Last week, the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee approved SB 371, meaning it will now advance to the full Senate for approval. The bill is an unnerving cocktail of horrible; a combination of some now-classic TRAP laws, plus a startling new requirement that women who seek medically-induced abortions (via the “abortion pill” or RU-486) must now have two separate ultrasounds: one before taking the medication, and one after.

Now that’s it’s all out on the table, let’s break it down. First, the TRAP laws. As I’ve written before, TRAP laws are ridiculous requirements that abortion clinics are expected to meet if they want to continue providing abortions. The Indiana bill includes such oldies-but-goodies as requiring the clinic to widen hallways and doorways, as well as requiring them to install anesthesia and surgical equipment. One clinic directly affected by this is the Planned Parenthood clinic in Lafayette, which doesn’t even provide surgical abortions; they would have to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars altering their clinic to comply with surgical standards, when no surgery even takes place there. The clinic would likely have to close, and, fun fact, it’s the only clinic of its kind in the entire county.

So let’s imagine that a women’s health clinic somehow has the money to comply with the new building requirements. A woman who comes in seeking a medical abortion will be subjected to not just one, but two ultrasounds. This means two doctor’s appointments, which may or may not be covered by insurance (who are we kidding, they probably won’t be), two days off work, two trips to a clinic and the accompanying issues of childcare, transportation, etc. It’s no secret that these kinds of laws put an undue burden on lower-income women living in rural areas, where a participating clinic isn’t exactly right down the street. A woman can just as easily get a blood test at any local doctor’s office to determine if she is still pregnant after taking the pill, rendering a trip back to the clinic pointless. This is not even touching on the fact that oftentimes these procedures are physically uncomfortable and emotionally traumatizing for many women. Scenario time: a woman who was raped and got pregnant must now subject herself to having something put inside her twice, whether or not she actually consents, just so she can legally obtain an abortion. That sounds like it could only end well.

An important caveat: the woman is not required by law to attend the follow-up appointment, but the doctor must make a “reasonable effort” to make sure that she does. So yes, potentially a woman could refuse to return, but how many women will be unaware of their rights, and how many physicians will pressure them into coming back (since that is required by law)? What a fun little social experiment.

In closing, the director of Indiana Right to Life, Sue Swayze, totally doesn’t get what the big deal is, guys. According to her, once you get pregnant you virtually give up any right to object to having anything else put inside of you ever again:

“I got pregnant vaginally.  Something else could come in my vagina for a medical test that wouldn’t be that intrusive to me.  So I find that argument a little ridiculous.”

Good to know you are so open, Sue, but others of us might want to have a little say over what is and is not put inside of our bodies.

My disappearance was a combination of factors, from life events getting in the way to my naïve hopes that the election results might mean an end to the Republicans’ campaign against my ovaries. Silly me! You would think that I would have known better. The GOP has never been one to let things like “facts” or a “trouncing” to get them down, no sir. There have been many events in the past six months (yikes, sorry) that have made me consider getting back into my love-hate relationship with political blogging, but none so much as the following. Courtesy of ThinkProgress:

“Oklahoma may deny women affordable birth control because it ‘poisons their bodies’”

Well we’re off to a good start, aren’t we? Two rage-inducing things in one quick little sentence. Let’s see where this takes us.

Oklahoma State Senator Clark Jolley (R – SHOCKING) is attempting to pass a bill that would allow employers to refuse to provide any healthcare coverage for women’s contraceptives. Terrible, but unfortunately no longer original. Ever since the ACA was upheld by the Supreme Court these kinds of things have been happening all over the country – because we only like the Supreme Court when they agree with us, otherwise we pretend they don’t matter. I believe it was Senator Rand Paul who said “Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.” Um, yes, Mr. Paul, I think that’s exactly how it works. I bet if they upheld a law saying everyone old enough to hold a gun could have their own personal AK-47 he’d be their number one fan. But anyway, I digress. Someone else can start a gun control blog, I am le tired.

