Punishment by Disability

Have you ever had an abortion? Well then, when you do have children, rest assured, they will have some kind of disability, and that will be your punishment, and you will take it like the slutty whore you are.

As is often the case when I read things like this, I’m rendered nearly speechless. There used to be a time when very little could take my words away, but lately, there is so much… So, so much… Just so… much… *head-desk, head-desk, head-desk*

So this jackass, Bob Marshall (R-Va), feels that disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first  pregnancy. That’s right. Punishment, damnit. Note that this doesn’t explain the millions of women who have had abortions that go on to have children with no disabilities. Maybe that means God feels some abortions are okay? And on the flip side, what about children with disabilities born to parents who have lived the humblest and most pious of lives?

“When you abort the first born  of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”

Seriously? Seriously?!

He wants to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood (shock), because he, like so many ill-informed others, seem to think that PP’s sole purpose in life is to provide abortions. PP reps just snatch women off the street and talk them into having an abortion – even if they’re not pregnant. All part of the PP agenda, don’t you know?

Here’s something that will just make you giggle.  Rev. Joe Ellison, vice president of the Council on  Biblical Principles, said that when he was in college, he paid for girlfriends to  get abortions. He said he still feels guilty about that today. He’s also “declaring war” on Planned Parenthood.

You know, despite the fact that if either the Reverend or any of his paramours (how much tail did he get, anyway, if he’s using the plural?) had stepped inside a Planned Parenthood, they probabably could have avoided the need to pay for anything. Literally, anything. They give condoms out like Halloween candy, and you can get oral contraceptives on the cheap.

However, reason is lost on these people regardless, so that’s pretty much alll the effort I’m putting forth.

Pro-Choice Re-explained

Pro-Life is a misnomer. It exists solely to undermine the real meaning of Pro-Choice. If it’s supposed to be the opposite of Pro-Choice, then by calling it PRO-Life, it implies that Pro-Choice is ANTI-Life. This is blatantly untrue. Pro-Choice is NOT and never will be Pro-Abortion. So let’s just call Pro-Life what it really is: Anti-Choice. Then let’s take the time to realize that we’re all really… on the same side, just seeing it from different vantage points.  Anti-Choice people want there to be no abortions, period. Pro-Choice people want it so that there is no NEED for abortion.  So… All you self-described Pro-Lifers who believe in contraceptive use, and sex-education about said contraceptive use: Congrats, you’re actually Pro-Choice.

Here we go again. The pro-life, pro-choice battle that never ends.

This photo has been blowing up my Facebook all week long. The captions read: “I have a really awesome life…there’s no prenatal test to predict that.” ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Look, I am so glad this child has an amazing life. Their parents made a conscious choice to have a child, a child with Down’s Syndrome. Whether or not they had prenatal tests done to determine this is really of no matter to me. They clearly have the resources to take good care of their child. This child deserves an awesome life. But parents have a right to learn if their child will have special needs. They deserve every opportunity to learn about what challenges they will face in order to make an informed choice on whether or not they have the ability to care for their child physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. This is the ULTIMATE prenatal test: The ability to make this choice, clearly, confidently, and in their individual or family’s best interest.

I hereby swear…

Although not required, many physicians and health care professionals take an oath to stay ethically and morally true in providing the best and highest quality of care possible. This is known as the Hippocratic Oath.

Some Highlights:

“I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.”

“I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.”
“I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.”

“I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

When I go to the doctor, these are ethics and values that I inherently expect in regards to the care I will receive. I am putting my life and trust in the care that is being provided by that individual. I also expect that care to be without judgement. Luckily, I live in New York State; but for all you folks out in Arizona, sorrryyyy…not so much.

The State senate passed a bill this week which will in effect allow a doctor the right to lie to regarding any potential birth defects of fetus in an attempt to discourage abortions. If this is not unethical, I’m really not sure I understand what ethics are at all. Why even have them?

