Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The voice that will erase the sad bigotry of Rick Warren Previous entry: You Can Watch Stuart Smalley Become A Real Senator

Bush administration embraces anti-contraception agenda

Surprising absolutely no one, the Bush administration told the vast majority of the population that uses or has used contraception that we can fuck off, and that we are dirty whores* who deserve a dressing down from perfect strangers that are supposedly hired to provide service.  In fact, the administration responded to complaints from over 200,000 letter writers by tossing two fingers, by keeping the proposed regulations and adding contractors to the list of people who can obstruct you if you want contraception, sterilization, or abortion.

I assumed that the Bush administration would do this.  They don’t care about justice, rule of law, the desires of the electorate, or basic morality when it comes to any other issue, so why break with tradition on this? I wrote this column last week figuring that Bush would stick by these HHS regulations not only out of contempt for the American people, but also because they wanted to embroil the Obama administration in a fight with the Christian right as soon as possible.  The more I think about it, the more worried I am about this, because these regulations seem like a perfect “compromise” position.  Consider that most people’s idea of acceptable regulations of abortion and other reproductive health services (as well as rights like marriage) are those that allow them personally to have sex as they see fit, but that might control someone else they feel is less deserving.  Since these regulations enable oppression to be conducted on a much more individual basis, it might be easy for a lot of people to think, “Well, obviously the religious people won’t try to interfere with my rights, since I’m obviously a good, deserving person.”  Then again, the huge outcry over this regulation may mean that I’m worried about nothing. 


One thing that should have everyone up in arms is this.

One of the rule’s more disturbing provisions is the announcement that Title X family planning funding will now be open to grantees who refuse to counsel women on the availability of abortion.  Title X has always required that when a woman tests positive for pregnancy, she must be counseled on all of her options, including abortion, and given referrals based on what her expressed interest.  The regulations state that Title X funding will be granted “non-discriminatorily” to applicants, including those who refuse to provide counseling and referral for abortion.

In other words, they created a loophole that will drain money from actual medical service providers to crisis pregnancy centers that provide no real service to speak of.  I covered the ins and outs of crisis pregnancy centers here:


RH Reality Check: Crisis Pregnancy Centers from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.

This is insanely dangerous.  Crisis pregnancy centers do not provide contraception (most in fact feed you the same lies about how condoms will kill you), cancer screening, STD testing, or any kind of medical care at all.  Most don’t have anyone on staff with medical training of any sort, and those that do usually only have a volunteer sonogram technician who can show you a picture of what’s in your uterus and maybe give you some idea of how far along you are, but can’t do anything else.  Administering a pregnancy test is a “medical service” in the same sense that taking an aspirin is.  Most crisis pregnancy centers don’t even have the blood test, just the urine stick one you can buy for $10 at a drugstore. 

Of course, every dollar of Title X spending moved from providing contraception to providing finger-wagging lectures about how condoms give you cancer (or whatever lies they’re telling to scare you off basic health care) is a dollar we’re spending to increase the abortion rate.  I was fascinated by right wingers who were trying to create an outrage over the fact that Planned Parenthood—-really all abortion providers—-will use the occasion of abortion to counsel women on contraception and prescribe the birth control pill.  They’re getting increasingly transparent—-for all that they claim to hate abortion, they’re apparently furious that the abortion rate is as low as it is.  After all, every packet of pills pressed into someone’s hand means that’s one more woman who won’t be seeking an abortion that month, and while abortion isn’t as good a punishment for being a sexually active woman as forced childbirth, it’s a sight better than not getting punished at all. 

Luckily, there’s already a bill written to overturn this ridiculous rule change.  I think Congress needs to take this up pretty much immediately; there’s no reason to force the Obama administration to go through a multi-month process that would deprive women of contraception.

*Both men and women are eligible for getting the “you dirty whore” dressing down for seeking out sexual health services that the provider decides he doesn’t want to give, but we can probably safely assume women will get it more.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:44 PM • (48) Comments

This is wingnut welfare in its most brazen form: refuse to do your job, and get paid with taxpayer dollars.

