[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Standing up for Planned Parenthood

by: Lucas O'Connor

Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 13:00:00 PM PST


With the exception of Mary Bono Mack, California's House delegation voted down party lines last week to revoke all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Nominally, the move was to prevent federal funding from supporting the full range of legal, reproductive choices to which women are entitled. But thanks to the long-standing Hyde Amendment compromise, federal funds cannot fund abortion services anyways. And so this move -- which will not reduce the deficit and will eliminate jobs rather than create any -- is simply a direct attack on basic primary and preventive health care.

Let's be clear. At best, the rhetoric about reproductive choice used by opponents of Planned Parenthood is an excuse; an attractive smokescreen. This is a fundamental attack on basic health services for underserved communities of all kinds throughout the country. It's a revocation of access to basic breast, cervical and other cancer screenings, basic health exams, HIV testing, contraception and birth control for many millions of Americans- including an estimated 1.4 million who would be cut off from their health care by the Pence amendment.

Lucas O'Connor :: Standing up for Planned Parenthood
And it isn't as though other existing health programs for these communities are in a position to pick up the slack. Prospective budget cuts stretch as far as the eye can see, and wide swaths of our communities are already struggling to have basic needs met. Heck, San Diego doesn't even have a county hospital. Against this backdrop, we have Planned Parenthood -- a program with nearly a century of proven effectiveness and serving millions each year -- targeted specifically because it's been such an effective support mechanism.

Many lawmakers remain expressly opposed to the wide-ranging health care reforms passed last year to expand care to millions of Americans who have struggled without for generations. And many have already assembled long resumes of attempts to prevent women from having health care freedom and access in whatever form possible. They haven't had much luck yet repealing or dismantling the reforms from last year, though they continue to try. In the meantime, they're pressing anywhere possible to undermine the basic health infrastructure in this country- the pieces that provide care to those who insurance companies don't find sufficiently profitable.

This Saturday, there are solidarity events for those who are protesting in Wisconsin for basic workers rights. And there are also events to support the vital work of Planned Parenthood scheduled in San Francisco and Los Angeles. You can also get more info on Twitter at @WalkforChoice

Grabbing for everything at once, hoping that not everything can be defended at once isn't an entirely unreasonable strategy. But it's unconscionable to cut off millions of Americans from the most basic of preventive care and life-saving screenings for cancer and HIV, from access to fundamental, legal and widely accepted birth control and contraceptives. Which is why it's so important that we resist every time to defend vital elements of our community-health structure.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Planned Parenthood - good; Gov't subsidy- bad? (1.00 / 1)
Sorry Mr. O'Connor but I am not buying this.  

I have no beef with Planned Parenthood; they provide good health services primarily to those who would otherwise go without.  But why does the government have to provide a subsidy?  Planned Parenthood can, and does, raise its own funding and has revenue sources.

St. Anthony's in SF provides great food, shelter, clothing and other services to the hungry and poor of San Francisco to the tune of over 1,600,000 actions every year.  Yet they do it without 1 penny of government support.  They go to people and say "if you believe in what we are doing, please support us"... and people do so, generously.

What makes folks like me upset is that Planned Parenthood has paid its CEO over $1 million a year (as recently as 2006).  The SF chapter lost its affiliation due to horrible greed and mismanagement.

If St Anthony's can feed the hungry without direct taxpayer subsidy, why can't Planned Parenthood do the same?


This is unacceptable (0.00 / 0)
on a liberal political website. FFS, we're talking about an organization that is not for profit. I'd like a link for where you read that the "CEO" was paid $1 mil. This organization provides services, the vast majority of which involve screening, education, and free contraception. The fact that they also provide abortions, a legal procedure, is irrelevant. They are proving health care. For women. That is legal. If your tax dollars going toward that bothers you, I'd like to raise you two wars and some environmental destruction in Gulf. IOW, we all have things we disagree with that our gov't does, but I don't see anyone saying, "Yes, you're right. As much as I dislike abortion, a legal procedure, and believe I shouldn't have to pay for it, so too should we have a list going for all the ethical issues everyone in our country feels strongly about and doesn't want their tax dollars going towards." Or is it that abortion is a special case? Bleh.

The issue of abortion is not about abortion. It's about who gets to decide what happens to an unwanted pregnancy. If you are supporting the state in having the power to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and birth them, I don't know what in the holy hell you are doing on a liberal political blog. That sh*t is not ok.  


And just to add (0.00 / 0)
that if you were really, in good faith, as a person interested in advocating for women and from a liberal perspective, expressing issues w/ corruption, you'd have a lot more credibility if you chose to focus on the BILLIONS spent on corrupt govt contractors whose contracts are being renewed.