Of all the arguments to be raised regarding this (and there are plenty), perhaps my biggest concern is the strain that this puts on a family, who now does not have time to adequately prepare for their special needs child. When a family finds out that their child potentially has birth defects in advance, they might utilize that time to hold benefits to raise money to pay for upcoming medical bills. They may take the time to make modifications to their home to increase their child’s quality of life. At minimum, they may have a period of time to learn and understand the impacts of what this could mean for the undoubtedly arduous road that lies ahead, so they can prepare for the worst and cherish the best possible outcomes. All because a doctor might have some type of inkling that their patient may choose to have an abortion. It’s MIGHT be a possibility. So if a couple is, let’s say, on the younger end of the spectrum. The doctor can now say “nope, not telling them their child has xyz; they might get an abortion and that’s just not ok with me!” and they will be LEGALLY protected to do so. Meanwhile, that couple could have had no intention of aborting their child and now, they are stuck without anytime to prepare, or learn, any way to cope with the struggle to come; they also can’t do shit about it, because that doctor would be protected by law.

If a child’s life is so precious, Arizona, you’re really missing the mark on this one.

State by State Laws About Your Uterus

In Florida, America’s dingleberry, the State House is currently using wasting taxpayer money on passing a bill that will hopefully fail in the Senate. House Bill 277 would require any woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours after having an ultrasound to have the procedure (like many other states have insipidly done before). The provision goes further, HB 277 would also require all clinics providing abortion services to be doctor-owned (unlike clinics in the state that provide any other services, which can be owned by any old person. Including the state’s governor, a non-doctor who himself owns several clinics, oh, and Planned Parenthood). The bill would require any procedure that occurs after 20 weeks to involve administering anesthesia to the fetus (even though it’s never been scientifically established that fetuses at that stage in development are capable of feeling pain). Doctors must additionally undergo three hours of special ethics training per year and collect an excessive amount of data on each procedure, including patient age, race, gestational age of the fetus, number of previous live births, marital status, previous number of abortions, and hometown, which could feasibly be used to identify individual women. Small government!

Georgia has a bomb of a law going through legislation as well. HB 954 would outright ban abortions after 20 weeks unless they threatened the life or health of the mother on the false assumption that fetuses can feel pain at that point in gestation. Opponents argue that in some cases, this will force women to carry stillborn fetuses to term. The bill passed the State House. I don’t think I need to point out the danger for sepsis here.

The debate in Pennsylvania over some really crappy legislation has been postponed indefinitely, thanks to a group of doctors who protested the measure. This bill would have required women to receive an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy, and instructed doctors to place the viewing screen in the field of vision of the woman. Oh, but fear not, in a generous move the law would have allowed the woman to look away if she wished, however this bill would require the technician to indicate in writing whether the woman looked at the image or refused. You know, just so the state could have a record of whether or not she was an evil babykilling slut or not. The law would have also required transvaginal ultrasounds for women receiving abortions too early in the pregnancy for the typical abdominal device to work. The Pennsylvania Medical Society wrote to state lawmakers, asking if legislators had better things to do with with their time than legislate diagnostic procedure to medical professionals. A vote on the bill has been indefinitely delayed.

Ahh Virginia. As we know, last week, state lawmakers cringed away from a law that would have required transvaginal – or, in the words of Republican Dave Albo, “trans-v” – ultrasounds for many women seeking abortions. Now there’s an exception written into the law that would give rape and incest victims an out, but only if they reported the crime to the police. It’s still pretty goddamn stupid, even though the government is no longer requiring women in Virginia to have a medical wand inserted into them by doctors. And here’s an idea, if you can’t even say the word ‘vagina’, you have absolutely no business trying to make laws about it.