Comment #1: paul  on  12/18  at  10:50 PM

This is wingnut welfare in its most brazen form: refuse to do your job, and get paid with taxpayer dollars.

Kind of like Bush himself.

Comment #2: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/18  at  11:21 PM

Maybe you LIEbrals don’t understand this but contreception prevents the birth of babies, which is the only reason you should be having sexual relations in the first place.

Comment #3: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/18  at  11:25 PM

Thank you! 

It seems like this Warren thing is just a giant smokescreen to make us distracted from something that will create a hassle for millions of women (myself included) and real danger for too many people.  It is also a way to divide the GLBT and Pro-Choice advocates by making us fight over what deserves more press, a strong slap in the face to homosexuals or this.  For the record, I’m furious about both, but this issue means that I need to make sure my pharmacist and doctors will respect my desire to not be pregnant.

Comment #4: Ursula  on  12/18  at  11:29 PM

Glad to know that in their pathetically misguided effort to <strike>punish sex</strike> save life, they’re making the situation far worse for everyone involved.

Obama’s not going to be able to implement his own policy for years ... it’ll take him that long to undo all of this bullshit.

Comment #5: Joshua  on  12/18  at  11:36 PM

Won’t take him any longer than it takes his staff to write up the same type of ‘letters’ that Bush used to circumvent the laws in the first place.

You know what I’m talking about don’t you?  I can’t remember the exact Orwellian name they have right now, but they are apparently very effective, needing only the King’s…err…President’s signature to do whatever the hell he wants.

Enjoy.

Comment #6: The Tim Channel  on  12/18  at  11:52 PM

I wish it were that simple, Tim, but alas, now that a “right” has been given, the right is going to wail and moan about losing it.  Never mind that women also have rights; they never accepted that.  No matter how firm the Obama administration holds on this, they’re spending political capital by engaging an ugly debate, and all debates where people are given an opportunity to use political power to punish others for having hawt sexx, particularly hawt sexx they aren’t having, are ugly debates.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/19  at  12:01 AM

The thing is, the wingnuts will be really offended when someone they don’t like tries to use this. Imagine all the satanist janitors deciding they won’t clean ORs where pacemakers are installed…

Comment #8: paul  on  12/19  at  12:10 AM

The more I think about it, the more worried I am about this, because these regulations seem like a perfect “compromise” position.

Not to any healthcare worker who actually joins the field to help people. Pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and counselors have their own ethics codes to follow. I don’t know about ultrasound technicians. I imagine they do, but I couldn’t find them online. Anyway, all of those ethics codes require professionals to put patient and client autonomy first. In the pharmacists’ and counselors’ ethics codes, if their duties conflict with their moral obligations (either as a professional or an individual), then they have to refer. Professionals who care about their patients and clients have no problem referring (those that would have such an objection wouldn’t go into that field of work). The HHS rule is to let people who have no ethics get away with it by turning their unethical behavior that would normally get them fired, publicly humiliated, and/or sued into federal law. Any healthcare professional who puts patient and client care first would never support this legislation. The healthcare professionals who enter such fields to purposely change the way the field works love this rule (like those at CPCs [who I know aren’t real healthcare professionals anyway] and pro-life pharmacies).

Comment #9: Emily  on  12/19  at  12:16 AM

Let’s throw shoes.

Comment #10: Lisa KS  on  12/19  at  12:20 AM

I would really like for W to need a prescription filled, only to be told by the only on-duty pharmacist at some AM hour when no other store is open, “I’m sorry, but as a Christian Scientist, I can’t give you any medicine, But let’s pray together.”

Comment #11: Samantha Vimes  on  12/19  at  01:17 AM

Oh, and there’s a whole slew of things that good christians like to say doesn’t exist.  And therefore, let people go without treatment for.