C'mon. This is not about "gov't wasted tax dollars". I don't buy that for a second and neither should anyone reading this. You might as well be going after kids and their wasteful ways w/ tax payer subsidized lunches, just throwing them in the garbage b/c they don't like the type of cheese in the sandwich. I mean, after all, aren't there some charities that could handle that need?


Indirect funding (4.00 / 1)
The payments to Planned Parenthood fall under a general category of "indirect funding".  This is a payment to an organization that provides services that the government would other wise provide.

The government decides that it is within its role to provide various medical and controceptive services to the public and rather than develop a service within the existing bureaucracy, they pay Planned Parenthood to do it.

It really has nothing to do with PP being a good organization or bad.  It has to do with the role of government.  Are these the kinds of services that fall within the realm of what government ought to do.

I think it is.  We have a national interest in birth control, women's health and, yes, safe and legal abortions. Im not sure I put this action in the category of "attack on women" because it is really a discussion of the role of government.  


I think if we were seeing other gov't (0.00 / 0)
subsidized medical procedures/services being marginalized as this is (HR 3 and 8 other federal and local statutes before various legislative bodies to restrict or eliminate reproductive services--including contraception!--from any "taint" of tax dollars) we could have that more philosophical conversation about the "role of gov't". But this isn't about the role of govt from a lofty theoretical place. The equal status of women is under assault. All the proposed legislation seeks, in various ways, to essentially criminalize being female. This is a highly charged, highly politicized issue and the elimination of funding of PP cannot and should not be looked at outside of that critical context. There is no other medical procedure/set of services, that is exclusive to a single class of people, that is under assault politically.  

[ Parent ]
The party of life votes for death (5.00 / 1)
Our healthcare system is broken. Millions and millions of people lack access to even the most basic lifesaving care. Women and children make up a large percentage of those millions. But Republican lawmakers are fond of saying that everybody can get healthcare. They just have to go to the local emergency room. For starters, I went to the ER last year for a fast-moving infection that worried my doctor. It cost over $12,000 for that visit. How on earth could anybody who can't afford insurance pay for that?

Second, I dare you to go to the ER and try to get a mammogram or a pelvic exam. I guarantee you it won't happen. Emergency rooms provide just that, emergency care. They stabilize patients and then release them. But these tests, and the early care they enable, save lives.

Finally, other places where low-income patients could go are caught in the budget squeeze. The county clinic in my county has a new sign that says you can only get treatment for "life-threatening issues." States all over the country are cutting back Medicare programs. And, despite the fact that more men lost jobs in the recent recession than women, that's partly because women already held more low-wage, part-time jobs than men. These are jobs that don't provide health benefits. Leaving women more vulnerable to health emergencies.

While this is an issue for all women, it's of particular concern for older women who are more at risk for cancer and need these screenings. But once we're no longer able to bear children or arouse their lust, it appears the party of life has little use for us. They're content to let us die horrible deaths to satisfy their pledge to Grover Norquist.

I would like for all of them to have to look their mothers in the eye and admit that.  


That does sound so famillar to Me, Not that I've ever married. n/t (5.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
With one group of ppl (0.00 / 0)
(women of reproductive age) they must be active, b/c the current law already supports us (as tenuous as that is, and as many hurdles as they have already put in the way). They must actively seek restrictions, actively feed narratives that this is about "life" and vilify women to 'other' us and make people feel bad about supporting this right, unequivocally. They must confuse voters about what the true issues are.

In the second group of ppl (women of non-reproductive age, brown people, poor people, and children) they merely support the default by, as you said,

once we're no longer able to bear children or arouse their lust, it appears the party of life has little use for us. They're content to let us die horrible deaths to satisfy their pledge to Grover Norquist.

because the default is a broken, dehumanizing, disgusting system already. They might add in there some anti tax rhetoric as they fight us on our efforts to reform it but the default is already totally unworkable and causes death every day.


[ Parent ]
Pro birth (4.00 / 2)
I don't remember who it was. But one rather brilliant female journalist said, "They're not pro-life, they're pro-birth. After the child is born, they no longer care about its future." I thought she'd summed it up beautifully. It is the government's job to make sure that child is born. After that, seeing that it is fed, clothed, receives medical care and an education--that's not their problem, and certainly not the government's.

In many European countries, they recognize the extraordinary emotional and financial burden a child is to parents. And they have programs to support them. But the GOP thinks that's socialism and that we should show our hardy frontier spirit and just suck it up. If the whole family starves to death, then they just weren't fit to live--even though the concept of survival of the fittest is another they'd never endorse because it's the basis of evolutionary theory.

