The following summarizes select women’s health-related blog entries.
~ “Birth Control is Clutch!” Lucy Panza, Law Students for Reproductive Justice’s “Repo Repro”: The federal health reform law (PL 111-148) “was a mixed bag” for many reproductive health advocates, Panza writes, adding that while it “covers 95% of Americans by 2014,” restrictions on abortion coverage “dealt a severe blow to advocates who felt that this was a real chance to provide comprehensive reproductive health services to women.” She continues that the “politics don’t end when the president signs a bill into law,” noting that HHS is currently weighing whether family planning and birth control should be included “in the definition of mandated ‘preventive care’” under a provision of the law. Panza argues that birth control “is preventive care” because it is “a medication or device that literally prevents pregnancy.” She continues that “birth control also fits into the [reproductive justice] framework” because it “enables a women to control her fertility” and “empowers her to decide whether and when to have children” (Panza, “Repo Repro,” Law Students for Reproductive Justice, 10/26).
~ NARAL Pro-Choice America Endorses Reps. Hodes, Schauer, Sestak: In the final days of the midterm elections, NARAL Pro-Choice America has announced endorsements candidates in several states, including New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes (D) for Senate. During his time in the House, Hodes “stood up to protect access to birth control and fought to eliminate the failed ‘abstinence-only’ programs of the [George W.] Bush administration,” while making “protecting a woman’s right to choose a hallmark of his campaign” (“Blog for Choice,” NARAL Pro-Choice America, 10/26). NARAL has endorsed the re-election of Michigan Rep. Mark Schauer (D), who “earned a perfect pro-choice voting record while in Congress, which includes his vote opposing the dangerous” abortion coverage restrictions in the health reform law. Schauer is running against former Rep. Tim Walberg (R), who “consistently voted anti-choice in Congress” and “opposes a woman’s right to choose even for women who have been raped or are the survivors of incest,” according to NARAL (“Blog for Choice,” NARAL Pro-Choice America, 10/27). Finally, NARAL endorsed Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak (D) for U.S. Senate. Sestak’s opponent, former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), is opposed to abortion rights and “said he supports repealing Roe v. Wade.” Sestak’s “response couldn’t have been better” when he said he “believe[s] that those life decisions of a family should be made within the family. I don’t think government should intervene,” according to NARAL (“Blog for Choice,” NARAL Pro-Choice America, 10/28).
~ “Kudos to Jill Stanek for Taking a Stand on ‘Wanted Posters,’” Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Jacobson writes that although she has “longstanding and deep differences” with Jill Stanek — an abortion-rights opponent who produces Internet content for antiabortion advocacy groups — she “feel[s] she must receive credit when due.” Stanek “stood up for life, for justice and for civil disagreement in our political discourse” when she “called on Flip Benham of Operation Save America to discard those ‘Wanted’ posters he has been circulating of doctors who provide abortion care,” Jacobson writes. “I applaud Jill for taking this step,” but “I also must say I wish she had gone further, by also stating that she would stop posting screen shots of the offices and clinics” of abortion providers, Jacobson continues. “We’ve gotten to the point where truly disturbed people are influenced by both the rhetoric and the imagery … to take the law into their own hands,” she writes (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 10/28).
~ “Girls Wish Their Dads Talked More Openly About Sex,” Colleen Barrett, TresSugar: A recent New York University study found that girls would like more discussion about sex with their fathers. Many girls feel that their fathers can teach them how to “communicate and negotiate intimacy issues” with men, Barrett writes. She adds, “Girls who talk to their dads about sex not only lose their virginity at later ages and have fewer sex partners, both of which are associated with good mental health, but are also more comfortable talking to partners about sex later in life, which is always good for a relationship’s health” (Barrett, TresSugar, 10/28).
~ “Cardinal-Designate Burke Says Catholics Cannot Vote for Candidates Who Are Pro-Choice,” David Gibson, Politics Daily ‘s “Disputations”: In a recent interview with Catholic Action for Faith and Family, Cardinal-Designate and former Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke said that Catholics can “never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion.” He also said that Catholics are bound by their faith to oppose same-sex marriage at the polls. Burke also “reject[ed] the common criticism that highlighting opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage effectively endorses Republican candidates,” Gibson writes. He adds that Burke’s statements “seem to diverge somewhat from the current policy of the U.S. [Catholic] hierarchy, as developed in 2004, and based in part on advice from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal officer who a year later was elected pope on the death of John Paul II.” Regardless of Burke’s “harder line on Catholic voters,” U.S. Catholics “already seemed to be swinging … away from Democrats and toward Republicans, though not always because of the moral issues Burke highlighted” (Gibson, “Disputations,” Politics Daily, 10/28).