That would, of course, include depression, intersexed conditions, transsexualism, etc…

Comment #12: Crissa  on  12/19  at  01:36 AM

I personally can’t wait for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense Viagra or any life-prolonging or pain managing drug to Jim-Bob Duggar because s/he is a member of the VHEMT and by their beliefs, Jim-Bob is an egregious sinner and wildly immoral. This sword cuts both ways, fuckers.

Comment #13: Keori  on  12/19  at  01:38 AM

This is probably evil of me, but I would be somewhat amused if Bush ended up in an emergency room needing a blood transfusion and scored a Jehovah’s Witness doctor who refused to perform blood transfusions due to her/his religious beliefs.

Comment #14: stealthy cat  on  12/19  at  02:45 AM

Fuck it all sideways.  It should not be a controversial position, up for debate against opponents who are taken seriously, that people should be expected to actually do the jobs they’re paid to do—-ESPECIALLY in the medical profession, when refusal can have significant or even fatal consequences for someone dependent on these workers.

To become a medical professional is to actively seek out a career that places other people’s life in your hands.  This power should come with corresponding responsibility.  This should be a no-brainer.

End of discussion.

But nooooo, we have the “screw your rights, I have JESUS” crowd running the country and racing to see how many people they can screw over before they get kicked out of office.

Comment #15: Kyra  on  12/19  at  02:55 AM

This is probably evil of me, but I would be somewhat amused if Bush ended up in an emergency room needing a blood transfusion and scored a Jehovah’s Witness doctor who refused to perform blood transfusions due to her/his religious beliefs.

And watch the Secret Service arrest him for trying to assassinate the President.  Because HE matters.

Comment #16: Kyra  on  12/19  at  02:57 AM

I’ve sometimes wondered whether the people who voted for Bush because he claimed to be against abortions are actually dumb enough to believe that the Bush twins—or any other woman in that family—would ever have to go through a pregnancy if they didn’t feel like it.

Comment #17: Molly, NYC  on  12/19  at  04:01 AM

Anyone here ever read “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood?

Comment #18: Andrew  on  12/19  at  06:49 AM

No. No one on this feminist blog has read “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Comment #19: MBL  on  12/19  at  08:38 AM

I had not heard about the Title X provisions.  I really don’t understand how it is even conceivable that a non-health care provider could have access to those monies.  So if I let teenagers take pregnancy tests in my bathroom I could qualify for those funds? 

Dahlia Lithwick had a pretty good column last week about these bullshit conscience clauses and how problematic it is to base a right that is contingent upon others to exercise on the whims of those others.

Comment #20: pennylane  on  12/19  at  09:03 AM

This evil, evil, horrible, disgusting, sadsack President cannot get out of office fast enough.

Why doesn’t he go on one of his famous vacations now and leave us alone? For Dog’s sake, he had no problem going on vacation any other time in his administration.

Hate. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate him.

Comment #21: speedbudget  on  12/19  at  09:32 AM

Mrs. Clown Car Vagina has just given birth to #18, according to Newser.

http://www.newser.com/story/45778/mom-gives-birth-to-baby-no-18.html

Interestingly enough, the clip has this quote: “The [baby making] spree began when the Baptist couple, married as teens, ditched their birth control pills. “

Look, y’all… that could be every married couple if the Christianists succeed in banning birth control. At least, they hope so.

Comment #22: K. Mac  on  12/19  at  09:48 AM

I wish it were that simple, Tim, but alas, now that a “right” has been given, the right is going to wail and moan about losing it.

Amanda Marcotte on 12/18 at 10:01 PM

I would absolutely love to see (but am reasonably sure that I won’t) Obama rescind this policy almost immediately with a signing statement, and then, when he’s called on it by the conservative media, tells them that, just like the last guy, he doesn’t do focus groups.  Just to watch all those religiously insane heads explode when they’re dismissed as casually as liberals have been since, oh, before I was born (1960).