In Alabama they’re spinning their wheels as well. A proposal very similar to the one in Virginia is also in danger of failing (haha, like that danger is a bad thing). The bill, proposed by Republican named Clay Scofield (no relation to Wentworth Miller’s famous character Michael), would have required women to view sonogram images before receiving an abortion and would have required trans-vaginal ultrasounds in early pregnancies. The bill passed out of committee 4-1, but once it got to Republican Governor Robert Bentley, he said, uh, no. Within a day, Scofield promised to change the bill, promising to let women pick what kind of ultrasound they wanted before having an abortion. I choose none. Is that on the table? I know my ovulation schedule and I peed on the stick, so I can confirm the date of conception and the fact that I’m pregnant. Done.

Then there’s Oklahoma. The Personhood bill stating that life begins at conception – not birth – has passed the State Senate. Even though those who constructed the bil swear that it wasn’t designed to outlaw abortion (how could it not be?), a new proposed amendment to the state’s constitution definitely. Personhood USA is now on a signature drive to get a Personhood amendment on the November ballot. They have 90 days to collect more than 150,000 signatures. Have we made it illegal to kill animals? I know, yes, in large-scale investigations (people with 22663 cats in the house and the place is covered in shit), people are punished, but when my friend gave her hamster a heart attack by putting it in one of those balls where they roam the house, and the poor thing found the top of the stairs – you know what happens next (little fuzzball was flat on its back, all four limbs sticking straight out) – no one came to accuse her of murder. How many pets are ‘put down’ each year? I argue that they have more life than a fetus (which, again, by definition, is no nore than a parasite for at least half the gestational period).

You may ask why I’m making the comparison to animals? Well, because in our other favorite moral debate of the decade – homosexual marriage – this is where the hatemongers always go. “If we let two men marry, what’s next, he’ll want to marry his dog?” Um…. no. Because marriage – whether straight or gay – is a consentual contract between two thinking and competent adult humans. No one in the history of ever has pushed for legislation to allow animals and humans to wed. But this is a new topic for a different day.

Anti-Choice = Anti-Woman

Pro-Choice ≠ Pro-Abortion

What can’t people seem to understand about this? Pro- CHOICE means supporting a woman’s right to choose, whether she chooses motherhood or abortion, or even adoption.

Choice also covers access to affordable birth control and sex education; it isn’t solely an abortion issue. In fact, there are many Pro-Choicers who are anti-abortion. People who call themselves Pro-Life fail to realize that essentially, we’re on the same side. Pro-Choice doesn’t mean we want the abortion rate to go up. We want it go down too, but in oder for that to happen, birth control access and sex education has to improve.

The very term Pro-Life exists solely to undermine the word of the Pro-Choice, based on semantics alone. What is opposite of Pro-Life? Anti-Life. And that is NOT what being Pro-Choice is about. So let’s call the Pro-Lifers what they really are, shall we? Anti-Choice.

Today I engaged in a discussion over deadbeat dads and how we need to be stricter about child support. I mostly agree. But let’s turn that and flip it on its head: Imagine that all these laws that the Republican right are fawning over come to be. We’re living in a society where birth control is nonexistent, and of course abortion is illegal. A woman – one who has no desire to be a mother – then gives birth to a child. Again, wanting nothing to do with it, she signs over all rights to the father. But now, the government comes stalking her for child support, and now she is forced to pay for something that she didn’t even want but the government forced her to have.

Not to mention, she probably already had to foot the bill for all medical expenses incurred while pregnant.

Georgia Rep. Yasmine Neal (D), has finally called men out on their bullshit. Rep. Joe Walsh recently said that the birth control debate is “not about women,” but how would he respond to females saying vasectomies are not about men?

Neal is trying to introduce legislation that would outlaw vasectomies except for the case in which a man’s health is at stake. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly; while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

Men feel like she’s joking. Why is it funny that someone would take steps to make a vasectomy illegal, when that’s what some people want to do with basic birth control? More from our best friend Mr. Rick Santorum:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

What exactly are you trying to say here, Ricky? That only heathen sluts want to be on birth control so they can participate in wild slutty orgies? The dangers of contraception? License to do things? Huh? Things like what? Like enjoy intimacy with your partner while maintaining control of your reproduction?  While deciding on the size and timing of your family? Never mind the fact that 89% of Catholic women use effective (hormonal) birth control. Are you saying that they’re trying to do things in an ‘unnatural’ sexual realm?