As I said, this bill is awful, but nothing new. What truly takes it from 0 to 100 on the WTF scale is why Jolley was inspired to propose this bill. Apparently he was influenced by one of his constituents (I could have sworn it was GOP policy to completely ignore the will/autonomy of their constituents, but whatever) who thinks that not only does birth control poison us (sacre bleu!), but denies us the ability to fulfill the one and only role in life: baby factory – er, I mean motherhood:

“Part of their [women] identity is the potential to be a mother…They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.” – Dr. Dominic Padulla.

So much WTF here. Who exactly is this man, who has decided that as a woman, our identity revolves around popping out kids? According to his website:

“Family planning advocacy became a large part of Dr. Dominic Pedulla’s life after he realized the relationship between cardiac problems and contraceptives. With nine children of his own, Dominic Pedulla serves as President of The Edith Stein Foundation, an advocacy group primarily concerned with reproductive health and family planning. His commitment to women’s reproductive health exemplifies his strong respect for family values.”

The fact that anyone can call themselves “committed to women’s reproductive health” while at the same time denying them access to medication that directly affects their reproductive health is inception-level mind blowing. Oh, and that link between birth control and cardiovascular health? According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2012:

“Some formulations of oral contraceptives, which contain a mix of estrogen and progesterone, can double a woman’s risk of having a heart attack or stroke, according to the new research, but in absolute terms the risk is very low because young women under age 50 rarely have heart attacks or strokes.“

So yes, there is risk involved, but it’s no more than when you take any other medications. Additionally, since when is Dr. Padulla qualified to decide that the slight risk of cardiovascular complications is more important than the myriad of risks that come with pregnancies (miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, various cancers, not to mention childbirth itself)? Oh right, when it supports his narrow-minded, oppressive, misogynistic idea that a woman’s one role in life is to have babies.

There is just so much that is offensive and terrible about that idea, but it clearly represents the ideological direction the GOP is taking. Hidden (sometimes not well) beneath their claims of “concern for women and their health,” their “medical proof” that abortions and contraceptives are dangerous, lies this simple fact: to them, women are meant to be barefoot and pregnant. Something about Dr. Padulla’s nine children makes me think that he ascribes fully to this belief system, and I don’t care how loudly they deny it, a large portion of the GOP does as well.

Nothing about my identity has to do with my ability to have children. If some day in the future I decide to do so, that’s one thing, but it will be my choice and not something forced on me by a bunch of misguided and ignorant politicians.

In related news, does anyone have a copy of The Handmaid’s Tale I can borrow? I need it to prepare for a future where these morons continue to wield political power.

Rand Paul, Kentucky Senator, is having absolutely none of that. He’s decided to come in from left field, guns blazing, and bury his very own personhood amendment in a Senate bill dealing with flood insurance.

Yes. Contraception debate and flood insurance. They go together like peanut butter and…motor oil. What the what?

The actual bill, which has seen years of debate and reworking, deals with reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Plan, “the sole underwriter of flood insurance in the country.” It was, at long, last, set to go up for a vote in the Senate this week, and was expected to pass, since, you know, flood insurance is kind of important for a lot of people. Something both parties actually agreed on!

Along comes Senator Paul, “just trying to get a vote for the people who elected me.” How very noble of you, sir, to hold up a bill that will help thousands of Americans rebuild their lives because you want to get in some last-minute political game-playing. I wonder how many American families with flood-damaged homes would thank you for fighting for the rights of a cell instead of helping them? Paul claims that he proposed this amendment only because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “hasn’t really been forthcoming with offering a free-standing vote on it.” Well maybe that’s because it’s a total waste of time and an insane violation of human rights, but we’ll address that at another time.

Senator Reid is understandably fed up with these shenanigans, and gave a rather impassioned speech on the Senate floor, vowing that he’ll “do flood insurance with amendments dealing with flood insurance or we won’t do it.” He called upon Senate Republicans to speak out against Rand’s actions, pointing out:

“…I want everyone to know that this flood insurance bill is extremely important, the big pushers of this bill are Republican Senators, veteran Republican Senators. And they’d better work on their side of the aisle because I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance…There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance.”