And I’m just waiting for the first bit of this kind of claptrap I witness first hand - I’ll be the one in the pharmacists’s face for this kind of behavior right away.

Comment #23: (: Tom :)  on  12/19  at  10:02 AM

I’ve sometimes wondered whether the people who voted for Bush because he claimed to be against abortions are actually dumb enough to believe that the Bush twins—or any other woman in that family—would ever have to go through a pregnancy if they didn’t feel like it.

The answer is yes. The neoCons see it as the proper order of things, and the Know-Nothings (including the Xtian fantasists) are forelock-tugging peasants at heart.

Comment #24: Gracchus  on  12/19  at  10:33 AM

We’ve tangled on healthcare before.  I agree that these regulations are stupid, motivated by the conservative religious wing of the Republican Party (which, unfortunately, has wrested control away from the fiscal side).  This is what happens when healthcare is controlled by the government—every treatment remotely controversial becomes a political issue.  I sure can’t wait until the Democrats enact universal healthcare, and every procedure I might want has to be run by every political interest group.

Comment #25: Al  on  12/19  at  10:38 AM

This is what happens when healthcare is controlled by <strike>the</strike> a government run or consistently hobbled by religious fantasists—every treatment remotely controversial becomes a political issue.

Fixed that for you. The problem (or lack thereof) isn’t state-sponsored universal healthcare, it’s the government that might runs it at the time. Look at examples in Canada or the UK, and you’ll find that there “controversial” treatments like contraception or even abortion aren’t excluded from coverage—but then, even their conservative parties are a lot more wary about allying with religious fundies than the modern GOP is. When Western liberal democracies behave as such, respect for individual choice and science increases concurrently. When they don’t ... well, look at the last 8 years.

Liberals and progressives have an easily solution to the problem you pose: keep the Republicans out of power. Economic conservatives have a much harder task: taking back the GOP from the religious fantasists you encouraged to join because it was politically expedient. After 25 years of that, it’ll be like clearing Kudzu.

Comment #26: Gracchus  on  12/19  at  11:01 AM

“I agree that these regulations are stupid, motivated by the conservative religious wing of the Republican Party (which, unfortunately, has wrested control away from the fiscal side).”

The Moneycons don’t have enough votes without the slack-jawed Fundnuts on their side.  And the Fundnuts don’t have the money and power they need without the Moneycons on their side.  Any split between them is good for everyone else.

The problem is the Moneycons know if the Socialcons get their way it won’t affect the Moneycons much, if at all.  So it’s easy to give the idiot religious proles what they want in return for continuing to vote for massive tax cuts and corporate welfare.

Talk about the Axis of Evil…

“This is what happens when healthcare is controlled by the government—every treatment remotely controversial becomes a political issue.”

It doesn’t have to be if we stand up to the Fundnuts and Socialcons.  Government it capable of doing really incredible things, when run by people who aren’t active opponents of the very idea of government.

“I sure can’t wait until the Democrats enact universal healthcare, and every procedure I might want has to be run by every political interest group.”

Dude, you have that now.  The only difference if the biggest “political interest groups” are Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine (usually a combination of Big Insurance and a string of medical centers).

This is what’s so sad to me about our current healthcare environment.  “I don’t want some bureaucrat deciding what I can do with my body!”...and then some insurance industry bureaucrat tells you what you can and cannot get anyway…

Comment #27: MikeEss  on  12/19  at  11:07 AM

and then some insurance industry bureaucrat tells you what you can and cannot get anyway…

Seriously. What do people not get about this? Is it okay because someone’s making a huge profit off making decisions for you?

Comment #28: annejumps  on  12/19  at  11:15 AM

Seriously. What do people not get about this? Is it okay because someone’s making a huge profit off making decisions for you?

It’s just a very narrow mindset that can’t acknowledge that large corporations, freed of regulation, can be just as tyrannical as the state. And it can’t acknowledge that big impersonal bureaucracies are features of both.