~ “For Dr. Tiller: Bring Only Love,” Charlotte Taft, RH Reality Check: Taft, director of the Abortion Care Network and former director of a Dallas abortion clinic, discusses her grief for her friend George Tiller — a Kansas abortion provider murdered last year — and the recent MSNBC documentary, “The Assassination of Dr. Tiller.” Watching the film ignited a fear that “we will re-live a time of horror, murder, acid attacks, kidnapping, constant death threats, endless candlelight vigils, vandalism, clinic invasions, bombing and arson,” Taft writes. She adds, “Sounds like a war, doesn’t it? And in many ways that’s what it is — an unholy war waged by Fundamentalist Christians who believe they are (entitled) to act for their vengeful God.” According to Taft, the “recipe for inciting violence” involves choosing “the most inflammatory words you can think of and then shout[ing] them very loud over and over.” As a result, “[w]e who are pro-choice have got to change the rhetoric that surrounds issues of reproductive justice and legitimizes the intimidation, harassment, and even murder of physicians and others who provide abortion services,” she continues. “If we can do that we will be doing a lot to civilize the atmosphere of the country as a whole,” according to Taft (Taft, RH Reality Check, 10/26).
~ “Do Graphic Abortion Ads Belong on TV?” Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon ‘s “Broadsheet”: Clark-Flory discusses a television election ad for Washington, D.C., House candidate Missy Smith (R) that features “images of dead and dismembered fetuses.” Clary-Flory writes, “[D]espite legion complaints, broadcasters say they are required by federal law to air” the ad “in full,” she writes. According to Clark-Flory, the federal Communications Act “requires that candidates are given ‘reasonable access’ to broadcast and prohibits censorship of political spots based on content,” while the Federal Communications Commission “forbids the broadcast of indecent content.” This, she writes, “puts broadcasters in quite the bind, as these rules sometimes stand in opposition to each other, and yet violating either could result in a station losing its license.” District broadcasters are “following a [1996] ruling that upheld the supremacy of provisions protecting candidates’ right to uncensored public broadcast over viewers’ right to not have to see aborted fetuses during their TV family dinners,” Clark-Flory writes (Clark-Flory, “Broadsheet,” Salon, 10/27).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women Families.
© 2010 National Partnership for Women Families. All rights reserved.
Article source: View
Blogs Comment On NARAL Endorsements, Antiabortion ‘Wanted’ Posters, Other Topics
The following summarizes select women’s health-related blog entries.
~ “Birth Control is Clutch!” Lucy Panza, Law Students for Reproductive Justice’s “Repo Repro”: The federal health reform law (PL 111-148) “was a mixed bag” for many reproductive health advocates, Panza writes, adding that while it “covers 95% of Americans by 2014,” restrictions on abortion coverage “dealt a severe blow to advocates who felt that this was a real chance to provide comprehensive reproductive health services to women.” She continues that the “politics don’t end when the president signs a bill into law,” noting that HHS is currently weighing whether family planning and birth control should be included “in the definition of mandated ‘preventive care’” under a provision of the law. Panza argues that birth control “is preventive care” because it is “a medication or device that literally prevents pregnancy.” She continues that “birth control also fits into the [reproductive justice] framework” because it “enables a women to control her fertility” and “empowers her to decide whether and when to have children” (Panza, “Repo Repro,” Law Students for Reproductive Justice, 10/26).
~ NARAL Pro-Choice America Endorses Reps. Hodes, Schauer, Sestak: In the final days of the midterm elections, NARAL Pro-Choice America has announced endorsements candidates in several states, including New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes (D) for Senate. During his time in the House, Hodes “stood up to protect access to birth control and fought to eliminate the failed ‘abstinence-only’ programs of the [George W.] Bush administration,” while making “protecting a woman’s right to choose a hallmark of his campaign” (“Blog for Choice,” NARAL Pro-Choice America, 10/26). NARAL has endorsed the re-election of Michigan Rep. Mark Schauer (D), who “earned a perfect pro-choice voting record while in Congress, which includes his vote opposing the dangerous” abortion coverage restrictions in the health reform law. Schauer is running against former Rep. Tim Walberg (R), who “consistently voted anti-choice in Congress” and “opposes a woman’s right to choose even for women who have been raped or are the survivors of incest,” according to NARAL (“Blog for Choice,” NARAL Pro-Choice America, 10/27). Finally, NARAL endorsed Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak (D) for U.S. Senate. Sestak’s opponent, former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), is opposed to abortion rights and “said he supports repealing Roe v. Wade.” Sestak’s “response couldn’t have been better” when he said he “believe[s] that those life decisions of a family should be made within the family. I don’t think government should intervene,” according to NARAL (“Blog for Choice,” NARAL Pro-Choice America, 10/28).