Go Harry go! I would sincerely hope that some of the more sane Republican Senators (they exist, right?) are going to stand up to Paul and put a stop to this. It’s an election year – you don’t want your party associated with eliminating flood insurance for thousands of Americans because of a completely unrelated ideological debate. What Senator Paul is essentially saying is that the rights of a fertilized cell is more important than the lives and livelihoods of Americans who have their homes destroyed by floods. And while I hope that this deadlock ends quickly, I applaud Senator Reid for calling out the absolute ridiculousness of Rand’s illogical and insensitive political games.

Not pictured: anything to do with zygotes

Today, two of the State Representatives who attempted to speak out against the bill were informed that they have been banned indefinitely from speaking on the House floor. Neither Lisa Brown or Barb Byrum have received any explanation as to why they were banned, but it’s not difficult to come up with some theories.

In the beginning of the video above, you can see Rep. Barb Byrum attempting to speak out of turn and getting drowned out by the Speaker. Apparently speaking out of turn is technically a punishable offense, but not one that is enforced with any regularity.

Starting at around :25, Rep. Lisa Brown is seen describing how her Jewish faith allows for abortions, even late-term, if the health of the mother is at risk:

“Wherever there is a question of the life of the mother or that of the unborn child, Jewish law rules in favor of preserving the life of the mother. The status of the fetus as human life does not equal that of the mother. I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?”

And then the kicker: “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.”

After that statement you can briefly hear the Speaker saying something about members “respecting the forum of the House.”

(Reps. Dian Slavens and Stacy Erwin Oakes speak after, and they are worth a watch as well).

I’m by no means familiar with the processes of the House, but I have a hard time understanding what exactly those two women did to deserve not only an indefinite ban from speaking, but also a complete lack of explanation from the Speaker who made the decision.

Was it because Rep. Byrum spoke out of term? I hardly think that deserves an indefinite ban. Was it because Rep. Brown dared to say the word vagina? A woman, using the medically-correct term for a body part that is directly affected by these proposed laws? Excuse me while I clutch my pearls.

It’s incredibly disheartening that these two women are now being prevented from representing their constituents because a bunch of old men got their tighty-whities in a twist over the concept of vaginas; however, after the Capitol Hill all-male panel debacle, it’s unfortunately not hard to believe.

These politicians seem hell-bent on legislating what goes in in a woman’s body without paying an ounce of attention to anyone who actually knows what goes on in a woman’s body – doctors, nurses, and oh, that’s right, WOMEN. Have we really come to the point where these men are just going to forbid us from speaking out against these violations? Is that the world we live in now?

I can’t help but be curious about what qualifies a state as being number one in pro-life (gee, that plaque just etches itself, doesn’t it?) Do we measure it by how many women die of pregnancy-related complications because they were unable to obtain an abortion? Or perhaps the number of unwanted children put into foster care? These are the things Brownback and his friends in anti-choice groups need to think about, if they’re not too busy patting themselves on the back for being completely oblivious to the needs of Kansas women. You need some kind of system, guys, or Arizona and Michigan are going to get jealous.

Speaking of being oblivious, it appears as though Kansas anti-choice groups and church leaders have decided that what Kansas really needs is the country’s first (multi-million dollar) pro-life memorial. Tax-exempt, of course. Granted, the memorial is not being funded with state money, but when millions of Kansas residents are suffering through the recession and dealing with layoffs, it seems distinctly un-churchlike to pour millions of dollars into what amounts to an anti-abortion tourist attraction instead of into programs that would help those in need.

This National Pro Life Memorial and International Life Center will consist of the following: a monument called “Not Forgotten,” a replica of the Wailing Wall (abortion = destruction of Temple?), memorial gardens, and 60 crosses to represent the 60 million babies that have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade ruling. It also includes a 24 hour prayer center, a crisis pregnancy hotline and a clearinghouse for counseling and referral services that will direct women to pro-life organizations in their communities. Lastly, the site will house the International Pro Life Institute, which aims at “preserving, promoting, and protecting the unborn and families against the international Holocaust being promoted by governments and individuals (including the United States) against the unborn.”

