Apropos of yesterday’s post on access to birth control pills, Atrios chimes in with some very good points about why the Democratic party should have no problem finding common ground with many anti-abortion folks:
Look, if you have a problem with abortion and want to find ways to reduce them rather than outlaw them, come on board. I for one don’t much care about reducing abortions as a policy goal in and of itself, but I do care about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And, as long as the pro-life right is also battling contraceptive availability, fighting against OTC access to the “morning after” pill, which really isn’t an abortaficient (or, to the extent than it is, should be much less offensive than the consequences of IVF procedures), fighting for laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to prescribe the pill (which is also prescribed for legitimate medical reasons other than to stop pregnancy), destroying sex education, and supporting economic policies which increase poverty, then it seems like supporting Democrats are the way to go.
If your pro-lifeness is wrapped up in a general anti-sex religious agenda, then stick with the Republicans.
The problem, of course, is that this is way too common-sense an approach and thus will get totally overlooked.
A friend of mine recently pointed out that abortion is all-but unavailable already in large portions of America; not due to anti-abortion laws, but because nobody is choosing to provice that service. Is birth control next?
It’s a long article and one that does not lend itself to easy pulling of quotes. Here’s the gist, though:
Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist’s right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.
The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.
No need to change any laws – just get enough phramacists to refuse to fill perscirtions, and poof! Away goes the ability of women to get access to one of the easiest and most effective methods of birth control.
I’m over the initial wave of reaction from Election Day, but this is the kind of news that makes me think the apocalyptic fears of those first 48 hours are not, in fact, so far off base. It’s bad enough that Roe v Wade is under attack, but if we have to fight for Griswold too, it’s really, really bad.
I was going to put an even nastier title to this post but I don’t want this blog to get into any smut filters. In short, the wackoes in Berkeley are at it again – they want to decriminalize prostitution.
I consider myself to be a feminist, but I cannot understand how this is a “woman’s issue”. It seems to me that the people who are going to benefit most by the decriminalization of prostitution are the pimps, who will not have to worry about their ‘stable’ getting busted and therefore be able to make more money for them, and of course the customers, who will be able to buy as much sex as they want without having to worry about police sting operations.
Backers of the measure insist that prostitution is a societal mainstay, a commodity in perennial demand. Therefore, it should be treated like any other job and have unions, government workplace protections, fair wages, insurance and legal recourse for workers who face abuse or civil rights violations
What planet are these people on? Women who go into the sex trade don’t do it becuse it’s a ‘good job’ or has the potential to be one. They do it because for whatever combination of reasons (poor self-esteem, bad coping skills, lack of education, drug addiction, etc) they can’t do anything else. What we should be doing is helping prosititues get the skills and self-confidence they need to stop being prostitiutes, not helping them stay in the sex trade.
I’m still more or less staying out of the Iraqi prison mess but caught this quote of Ann Coulter’s today & thought it worth citing: “this is yet another lesson in why women shouldn’t be in the military.”
It boggles the mind how of all the lessons that could possibly be drawn from this catastrophic mess, that is the one less Coulter draws? Crazy, I tell you.
Some reports out there include reports of rapes on Iraqi prisoners. Ann will have to figure out how that too is the fault of women in the military.
So the Senate passed an “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” today. This heinous piece of legislation defines an “unborn child” as any child in utero, which it says “means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” In other words, from the moment sperm meets egg.
This is some scary stuff for people who believe that a woman should have the right to control her own life and her own reproductive system. If it’s a crime for a 3rd party to harm a fetus, it’s a pretty small step to making it a crime for the mother herself to harm said fetus. And once that’s the case, then is it that big a step to having the government control what a woman can and can’t do, or eat, or drink? Whether she can get on an airplane, or even drive a car while pregnant?
Hell, let’s just send all women who become pregnant off to special pregnancy camps, where they can stay for 40 weeks and incubate, only doing exactly what the government thinks is good for them during that time. Never mind the woman’s rights. It’s all about the fetus.
Think it could never happen in America?
Just wait. If Bush is re-elected, I’ll lay good odds that Roe v Wade goes down during his 2nd term.