~ “Kudos to Jill Stanek for Taking a Stand on ‘Wanted Posters,’” Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Jacobson writes that although she has “longstanding and deep differences” with Jill Stanek — an abortion-rights opponent who produces Internet content for antiabortion advocacy groups — she “feel[s] she must receive credit when due.” Stanek “stood up for life, for justice and for civil disagreement in our political discourse” when she “called on Flip Benham of Operation Save America to discard those ‘Wanted’ posters he has been circulating of doctors who provide abortion care,” Jacobson writes. “I applaud Jill for taking this step,” but “I also must say I wish she had gone further, by also stating that she would stop posting screen shots of the offices and clinics” of abortion providers, Jacobson continues. “We’ve gotten to the point where truly disturbed people are influenced by both the rhetoric and the imagery … to take the law into their own hands,” she writes (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 10/28).
~ “Girls Wish Their Dads Talked More Openly About Sex,” Colleen Barrett, TresSugar: A recent New York University study found that girls would like more discussion about sex with their fathers. Many girls feel that their fathers can teach them how to “communicate and negotiate intimacy issues” with men, Barrett writes. She adds, “Girls who talk to their dads about sex not only lose their virginity at later ages and have fewer sex partners, both of which are associated with good mental health, but are also more comfortable talking to partners about sex later in life, which is always good for a relationship’s health” (Barrett, TresSugar, 10/28).
~ “Cardinal-Designate Burke Says Catholics Cannot Vote for Candidates Who Are Pro-Choice,” David Gibson, Politics Daily ‘s “Disputations”: In a recent interview with Catholic Action for Faith and Family, Cardinal-Designate and former Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke said that Catholics can “never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion.” He also said that Catholics are bound by their faith to oppose same-sex marriage at the polls. Burke also “reject[ed] the common criticism that highlighting opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage effectively endorses Republican candidates,” Gibson writes. He adds that Burke’s statements “seem to diverge somewhat from the current policy of the U.S. [Catholic] hierarchy, as developed in 2004, and based in part on advice from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal officer who a year later was elected pope on the death of John Paul II.” Regardless of Burke’s “harder line on Catholic voters,” U.S. Catholics “already seemed to be swinging … away from Democrats and toward Republicans, though not always because of the moral issues Burke highlighted” (Gibson, “Disputations,” Politics Daily, 10/28).
~ “For Dr. Tiller: Bring Only Love,” Charlotte Taft, RH Reality Check: Taft, director of the Abortion Care Network and former director of a Dallas abortion clinic, discusses her grief for her friend George Tiller — a Kansas abortion provider murdered last year — and the recent MSNBC documentary, “The Assassination of Dr. Tiller.” Watching the film ignited a fear that “we will re-live a time of horror, murder, acid attacks, kidnapping, constant death threats, endless candlelight vigils, vandalism, clinic invasions, bombing and arson,” Taft writes. She adds, “Sounds like a war, doesn’t it? And in many ways that’s what it is — an unholy war waged by Fundamentalist Christians who believe they are (entitled) to act for their vengeful God.” According to Taft, the “recipe for inciting violence” involves choosing “the most inflammatory words you can think of and then shout[ing] them very loud over and over.” As a result, “[w]e who are pro-choice have got to change the rhetoric that surrounds issues of reproductive justice and legitimizes the intimidation, harassment, and even murder of physicians and others who provide abortion services,” she continues. “If we can do that we will be doing a lot to civilize the atmosphere of the country as a whole,” according to Taft (Taft, RH Reality Check, 10/26).
~ “Do Graphic Abortion Ads Belong on TV?” Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon ‘s “Broadsheet”: Clark-Flory discusses a television election ad for Washington, D.C., House candidate Missy Smith (R) that features “images of dead and dismembered fetuses.” Clary-Flory writes, “[D]espite legion complaints, broadcasters say they are required by federal law to air” the ad “in full,” she writes. According to Clark-Flory, the federal Communications Act “requires that candidates are given ‘reasonable access’ to broadcast and prohibits censorship of political spots based on content,” while the Federal Communications Commission “forbids the broadcast of indecent content.” This, she writes, “puts broadcasters in quite the bind, as these rules sometimes stand in opposition to each other, and yet violating either could result in a station losing its license.” District broadcasters are “following a [1996] ruling that upheld the supremacy of provisions protecting candidates’ right to uncensored public broadcast over viewers’ right to not have to see aborted fetuses during their TV family dinners,” Clark-Flory writes (Clark-Flory, “Broadsheet,” Salon, 10/27).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women Families.
© 2010 National Partnership for Women Families. All rights reserved.
Article source: View
Rumaiz