Well played on the use of Holocaust, guys. That’ll fire people up nicely.

Besides ending the genocide of undeveloped cells, the site’s project leaders, Pastors Rob Rotola and Mark Holick, hope that the memorial will become a tourist attraction and develop Wichita’s reputation as “the pro-life capital of the world.” Holick explained that the idea for the memorial has been around since 1991, when the massive Summer of Mercy abortion protests took place outside several Wichita abortion clinics. It’s important to note that one of those abortion clinics belonged to Dr. George Tiller.

George Tiller was one of the few doctors in the state who provided late-term abortions, despite knowing the risks to his own safety. His clinic was bombed in 1986, and in 1993, he was shot twice. On May 31, 2009, George Tiller was shot in the head while serving as an usher at his church.

The plans for the memorial were announced less than a week after the third anniversary of his murder.

George Tiller

These bills, HB 5711, 5712, and 5713, would have the following consequences:

• They impose new liability insurance requirements on abortion providers, require the installation of surgery rooms in clinics whether or not clinics perform surgical abortions, and enact new restrictions on the disposal of fetal remains. Ah yes, the good old TRAP Laws.
• They require a physician to be present for a medication abortion, which previously have been performed safely through telemedicine and virtual prescriptions
• Abortions would be banned after 20 weeks with no exceptions for rape, incest, or severe fetal defects such as a missing spine or brain, forcing women to carry nonviable fetuses to term (just like livestock, remember?)

The bills are moving through the legislature at an alarming pace. They were introduced on May 31^st and have already been advanced to the floor for debate. The hearing, scheduled on Thursday the 7^th, was attended by about 90 protestors. Their attempts to speak out against the bill, however, were denied when Committee Chair Gail Haines ended testimony after only hearing from a few people, including the spokesperson for Michigan Right to Life.

Rep. Deb Shaughnessy defended this absolutely abhorrent and unconstitutional new legislation by saying, “The unborn can’t fight for themselves…I will continue to fight for (protecting life) no matter what the Supreme Court says.”

It really boggles the mind how much more these politicians care for an undeveloped fetus than they care for the woman actually carrying it. A heartbreaking example is Jenni Lane, a resident of Ann Arbor. Several years ago, Jenni discovered at 18 weeks that the baby boy she was carrying had a severe brain malformation which meant he would be unable to survive to full-term. By the time Jenni had finished learning about the condition and speaking with medical professionals, and had come to the conclusion to terminate her pregnancy, she was at 21 weeks. Because the Republicans had yet to get their hands on abortion laws, she was able to go through with the procedure; if these bills pass, women like her will be forced to carry their babies to term knowing they will be stillborn or die shortly after birth.

Despite the fact that getting an abortion is still a constitutional right for all women, 92 new abortion restrictions were enacted across the country in 2011, and eight (Republican-dominated) states have enacted 20-week abortion bans.

There really are no words that I can think of that would adequately convey my disgust with these politicians. They love to give speeches about how they care about what’s best for women and are crusading for the rights of someone who cannot fight for themselves (in this case, a clump of cells); yet no one who hears a story like Jenni’s can possibly believe that such restrictive laws are beneficial to anybody. The Republicans have one goal in mind that they are pursuing without considering anything but their own warped and misguided morals, and it has nothing to do with creating jobs or helping the economy. It has to do with preventing women from being able to make any of their own choices when it comes to their health. It has to do with combining religious zealotry and faux-science into legislation that will do nothing but lead  to both physical and mental health problems for this country’s women. It is clear that they will stop at nothing to ensure the complete elimination of abortions and any health centers that provide them.

If women across the country don’t stand up and demonstrate through voting that this is intolerable and unacceptable, I can only imagine how much worse things are going to get.

Republicans continue to insist that this alleged “War on Women” is nothing but a campaign strategy devised by the Obama administration. According to Romney’s senior campaign advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, these claims are nothing but “shiny objects” used “to distract people’s attention from Obama’s performance on the economy. This is not a social issue election.”