A lot of this mindset is due to an ignorance of history. If they don’t know about Harry Bennett, I can’t take their whinging about how corporations are immune from Soviet-style tyranny seriously.

Comment #29: Gracchus  on  12/19  at  11:27 AM

Part of the point of GWB adopting this regulation in his last days is that there are procedural hurdles to Obama immeidately changing the rule back, without a notice and comment period, etc.

Comment #30: rea  on  12/19  at  11:39 AM

paul: The thing is, the wingnuts will be really offended when someone they don’t like tries to use this. Imagine all the satanist janitors deciding they won’t clean ORs where pacemakers are installed…

I suspect that this is the way to bring this down, but a lot of people are going to suffer for it first.

Comment #31: inge  on  12/19  at  11:57 AM

Enjoyable though it might be to imagine Bush hoist on his own petard, the only thing close in the historical record goes the opposite way. The doctor who treated Reagan when he was shot got through medical school thanks to the same affirmative-action programs that Reagan campaigned to abolish. But despite his moral opposition to everything the former actor stood for, he treated him anyway.

Comment #32: paul  on  12/19  at  12:02 PM

I’ve sometimes wondered whether the people who voted for Bush because he claimed to be against abortions are actually dumb enough to believe that the Bush twins—or any other woman in that family—would ever have to go through a pregnancy if they didn’t feel like it.

No, they don’t think that, which is why they went ape for Sarah Palin.  These folks, for all their supposed “populism”, are in fact royalists.  Which is why they don’t see a problem with throwing a man in jail for 15 years and torturing him for the crime of insulting a head of state.  Now, if one of the elect, like Sarah Palin, sacrifices their own child for the cause, that is considered especially noble.  (Think of the story of Agamemnon sacrificing Iphigenia.)  But it’s not mandatory and refusal to sacrifice your own child doesn’t deplete your authority.

Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/19  at  12:15 PM

Al, you didn’t “tangle” with anyone.  You made baseless assertions that were easily shot down, and then patted yourself on the back because you didn’t misspell anything, and according to the principle of lower expectations for conservatives, you therefore held your own.

Comment #34: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/19  at  12:17 PM

I wonder if, say, mormon mailmen will be able to pull this off too, and decide not to deliver fashion magazines because the women in the cover are not modestly dressed? 

What constitutes a religion anyway?  Wanna start a religion with me that makes it a sin to cover our genitals?  Or let’s start a religions that makes it a sin to kill animals and then get jobs at KFC and McDonald’s, refuse to serve the food, and then plead “conscience”.
And if this bill just only specifies “conscience”, doesn’t that put individual judgement above the laws?  Isn’t this exactly what the goverment is for, to protect the rights of citizens from others who would like to take them away?

Comment #35: raspberryjamba  on  12/19  at  12:22 PM

Al,
You know what the end of that argument was. 
It is never cute for people older than 4 to pretend they won an argument.

Comment #36: raspberryjamba  on  12/19  at  12:25 PM

It’s just a very narrow mindset that can’t acknowledge that large corporations, freed of regulation, can be just as tyrannical as the state. And it can’t acknowledge that big impersonal bureaucracies are features of both.

I think some people are aware of corporate tyranny, but find it morally acceptable because it’s capitalism, rather than government control of anything, which they view as socialism. I mean, call me cynical tongue laugh

Comment #37: annejumps  on  12/19  at  12:41 PM

Al: This is what happens when healthcare is controlled by the government—every treatment remotely controversial becomes a political issue.

If you have parliament crammed with religious nuts, you are in trouble all around. In Germany, the influence of the Catholic church has blocked legalization of abortion for decades (still is, in a way), is blocking equal marriage rights right now, and is keeping blasphemy illegal.

Comment #38: inge  on  12/19  at  01:45 PM

Amanda: Now, if one of the elect, like Sarah Palin, sacrifices their own child for the cause, that is considered especially noble.