George Lakoff says conservatives believe hard-working, moral people do well. People who are not morally fit do not. So, if you need government help, it's because you are morally lax. I don't know how that explains a good, hard-working person who loses their job and home. Or that Christopher Lee got elected to Congress. But it does explain a lot of their attitudes.

Personally, I think conservative men are afraid of women and want to keep us barefoot and pregnant because we're less threatening to them that way. And the women have been brainwashed. Or they're just plain nuts like Michelle Bachman. Watch her eyes on camera sometime and tell me I'm wrong!


[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
This is certainly true:

George Lakoff says conservatives believe hard-working, moral people do well. People who are not morally fit do not. So, if you need government help, it's because you are morally lax.

and just like the forced birther stance (which is the term I prefer to "pro-life") there is no humanistically rational consistency to this position. The only internal coherence is the desire for a system that controls the production of humans, the use of humans, and the how those processes are justified (theocracy). That's why when we ask ourselves why PP is being targeting for gov't waste when we're not even talking about the vast billions that have been documented as having been wasted in the military industry and illegal wars but we're worried about a tiny fraction of less than 1% b/c an even tinier fraction of their budget is spent on abortion services, we are not being honest about what this is really about.

And when we talk about defunding PP b/c the role of gov't shouldn't be in providing $ to organizations that perform certain roles, except simultaneously we've got legislatures in GA that are seeking the death penalty for miscarriages (will it pass? no. That isn't the most important question to ask--it is a window into their vile and misogynistic theocratic end game and that's all I need to know) and in SD seeking to force women into "pregnancy crisis centers", for pregnancy counseling: those bastions of "factual information", before they can have the procedure,  we should know what this is really about. That both measures (and there are others) are clear and consistent indicators that we're not having some theoretical lofty discussion about the "role of govt" unless we're talking about reinstating Gilead. It's far far past time for us to be honest about what this is about.

This is about who will decide what happens to an unwanted pregnancy--the woman or the state? And if we go the state route, the state will not stop w/ abortion. A quick read of HR 3 makes that abundantly clear. Think Taliban, and you can see where their end game is. We will continue to lose more and more ground until we, as pro-choice allies, get really clear about their true intentions and what is truly at stake.

And let me just say that I'd really like for this to be a pretty much undisputed point on a liberal political blog. The fact that it isn't says more about where we are in the progressive politics movement wrt reproductive rights as human rights, than anything I can think of.  


[ Parent ]
We don't screen commenters (0.00 / 0)
to make sure they agree with everything.  We do try to prune comments (and commenters) to prevent rearguing every single wingnut talking point that people can come up with.

You should check the threading -- your beef is with the initial commenter, nomorewebvan, not with the bloggers, or this blog.  He's not aligned with the general set of views of the proprietors, but he's also not just spewing talking points most of the time.


[ Parent ]
Ha- thanks, I think.... (0.00 / 0)
... this is the first time you were not curt, dismissive or even mean to me.  Thanks... I think.

But BethSoCo should not even have a beef with me.  I did not say that PP was bad or even mention health services.  I simply asked why the government had to subsidize the organization when they have the means to raise their own funds as other social charities do.  I certainly did not attack womens' reproductive rights.  But BethSoCo went immediately to "scud" missles and then continued her assualt in subsequent posts.  She even got another poster all "wee we-ed up".  That's why I did not reply.  No discussion opportunity.

And I would claim that I am "aligned" with at least a few of the proprietors- I very much enjoy a discussion of progressive issues in CA.  Just some (you know well) seem to discourage discussion in favor of lecture, deletion and banning.  I think you'll agree that tolerance is a requirement for discussion (at least in theory if not practice).

 


[ Parent ]
What does this even mean? (0.00 / 0)
She even got another poster all "wee we-ed up".


[ Parent ]
Your stuff doesn't usually allow for (0.00 / 0)
"discussion".  It's usually chock-a-block full of false assumptions, rigged statistics and biases against any solutions not within the narrow range of permitted center-right conventional wisdom.

And it's tiresome to for people here to have to make those arguments over and over and over again when they've already made them in writing 5 or 10 or 20 times before.  Which is why people don't respond to you well here.  And then because people don't have the energy to explain to someone like you yet again "you're wrong, here's why you're wrong, here's where your thinking is limited by your lack of imagination", it appears that there's no answer to your penetrating insights.

But, you're not spouting Limbaugh talking points like McDonald there (whose most recent post is still standing because an indictment of his vicious bigotry, not because it's worthwhile), so mostly you're tolerated.