Ok, Mr. Fehrnstrom, you say that this election is about the economy. Well where do your Republican friends sit on that issue? Oh here we are: yesterday, the Paycheck Fairness Act was blocked in the Senate by a vote of 52-47.

The Paycheck Fairness Act was an attempt to close the pay gap between men and women working the same jobs. Right now, women make 77 cents for every dollar that men make doing the same work. The Act was designed to close loopholes and strengthen the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was signed by Obama in 2009. It would have required more transparency in company salaries, created greater penalties for companies that discriminated based on gender, and given women greater protection if they chose to sue their employer.

Republicans referred to the Act as a “bureaucratic roadblock that would have hindered free enterprise.”

The GOP insists that the economy is the only problem we should be focusing on. Their repeated attempts to restrict a women’s access to healthcare is not important, what is important is getting Americans working again. If that is their party line, then why exactly did they just vote against an act that would have given greater opportunities to women in the workplace? They call it a “war on free enterprise,” and claim that somehow paying women the same as men would hurt the economy somehow.

If you’re worried about the economy, here is a fact to consider:

The money that an average woman loses out on over her lifetime thanks to gender-based pay discrimination would feed a family of four for 37 years.

Explain to me how that’s not about the economy.

The advocacy group DC Vote and Planned Parenthood organized a protest for this past Wednesday, pointing out that since Franks seemed so invested in the D.C.’s issues, residents should stop by his office and share other city-related concerns they had. About 50 protesters in total showed up, asking for “Mayor Franks” and carrying pictures of potholes and parking tickets. One protestor came to complain about the Metro service issues (seriously, Franks, get on that one).

Via HuffPo

While unfortunately Franks was not in the office to receive this visitors, I for one am pleased that a good number of people turned up to point out just how ridiculous and offensive Franks’ actions have been. Of course, any sort of lesson was completely lost upon him:

“District of Columbia is not the issue here,” Franks said. “It’s the pain of the child, and when people make the District of Columbia the issue they’re missing the point.”

I find it difficult to understand how D.C. is not the issue in a case that involves making laws that apply to D.C. Just in case that didn’t get your fire going, here’s a quote from National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson:

“The local demonstrators say, in effect, that the federal capital city belongs to them and that the rest of America should just shut up…But the U.S. Constitution makes it crystal clear that the District of Columbia belongs to all of the American people, and is to be governed by the Congress and the president.”

Like I said before, this goes more into states’ rights issues, about which I am very uninformed; however, the absolute absurdity of the situation is not lost upon me. Absolutely no one should be making laws for a city or state that they do not represent or understand, especially when those laws involve taking away citizens’ Constitutional rights. Period.

Committee Vice Chair Representative Anne Buerkle (NY) claimed that the “Women’s Policy Committee will further enhance our ability to serve women everywhere by educating Members on the issues that impact women.” The video announcing the formation of the committee is below:

Unless you have been living in a cave for the past year, you know that the GOP is being charged with attacking women’s rights in the areas of healthcare, domestic violence, and equal pay protections. This committee seems to be an attempt by the Republicans to prove that this is not, in fact, the case; however, after watching the video, I couldn’t help but notice something was missing: any mention of pro-women legislation or any sort of response to the accusations that have been dominating the political scene for the past few months. The only mention was a quick sentence spoken by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS) at about 1:30: Republican women are working to “put healthcare decisions back into your hands.”

Oh really now, Mrs. Jenkins? Let’s have a quick look at how these ladies are working to put healthcare decisions back into our hands. According to ThinkProgress:

• 22 out of the 24 women on the Committee voted against new provisions in the Violence Against Women Act that would have expanded protections to Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and LGBT individuals.
• 21 out of 24 co-sponsored the “Respect for the Rights of Conscience Act,” which allows any and all providers to refuse to provide contraception coverage if they object to it on religious grounds, despite Obama’s added exceptions for religious institutions.
• In 2009, when the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law, all 15 of the women who were in the House at the time voted against it. This Act extends the amount of time in which a women can file suit against her employer for pay discrimination based on gender.
• 13 of those 15 women also voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which sought to close loopholes still left open by the Fair Pay Act and strengthen incentives to avoid pay discrimination (women still earn on average 77.4 centers per every dollar earned by men).
• 20 of the 24 women have earned a score of 0 from Planned Parenthood based upon their voting record on reproductive rights. A score of 0 means they have “voted against reproductive health at every opportunity.” The scorecard is available here.

