form either requesting or refusing pain-reducing medication for their unborn child. ...

In 2008 he named Eric Magnuson chief justice of the court. Manguson has a long record of opposing abortion rights, and once wrote an amicus brief on behalf of an antichoice group arguing that taxpayer money shouldn’t go to abortion services. ...

Beyond these substantive measures, Pawlenty has made many symbolic overtures to the antichoice movement. He declared April 2010 “Abortion Recovery/Awareness Month” in Minnesota. His proclamation noted that “many organizations in Minnesota promote policies that reinforce a culture of life and hope,” and encouraged women who had abortions to seek their help.

He also issued proclamations that darkly observed the day Roe v. Wade was decided. Speaking at an antichoice rally on the 2006 anniversary of the decision, Pawlenty said, “We have a dream today that someday soon this will not be an anniversary of sadness, but an anniversary of justice restored.”

Nice record, that, but it's one he's keeping very quiet about at present. His web site and his recently published book are very short on references to the choice issue, and with good reason. While his anti-choice stance will keep him in good standing with the fundagelicals of his party, it won't be much help with independents when the general election comes around.

Like I've said before, at least this part of the silly season has been fun. Pass the popcorn.

And One Step Back

Now, here's a bit of depressing news to start the week with:

Fifteen people sit on the Los Angeles City Council. It's possible that in a few months, only one will be a woman. In a few years, there could be none. ...

Eleven years ago, a third of the desks lining the council chamber's ornate horseshoe were filled by women. The steady decline reflects a broader trend across the nation, where the proportion of women officeholders has been flat-lining or slipping.

The number of women sworn in to Congress this year fell for the first time in 30 years, leaving women with just 16% of congressional seats.

And the number of female lawmakers in state capitals decreased by 81 this year, the largest percentage drop in decades.

That's pretty hard to believe, but the numbers are correct. We are losing ground with respect to representation by women, who make up more than half of the US population. As the article points out, the fact that California has two women US Senators and provided the first woman Speaker of the House, apparently made us complacent. Fewer women are running for and winning elections at all levels of government all across the nation. So why are we losing ground?

The prominence of women like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on the national stage may give a false impression of the political influence women wield and ease pressure on women to run for office. That could be especially true in California, where both United States senators, several members of Congress, the attorney general and secretary of State are women. ...

"When women run, women win at the same rate as men in comparable elections," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "But they haven't been running."

No one can say for sure why, but political scientists suspect one cause is the ever-increasing opportunities for well-educated women in business. Another factor appears to be the coarseness permeating many campaigns, and the reputation of politics as a man's world.

Well, those are two reasons, and there is a third: women enter politics later than men because they are generally held to the task as the primary caregiver in families with children. But in 1992, women finally broke through at the congressional level, and made a difference.

Now is not the time for women to step away from electoral politics. Women bring the many of the same skill sets and bring unique perspectives to all issues, not just the traditional "mommy" issues of child welfare and education. We're here, more than half the population, and as well-educated as men. We need to be running in and winning elections.

Meanwhile ...

The general feel-good bipartisan response to the assassination of Osama bin Laden is apparently only for the consumption of the rubes. Back in the House, the GOP has been busy undercutting women's reproductive rights during, of all things, budget considerations.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a sweeping antiabortion package to further distance federal funds from the procedure by solidifying existing measures and imposing new ones. ...

The House bill would permanently place into law current policies prohibiting federal money from paying for abortions through Medicaid and some other federal programs. The policies, primarily outlined in the decades-old measure known as the Hyde Amendment, must be periodically renewed.

But the bill also goes further to eliminate what supporters say are indirect federal subsidies for abortion providers.

Under the measure, businesses that offer health insurance policies covering abortion could not recoup tax credits under the new healthcare law. In addition, individuals could not deduct the cost of an abortion when itemizing health expenses on their taxes, nor could they use a tax-exempt savings account to pay for an abortion.

Playing to their basest base as the 2012 elections loom, Republicans justify the unjustifiable with the usual tortured logic:

As Democrats sought to portray these new provisions as part of an extreme social agenda, many Republicans argued that the measure merely reflects the public's will. Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), the bill's sponsor and chief advocate, said he hoped the measures would limit access to abortion.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that ending all public funding for abortion saves lives," said Smith, a leading congressional abortion opponent. "When public funding and facilitation isn't available for abortion, children have a greater chance for survival."

Ah, yes: the rights of the preborn.

Of course, once those children are born, the party stalwarts lose all interest, as evidenced by the cuts to the safety nets which allow them to grow up strong and healthy with a shot at a 21st Century education. And their mothers? Well, they need to be punished for their sluttish ruttings.

Monsters.

Confounded Facts

Meghan Daum should not be allowed to do snark. She is terrible at it, as her latest column makes clear. Still, she did get things right when it comes to the recent brouhaha over Planned Parenthood.

In the ongoing rancor surrounding federal funding of Planned Parenthood, misinformation has a starring role. There have been, of course, predictable gusts of hot air from pundits like Bill O'Reilly, who asserted last month that "nobody's life is affected by Planned Parenthood," and Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy of "Fox & Friends," who suggested on April 9 that Planned Parenthood's non-abortion-related services were redundant because you can get your blood pressure checked and get a pap smear or a breast exam at Walgreen's. (Blood pressure, yes; the rest, uh-uh.)

Then there are those who deep down must surely know better but who seem to think they have ... a right to waive the facts. When Republican Sen. Jon Kyl wrongly proclaimed on the Senate floor recently that abortions constitute "well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does," his office responded to the blowback by saying that "his remark was not intended to be a factual statement."

I must admit I was stunned at the Reich's selection of this venerable organization as a target. Planned Parenthood, for crying out loud! This group has done an ocean of good when it comes to contraception and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. As Ms. Daum points out, abortion compromises only 3% of its programs, a fact born out by all the reporting required by Title X for federal funding. Abortion may be the reason given by those trashing Planned Parenthood, but I suspect more is at work.

Meghan Daum suggests that some people are uncomfortable with the idea of planning for a child, but I think it is beyond even that. I think those people want to control sex completely, which is another way of saying that they want to control women completely. If it were merely a concern with "murdering the preborn," the Reich would go out of its way to protect the postborn rather than cut funding to WIC programs. It would go out of its way to make certain prenatal care was given to each and every pregnant woman. It would also make a massive commitment to education.

But it doesn't.

Instead, it spews lies about groups like Planned Parenthood which attempt to provide for the health and safety of women and children. It's what they do, and when caught in the lies, they issue lame excuses like Senator Kyl's.

Evil stuff, this.