[ Parent ]
You are absolutely right (0.00 / 0)
 and I in no way meant to imply otherwise. It wasn't about the blog itself, but about one comment in particular that I felt was leaning on pretty inaccurate and problematic data/thinking. And I have to admit that I felt shock at the first and only comment so easily feeding a narrative that is becoming quite serious and problematic nationally, that is fundamentally misogynistic. There are a lot of liberal minded and pro-choice ally ppl out there who are confused about this and it is more than disheartening; it's disgusting to see the level of misogyny. We have a major problem when we have to argue against the draconian policies popping up all over the nation re; reproductive rights. On an entirely different front, this blog is great.  I'm always referring ppl to it, so I apologize if it sounded in anyway as if it was a criticism of Calitics. I certainly don't expect comments to be pruned.

It's a frustration for me (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) that even in spaces devoted to liberal politics (and this is far from the only liberal political blog where this occurs), that this issue, which is getting dire, still has many ppl who are confused about it. My responses though were not only to nomorewebvan, who never responded, but also to smoker1 and more recently to cfinnie. Our exchange was not negative.

I think it's reasonable to point out misogynistic policy promotion just as it would be if there were proponents of racist policy or homophobic policy. And it's reasonable to ask that someone who is presumably an ally (tho' I don't know if nomorewebvan is, and if he/she isn't I do question why they would be here--as in why would I attend a space devoted to the building of conservative narratives?) to pay more attention to the narratives underpinning what they are supporting or not supporting.


[ Parent ]
Diversity is a good thing (5.00 / 1)
We have a good range of opinions here--which I think is healthy.  The original post is a strong statement of support for PP--with the valid concern that conservatives are going after so much in the budget, we might lose some really valuable resources like PP just because we are forced into choosing our battles.

I added that funding for PP is "indirect funding" that helps define what government ought to be doing, but can do through an non-governmental agency instead of creating a service.  And, it is a valid point of controversy regarding the appropriate role of government.

Nomorewebvan is, I believe, totally pro-choice but has concerns about the organization itself.  If PP could cure it's problems, I think nomorewebvan would be on board (though I don't want to speak for him).

John McDonald is just a bit off the reservation.  He takes us on a journey beyond the far-away land of Glenn Beck.  One of the most interesting elements of his post was support for victims of "normal car accidents".

What exactly is a normal car accident?  I thought that all of them were by definition outside of the norm.  I don't normally have car accidents.  Given his suspiciously overpronounced opposition to homosexuality, may I assume that a "head on" collision is normal while a "rear end" collision is abnormal?  (Sorry, I should not have gone there).

Anyway, I think the more divergent the viewpoints the better off we are.  Blogs in which everyone agrees are quite dull.


[ Parent ]
I really appreciate the responses (0.00 / 0)
from both you and jsw.

I think, however, when you say this:

Anyway, I think the more divergent the viewpoints the better off we are
.

we really need to consider where we draw that line. Not in terms of censoring comments, but in terms of those of us clarifying the liberal perspective in relationship to policy. This is a serious moment wrt reproductive  rights. In exactly the same way that there are arguments for rolling back civil rights that cannot be, ever, a part of a liberal agenda, and even relatively small movements in that direction need to be properly contextualized as just that, rollbacks on civil rights.

I don't think nearly enough liberals involved in politics are making the unequivocal argument that even a little bit of a rollback is unacceptable. In this area of reproductive rights, we're talking about human rights, as fundamental as any right anyone could possibly lay claim to. If we don't see each and every encroachment on that fundamental human right, as an encroachment on all our rights, we are, I'd argue, not doing our job as liberal activists. And if a liberal activist doesn't agree w/ that, I think it's the job of those of us who do see the truth of that to make that case again and again and again b/c we really are talking about reducing the civil status of an entire class of people (women). We must see this in the same way we see issues of race or GLBT issues.

Ask yourself if, as a liberal activist and someone who sees clearly the connection between civil rights policies and the quality of the world in which we live, whether you would be as sanguine about someone arguing the return to 3/5 person status. Now imagine there were many, many pieces of legislation at the state and fed level that were being considered right now that were working different legal angles toward that end. And you came to a liberal blog and there weren't clear comments explaining why this return to 3/5 person status is simply unacceptable and any discussion about the many ways in which the return is being sought (defunding of PP, talking about the theoretical role of govt etc.) needs to be seen within that greater imminent danger of loss of civil rights.  


[ Parent ]
Defintion of a Normal Car Accident (0.00 / 0)
Where the person at fault was not on drugs or alcohol or driving 50 mph over the speed limit.