After reading all of that, it seems pretty obvious why these women are avoiding any mention of women’s issues in their video: it’s because their voting records seem to imply they have no interest in protecting women’s rights in the workplace, at home, or in the doctor’s office.

While it is indeed important to remember that there are more issues facing our country than our reproductive health, this glaring omission speaks volumes about where Republicans actually stand. Yes, it is important to create jobs and boost the economy, but what good are all those new jobs if women have no legislation effectively protecting them from discrimination? What good are all of those jobs if a woman can’t work because she has an unexpected pregnancy due to lack of access to contraception? What good are those jobs if a woman gets beaten to death by her abusive spouse because she lacked the necessary outlets for reporting him?

Dramatic, I know, but it just goes to show how far-reaching women’s issues are. They affect everyone, not just Rush Limbaugh’s imaginary group of slutty women who pop birth control like candy and get abortions every other Tuesday. Until these women, and the Republican party overall, recognize this, they are not going to be able to convince anyone that they are, in fact, pro-woman.

What on earth is a politician from Arizona doing trying to legislate the rights of people who live 2,000 miles away? Oh right, it’s because D.C. does not have an elected official who has a vote in Congress, so Franks views the area as his own political playground. Franks, however, is not the only GOP member to have pulled a stunt like this. In 2011, He-of-the-Weepy-Eyes, John Boehner, forced Obama to concede funding for abortions in the District in the federal budget, and Republicans in the House enacted a bill that  prohibits D.C. from using locally-raised funds to subsidize abortion for low-income women.

D.C. voting rights is a very sore subject for most D.C. residents, and I am going to avoid going too deep into it; however, I don’t think it takes being a D.C. resident or having more than six brain cells to see what is inherently wrong about a politician forcing unjust legislation on a state that he does not even represent. I find it insulting enough that politicians are forcing these unconstitutional laws upon their own constituents, but to have someone on the other side of the country attempt to restrict women’s rights really gets me stabby.

To make things even more insulting, for both D.C. and women in general, Franks refused to allow Eleanor Holmes Norton, the only elected representative for the area, to testify on the bill before a sub-committee. According to Franks, they had already chosen a witness to testify, a George Washington University professor; never mind the fact that denying Holmes the right to testify “breaks the tradition that a member of Congress testify about a bill that affects his or her constituents, which Congress has honored since the 19^th century.”

So this man not only decides it is his business to legislate the rights of women who live on the opposite side of the country, but also that he has the right to deny their one representative the chance to speak about the bill. Franks defends himself by saying “Congress has the seminal and incontrovertible responsibility for making legislative policy in the District of Columbia.”

Translation: Despite my law having absolutely no basis in fact, I took the opportunity to force even more women to adhere to my own person moral standards.

Holmes, and District residents, are of course beyond outraged: “I think it takes a lot of nerve to single out the constituents of another member’s district for discriminatory treatment,” Holmes said, “…They’re bullies…they know that you can pick on the district whose member cannot vote on the House floor, you pick on a member who does not have any Senators to protect her.”

Bullies indeed. In slightly happier news, D.C. residents are planning on fighting back. Since Franks seems to be so interested in D.C. issues, they have designated May 23 as “Rep. Franks’ DC Constituent Service Day” and are calling on any District residents who are available to go to Franks’ office and complain about other problems that the District is facing. According to the DC Vote website:

“If ‘Mayor’ Franks is so eager to interfere in our community, let’s drop by his office to tell him what really needs fixing.” Examples include potholes, broken traffic lights, littering, and bike lane complaints.

Not that I think this will have any effect on Franks’ self-righteous attitude, but I can only hope that enough D.C. residents are able to find the time on Wednesday to make his workday a little bit harder.

“I restrict your rights because I care”