Human sacrifices are one of the selling points for monarchy. Which is why you expect the crown princes to join the military.

Comment #39: inge  on  12/19  at  02:01 PM

raspberry, “legitimate” religions apparently have to be misogynist.

Comment #40: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/19  at  02:14 PM

Why can’t Bush’s evil regulations be changed right back, once Obama takes office?

Comment #41: Luke  on  12/19  at  02:32 PM

There’s a number of links and comments explaining that they can, but that it’s going to take time, effort, and political capital.  Obviously, with the Rick Warren thing, we are reminded that Democrats are still weirdly infatuated with the idea that a small “compromise” with wingnuts will get evangelicals to love them.

Comment #42: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/19  at  02:34 PM

He can overturn them quickly if it’s a priority for him. This is one of those moments when I suspect that political gain and the right thing overlap. Sure the right will whine and complain he’s violating people’s rights, but if he does it quick all that will remain by the next election is a distant memory of his making people do their jobs. The only people who will pay attention will be the know-nothings that wouldn’t vote for him anyway, and the rest of us who will be paying attention to how he handles these kinds of things. It’s in his interest to do it, and do it quickly.

I wasn’t an original Obama supporter, and he’s still a little center left for my taste, but this is one instance where I think he’ll do the right thing, and fairly quickly. He’s neither evil, nor stupid. (Yes, I know, I’ve thought this before.)

Shorter version: I believe he has the moral courage to tell these jackasses to piss up a rope. And I think he realizes that it will look good on his resume.  I’m really, really pissed off that some women will suffer in the interim, but I don’t think it will be permanent.

Comment #43: patrickdolan  on  12/19  at  02:47 PM

patrickdolan, maybe so, but I don’t think it’s asking too much that we demand a statement to that effect from him in the meantime. Anyone know if Obama has said anything about this issue? I fully expect to hear that there have been nothing but crickets but that since he’s “not even a senator anymore” it makes sense for him not to say anything, despite being president-elect. *sigh*

Comment #44: Ellen  on  12/19  at  02:56 PM

Shorter me:

If Democrats drop legislation because Republicans threaten filibuster, then why don’t Democrats return the favor? Why isn’t Obama out there saying that if this HHS nonsense gets passed, he will dismantle it piece by piece, so why bother? Hmm? IOKIYAR?

Comment #45: Ellen  on  12/19  at  02:57 PM

I wonder if, say, mormon mailmen will be able to pull this off too, and decide not to deliver fashion magazines because the women in the cover are not modestly dressed?

Unfortunately, this rule only seems to apply to those in the health care service industry.

Fortunately, it also says that you can refuse to do something because of religious or moral grounds.  So, if you object to saving the life of a religiously insane idiot because you have moral objections to helping someone who worships an Invisible Sky Fairy, apparently it’s okay according to the Putsch sadministration.

Not that I’m expecting that it will be equally applied in all cases: for some strange reason I have this feeling that raising moral objections to christianity would not be considered to be legal…

Comment #46: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen  on  12/19  at  08:46 PM

Fortunately, it also says that you can refuse to do something because of religious or moral grounds.

Hmm, moral grounds in addition to religious grounds?  Time for some vegans to follow in the footsteps of Jerold Friedman and start refusing to do things because of their moral values.  Friedman only refused a vaccination for himself, but I’m sure that refusing to fill someone’s insulin prescription because it was made from pigs would be covered by the new Bush rules.  Any vegan pharmacists out there willing to give it a try?

Comment #47: Mnemosyne  on  12/19  at  10:30 PM

They are comeing!
Wrapped in the U.S. flag and carring a bible.
They will tell us “sinners” what to read/ how to live/what to think/peek into our bedrooms to make sure that your haveing the corret biblicl sex,man on top with ones own wife.
In other words control over your whole life,from womb,to the grave.

Comment #48: Torbis5661  on  12/23  at  12:07 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.