UPDATE (06/30/2013): Karen has been kind enough to update her research, which I have put in a new post. Please direct your attention there instead of her for more up-to-date information. Continue reading
A couple of quotes that capture my thoughts on those who think the “unruly mob,” to use the Lieutenant Governor’s words, was somehow worse than the shenanigans leading up to 11:50 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 in the Texas Capitol building, not to mention the shenanigans of SB5 itself:
Todd Palino (via Jen):
Some have raised a concern about the “mob tactics” used last night by the citizens in the Texas Senate. Normally, I would agree that the shouting, effectively making sure that in the last 15 minutes after the filibuster was ended no vote could be recorded, is troublesome at the least. However, we have to remember that the senators, specifically the Republican senators, and the lieutenant governor, twisted the chamber’s rules to end that filibuster. Ignoring the back brace, they ruled Senator Davis out of order because she spoke on the topic of Planned Parenthood’s budget, and then again because she discussed a state law requiring a sonogram before an abortion. Given that the bill in question deals with the regulation of abortion procedures, providers, and facilities, no reasonable person would say that those two topics are not germane. Continue reading
There is something very dystopian about the notion that the health, dignity, and safety of millions of women rests on the back of one woman, who must stand and talk without water or bathroom breaks for thirteen hours, in order to protect said women. Margaret Atwood didn’t write this. This is real. This is the Texas lege.
–Monique Daviau, on Texas Sen. Wendy Davis’ 13-hour filibuster, currently in progress
I did not know who Cathie Adams was until a moment ago, and I can pretty much guarantee that history will not care who she is. All that matters is that she is vile, despicable, and yet another embarrassment to the great state of Texas. At least she doesn’t hold elected office.
Anyway, she tweeted a few sentiments that apparently emerged from a rift between our universe and one that would allow someone to think this is an acceptable thing to say:
Stinky stalking feminists wearing orange shirts are FEW in the Tx Senate gallery.
— Cathie Adams (@cathieadams) June 24, 2013
Who bought the orange shirts for the feminazis to wear in the Tx House and Senate galleries to express support for abortion?
— Cathie Adams (@cathieadams) June 24, 2013
Very very sad to see children in tow of feminazis wearing orange. Train up a child…
— Cathie Adams (@cathieadams) June 24, 2013
As my friend Lynn said, “Class, Texas. Talk about lazy smear tactics. Calling people ‘Feminazis?’ Really? In 2013?”
I’ve already expended too much mental energy on this waste of space. I’m actually glad, though, that she and people like her are talking, because we are not going to forget what you said and the kind of people you are.
In a very shouty exchange between Thom Hartmann and professional smug person Austin Petersen regarding the American health care system and “liberty,” an interesting red herring kept popping up. Hartmann kept asking Petersen if libertarians believe in the “right to life” espoused in the Declaration of Independence, and Petersen kept trying to change the subject by bringing up abortion (specifically, liberals’ support for abortion rights).
In order to protect the “right to life” of the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus, it is necessary to supersede the “right to life” of the mother. This is not to say that the mother’s actual life is threatened in every instance, but the mother’s right to bodily autonomy is always secondary. Libertarians, or at least the kind of libertarians represented by Petersen, will not abide any sort of infringement on their liberty by anybody, at all, ever, apparently, including Petersen’s belief that tax collection directly involves someone coming to your house with a gun. (I find this viewpoint hopelessly childish, but that’s a conversation for another day.) Petersen seems to believe that he has the sole authority to assert and protect his own rights, and no responsibility to defend the rights of others if he does not want to.
Here’s my first question, then, for libertarians of Petersen’s ilk: do you believe that anyone other than the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus itself has the right or duty to assert or protect its own “right to life” (in your definition)?
If you answer “no,” then let’s just let the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetuses of the world find a way to petition for redress of grievances themselves, and stop trying to derail discussions.
If you answer “yes,” how exactly should others assert or protect those rights, in a way that does not infringe the essential liberty of the mother? You have pretty much already established your principle that liberty can only be curtailed by individual consent. I could see your argument that, by consenting to sexual activity, a pregnant person also consented to bear the child. Do you see where I am going with this? It’s not always a product of “consent.” Additionally, why can’t “consent” be withdrawn? I suspect you would reserve the right to withdraw your own consent to just about anything, so how is this different? That “consent” argument is fatally flawed.
I have seen countless ways that people who oppose government intervention in anything except the uterus try to weasel out of this question. I’m even less polite about it than Thom Hartmann. I know that the majority of people who claim to be “pro-life,” but want to assert dominance over all the uteruses, are full of crap when it actually comes to caring about “life.” There is no way to definitively eliminate abortion without state power. You know it and I know it, but most of you don’t have the courage to admit it.
I’ll ask the question more simply: why do you only want to use state power to control women?
Over the past few days, something truly remarkable has happened here in Austin. As the Republican-controlled state legislature has used a special session to consider yet more scientifically-baseless and needlessly oppressive bills regarding abortion rights, thousands of people crowded into the Capitol building to stage a citizen’s filibuster. I am in awe of the many brave and tireless people who are standing up to the people who claim to be “pro-life” but in reality could not care less about the life of anyone who isn’t a wealthy donor. I have nothing, nothing at all, but contempt right now for the liars, fools, and cowards in the Legislature who are supporting these bills, and a similar level of disdain for the people who support them. Lest you think Texas is a cesspool of adherents to a dying ideology, though, the thousands of people who donned orange and crowded the building are a testament to everything that is good and right about Texas. Do not give up on Texas. We may surprise you yet.
For some excellent coverage of what has been going on at the Capitol, I highly recommend Julie Gills’ blog:
State Rep. Senfronia Thompson offered an amendment that would exclude rape and incest victims from the 20-week abortion ban, but Republicans weren’t having any of it. Rep. Thompson even brandished a wire hanger to illustrate the seriousness of what Republicans are trying to do. It was no use, though, as Republicans in the Texas House generally don’t like to consider consequences like that.
A few lowlights from the past few days:
– 
Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R-Murphy) wins my first-ever Facepalm Award, because she doesn’t know what rape kits do. Proving that she is not only dumb, but also immune to self-awareness, she voted against insurance coverage for prenatal care in 2007 because the beneficiaries of such coverage “[are] not born yet”:
A priceless exchange occurred between Harper-Brown cohort Jodie Laubenberg of Rockwall and Dallas Dem Rafael Anchía. Laubenberg proposed to enforce a three-month waiting period before expectant mothers could begin receiving prenatal and perinatal care under CHIP. Anchía pointed out that the eligibility change would kick nearly 100,000 children out of the CHIP program. “That is absolutely untrue!” Laubenberg shot back, proving her point by waving a sheet of paper. Then again, “That is absolutely untrue!”
“You know,” Anchía replied, “I can hear you yelling, but just because you yelled, it doesn’t make it true.” Anchía pointed out the consequences of denying health care to the unborn. “You do know, don’t you, that these are U.S. citizens?”
“But they’re not born yet,” Laubenberg, a “family values” conservative, retorted. Dukes, standing behind Anchía at the back mic, whipped her head around in a shocked double take. Anchía, smelling blood, observed, “You have an anti-life amendment,” which set Laubenberg off on a loud tirade in which she claimed to be the most pro-life member of the House.
– State Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Crazytown) wants to make sure we all know that he was not trying to threaten anyone when he tweeted that he is thankful for the “right 2 protect ourselves & the 2nd amendment” amid all the liberals crowding around the Capitol. Stickland, who apparently “brings his gun to work every day,” thinks that anyone who might connect his reference to the right to own a gun to any sort of threatening posture is simply engaging in an “illogical liberal attack.”
Some days u r extra thankful we still have the right 2 protect ourselves & the 2nd amendment-Today is 1 of those days #txlege
— Jonathan Stickland (@RepStickland) June 23, 2013
If we take Stickland at his word, then he needs to work on the clarity of his writing skills, or at least his tweeting skills. In the same article on his site, however, Stickland wrote that “only liberals would depict legislation that increases the standard of care women are receiving in health clinics as a ‘war on women,'” thus establishing that Stickland is either too dishonest or too stupid to be taken seriously by grownups.
– Finally, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst warned on Sunday that the governor will call a second special session of the Legislature, which is normally supposed to wrap everything up in May, unless it passes “certain items.” He didn’t specify the “items,” but he and most other Texas Republicans suck at being subtle.
Via picardfacepalm.com
The Texas Senate passed three new abortion regulations today, during a special session that was supposed to be about things like jobs or the economy. Apparently, Texas legislators can’t focus on jobs so long as they are distracted by thoughts of unregulated ladybits. These regulations serve no purpose other than to make operating a clinic that provides abortion services either impractical or impossible, and driving them out of business. (The fact that this is a direct regulation on business that is likely to eliminate jobs probably isn’t lost on state Republicans. They just don’t care.) Here’s as good a summary as I can manage off the top of my head (copied from a series of Facebook comments), so some of this may not be 100% accurate.
The first regulation requires abortions to take place in ambulatory surgical centers, which are facilities that provide outpatient surgical care and must conform to a set of health and safety standards geared towards procedures involving anesthesia and incisions. Abortions generally don’t involve either of those things, so requiring them to take place in an ambulatory surgical center means that either (1) existing ASCs must take in existing abortion providers, or (2) facilities that currently provide abortions must meet state requirements for ASCs, even though they will never perform a surgery. Existing ASCs have no reason to start providing abortions, and nearly every incentive not to be targeted by protesters, and upgrades to ASC certification would cost current providers thousands upon thousands of dollars and give ideologues on the bodies that handle licensing endless opportunities to find ways to deny them. There is no reason for this regulation except to drive abortion provers out of business.
The second regulation requires doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles. I’m not sure what goes into getting admitting privileges, but I think it generally involve doctors who routinely work at or with that hospital. Again, this requirement serves no purpose but to make life harder for abortion providers. More and more doctors who provide abortions travel to clinics around the state, so this regulation would force them either to undertake an unreasonable and unsustainable level of admitting privileges, or stay within a 30-mile radius of wherever they are. The one plausible justification I’ve heard for this is that doctors who perform abortions need admitting privileges to local hospitals in case complications occur that require an immediate trip to the emergency room, but that’s not true, from what I’ve read.
The third regulation requires doctors to administer RU-486 in person. I’m not sure how that particular drug is administered. I know it’s more than just a pill or an injection, but so is chemotherapy, and nothing requires doctors to do that personally. Same goes for pain medication infusers. In fact, we entrust most routine procedures to nurses and medical techs, not to mention physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners. Unless administering RU-486 requires monitoring and reactions to complications on par with open heart surgery (I’m sure it doesn’t), this is just another way to make it difficult for doctors.
This is about controlling women’s sexuality. Period. I have yet to see an argument against abortion, along with the trumped-up arguments against birth control and reproductive care, that didn’t eventually boil down to “she shouldn’t have had sex.” The argument flagrantly fails to take into account the myriad ways people can become pregnant, the non-birth-control benefits of the pill, or the fact that people are redefining the very definitions of “birth control” and “abortion” as we go along. At this point, given all the information out there, I have to conclude that people who still oppose abortion on the grounds I’ve heard cited are either lying or are too dumb to have an opinion worth taking seriously.
Photo credit: Via picardfacepalm.com.
Today is a victory for many people, and a defeat for almost as many. The sun rose this morning and is still shining as I write these words, so clearly the more Biblical of the warnings we heard regarding this election have not come to pass.
Right now, we have no way of knowing what the broader lessons of the 2012 presidential election will be. I can certainly hope that the reelection of Barack Obama, as much as I may find fault with his presidency, is an affirmation of what I might call (in a secular sense) the better angels of our nature. Not everyone shares my beliefs and my views about what America is, what it can be, or what it should be, but I feel as though some of those views have been affirmed by the events of the past few weeks.
America, perhaps unlike any other nation in the world, is and always has been a work in progress. The American Revolution did not end with the Treaty of Paris in 1781, nor did the many conflicts within America end at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. The American Revolution was not just a war fought with muskets. The United States of America is the revolution, and it continues to this day. Continue reading
Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton want to be therapists, but they don’t want to help icky gay people because Jesus.
State legislators, purporting to know more about the ethics of these professions than the professionals themselves, want to make it legal to discriminate based on “sincerely-held religious beliefs.” One suspects that it has not occurred to most of them that this could apply to people who don’t think just like them.
If someone who wants to enter into a profession with a duty to help people, but just can’t seem to let go of certain Bronze Age superstitions, I hardly see how that is their patients’ problem, but that is exactly what they want to do. Some of them want to foist their ideology onto patients, but I rather doubt they’d entertain attempts by those patients to present their side of things.
Now, being a good American, I support the right of people to believe whatever crazy crap they want, so long as they don’t hurt other people. And that’s the problem here.
This really, really hurts people.
So I have a compromise.
If a doctor, therapist, dentist, etc. just can’t get over the fact that the patient in front of them has a sexual orientation that is different from theirs (or some other perfectly-legal activity they just can’t keep from meddling in), they don’t have to treat them.
But the patient doesn’t have to pay them.
And because this rejection is highly likely to hurt the patient, the devout professional has to recommend an alternate professional that they know will treat the patient.
One more thing: in consideration of the fact that the devout professional has clearly wasted the patient’s time, the professional has to pay for the first session with the new professional. Because you have the right to believe what you want, but you cannot foist that upon a person in need who is relying on your professional skill–and if you just have to try anyway, it will cost you. Your professional license is a privilege, not a right.
(Preferably, devout professionals should disclose their prejudices in their marketing materials, but let’s see how you handle this responsibility first.)
If everyone can agree on that, then the Juleas and Jennifers of the world can let their freak flags fly, and the rest of us won’t be quite as bothered.
![Godvine [Fair use], via Facebook](https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/281288_231832466856926_145138128859694_720984_5817231_n.jpg "Godvine [Fair use], via Facebook")
I came across this video via a Facebook friend. (The host site, Godvine, doesn’t allow embedding, sorry.) It’s a sweet story, but the way the site presents it troubles me. To summarize, a young mother tells her story with a series of statements on slips of notebook paper while inspirational-sounding Christian music plays. I’ve never understood this style of video, but I could see how it is more effective than just writing out the story, and also easier for people who might not want to talk on video (for my part, I have no problem speaking directly to a group of people, but I tend to seize up in front of a camera.)
I should note that this woman is a natural in front of the camera, beaming with joy as an ecstatic new mother, then shifting towards obvious pain when the story turns to her son’s difficulties. And this is all done without saying a word.
She tells the story of falling in love and getting married, and her pregnancy with her son, Christian. She learned during the pregnancy that something was wrong, although she does not say exactly how much they knew. He was born with a cleft palate and cleft eye sockets. I’m unclear on the latter problem, but it meant that he was born without eyes. She’s a mother and she loves her child, and you can tell that she will defend her child to the ends of the earth (that’s the benefit of this style of video, I now realize.) Unfortunately, people are assholes, so she endured stares, whispers, and “what’s wrong with your kid?” questions. She also says that:
One girl even told me I was a horrible person for not aborting Christian in utero.
That’s at around the 4:40 mark. I hope everyone can understand what a horrible, repulsive thing that is to say. I mean really, I actually hope this mother smacked that girl in the face, then stepped on her. No one is going to mess with Christian on this mother’s watch. Continue reading