Let’s take this a step further. Who the hell is to decide ’how things are supposed to be’ when it comes to consensual adult sexual activity? And what does that mean? Is girl on top allowed?

How can anyone in their lucid mind not see all of this as a blatantly open attack on women? I’m repeating it again, ladies, go buy the Handmaid’s Tale so that you’ll know what to expect. If you have a Kindle or even a Kindle app on your phone, I bought a Kindle copy, and I’ll be more than happy to give you my log-in so you can just download it through my archive. This was a fictional novel, gentlemen, not a damn instruction manual.

It’s Not a War on Women: It’s Uterus Envy

As per usual, the menfolk want to think they know best about our reproductive rights. In Arizona, a bill that actually made it out of committee addresses the completely nonexistent problem of abortion based on the race or sex of the fetus.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act initally reads as exactly what it pretends to be, protecting a potential baby from discrimination. But then it moves on to a section that says the father can take civil action against the woman if he believes she is pursuing an abortion based on race or sex.

I’m sorry, what?

First of all, the majority of abortions in the US are done during the first trimester, at which point it is too early to even determine sex. So, let’s rule that out. Secondly, who in the hell is going to a sonogram like, if this is a girl, she’s getting the boot.

And that’s half of this bill shut down.

Now let’s talk about race. Let’s say I’m racist against Hispanics, so I’m going to abort this Hispanic fetus. Wait a minute. If I hate Hispanics, why did I sleep with one? Is this a new belief that I suddenly took on?

You can say rape may be an issue, but let’s say a whitey-hating black woman gets attacked while she’s ovulating, and the hospital-administered emergency contraception doesn’t work (or worse, she doesn’t even report it). A few weeks she realizes she’s pregnant and calls and makes the appointment. Is she doing it only because she hates whitey? Oh you think so? So she’s not at all doing it because she was already violated in the worst imaginable way and now she’s having to deal with having her body hijacked again?

The craziest part about this whole scenario is that if a man brings a case against a woman, it could go on and on and on, until a point where she wouldn’t even be able to have an abortion. How the hell do you prove a woman is seeking an abortion based on race or sex?  How? Tell me. Like Tom Price said, “show me one woman.”

What’s next? A man starts a relationship with a woman, not knowing that she’s on the Pill, and a year later sues her because she hasn’t let him knock her up?

If we disect the religious side of things, we’re left in a circle of contradictive dogma (shocking, I know). The thing that makes me laugh about most religion-based arguments against birth control is this:   Because birth control prevents a ‘life’ from being created, it is immoral.

Okay, that’s all well and good, but, having a natural menstrual cycle and not having sex – living by the ‘correct’ standards – do the same thing.

In the perfect Catholic world (I use Catholic because I myself am a recovering Catholic and it’s what I know most about, not to mention, in this great BC debate, Catholic leaders seem to be the loudest), no one would ever use birth control and no unmarried ladies are having sexy time. Well, every month her body is evicting an egg – a potential life – and laughing in the face of these standards.

In Genesis 38, Onan was instructed by God to impregnate his dead brother’s wife, and every time they lay together, he let his semen spill to the ground. He was punished, yes, but for his act of rebellion against God, not for his contraceptive act.

Listen up men. Do you even know how birth control works? It prevents ovulation from even happening, thus, not wasting an egg, or our seed, but this is bad.

Really, the very act of choosing a celibate lifestyle prevents you from ever reproducing, so, by that belief, aren’t religious leaders like nuns and priests just going against everything right from the get-go?

Here’s what it is: Uterus envy. All these men are tired of centuries of not having the same reproductive organs as we possess, and they’ve just watched us blatantly ignore their functions. What they’re thinking is, “Why do these bitches get to have all this stuff, those ovaries, that uterus that they don’t even use?” And instead of simply evolving and growing one of their own, they want to punish us by forcing us to use ours to their fullest extent.