[ Parent ]
Yep, I'm expecting the burka bill next (5.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
We are broke (0.00 / 0)
We should not be paying for other people's abortions.  If you want to have unprotected sex, then pay for your own abortion.  If you want to eat till you are 400 lbs, then pay for your own stent, new knees, and all the other things you are going to require.  If you want to smoke, then pay for your own new lungs.  If you want to drink alcohol till you pickle your liver, then pay for your own new liver.  If you want to poke your pecker in someone's arse, then pay for your own HIV treatment.  I could go on and on and on.  I'm sick of paying for everyone's else stupid choices.

If you get cancer through no fault of your own like breast cancer, have cystic fibrous, down's syndrome, get in a normal car accident, get the flu, or are a child of a nutcase ... sure I'm all for helping the community you - but I'm sick of paying for druggies, alcoholics, fatties, and the sexually irresponsible.

We are broke -- get used to the new America.  All Obamacare is doing is making sure the hospitals are going to be jammed with 400 lbs fat people, violent folks, alcoholics, and druggies, and people that don't know which hole is for what purpose. -- while my family is going to waiting in line for ages because my problems are less serious.


Where do you draw the line? (5.00 / 1)
I did, btw, pay for my own abortion. But I had it because the father of both my children left me ill, broke, and pregnant--with a toddler to care for and two jobs already. I may get cancer because the first man I was engaged to gave me HPV before anybody even knew what that was or that it caused cancer. I was having what I thought was protected sex. I was on the pill. I didn't even know about the rest of that stuff in those days. So, do I fit your definition of worthiness for cancer screening? Or do my early mistakes doom me to death in your world? And why do you get to decide? Furthermore, why do I get to suffer the consequences when the men who caused them don't? And then men try to tell me I don't even have a choice about all of it! I've worked and paid taxes for almost 45 years. Why doesn't my voice count in decisions that affect my life? Why can we spend billions on unnecessary wars, and not millions on needed healthcare?

Before you start playing god, I suggest you try walking a mile in our shoes. And hope somebody shows you a bit more kindness when you need it.


So let's turn the logic around (0.00 / 0)
So all the early mistakes in your life that I have to pay for means that I can't afford to send my 2nd child to college (a girl), that I can't donate money to a charity of my choice, that I can't help one of my friends in need who has lost their job, that I can't afford to put money into my 401k.  Until you walk a mile in my shoes, why don't you pay for your own problems, and I'll pay for mine.  As if you are the only ones with problems -- jeez.

From your post it is obvious that you have zero appreciation that the money being given you does not grow on trees.  It comes from someone.  That someone is in part -- me.  And ME has never ever been thanked by a single person for the 100s of thousands of dollars I've paid in taxes to support all the hard luck cases and government workers who claim to be helping those people.  Instead I get insulted by these people - and they only want more and more as it is their Constitutional Right (Duty) to rip me off.

At least now you know that your legal rip off of the tax payer to pay for your problems actually causes problems too and that their is not a magic money generator in the sky -- and the only thing standing between you and all that money to solve all your problems are heartless evil Corporations and Republicans.  You are supporting the structure that is preventing my child from attending college -- you are truly heartless.


[ Parent ]
Nobody paid for my problems but me (5.00 / 1)
Clearly you didn't read my post. I paid my own way by working 2 jobs--and paying taxes on both--not by taking any money from you or your children. So I don't owe you any thanks. And I'm quite clear on where the money comes from as I've earned my own for some 45 years.

Clearly you also missed my point. I don't consider it a ripoff to pay for good education for my own son and your children too. I consider it an investment in my state and its economy. The same thing goes for good roads and other infrastructure. I pay my taxes because it's my duty to pay for the things I use. But BofA uses them too. In fact, probably more than I do. Certainly they make more money. But they pay NO taxes. If you're looking for a ripoff, there it is. Not with government workers who provide a service to citizens.

However, my question was why you get to play god and decide who gets an education or healthcare. Your answer is that you pay for it. Well, so do I. And, in return, we both get to vote based on our priorities. I've told you what mine are. I do believe in shared prosperity. That what's good for the most people is better. Yes, I expect to get Social Security and Medicare in a few years. As I said before, I've paid into both for many, many years. Like public employees who are having benefits taken away after they've worked for them for years, I'd be plenty mad if that got yanked. I'll bet you would too.

If people insult you, it may be because you don't pay attention to what they're saying, and make unfounded allegations based on a complete misunderstanding of what they've said and of actual reality. Certainly I found it insulting when you just did it to me! Plus you're rude and rather nasty. And that's not an insult. Just the truth.


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox