Supreme Court to hear most consequential abortion case in over a decade.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could further narrow a woman's right to obtain an abortion. 

The dispute, which the justices added to their docket on Friday, is the first abortion challenge the court will hear since 2007. But at stake is a far more consequential precedent, established in 1992 -- the last time the court reaffirmed the landmark Roe v. Wade. 

The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, arises from a lawsuit filed in Texas seeking to block a law that, if fully implemented, would shut down at least nine of the 19 remaining abortion clinics in the state. 

Among other provisions, the law -- called HB2 -- requires doctors at all abortion clinics to possess admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and for the clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. The cost of meeting the building and equipment requirements can run from a hundred thousand to several million dollars, which many clinics cannot afford.

Every time I see an abortion case come before the Supreme Court I start to get nervous. Very, very nervous.

And this time is no different.

The conservatives have been chipping away at the protections afforded by Roe vs Wade for decades now with the intention of getting a case before SCOTUS that would nullify the decision and once again turn women back into the baby factories that they believe is their god given destiny.

It is no coincidence that this case is coming before the Supreme Court before this election.

That is because the conservatives know that once President Hillary takes office she will nominate justices that will laugh this kind of shit right out of court.

Well I think this seems very appropriate this morning.

I don't usually like to wish ill on anybody but it would be awfully great if a couple of our least favorite justice's had some health concerns that forced them out of the Supreme Court either before the need of Obama's term, or during Hillary's eight years in office.

It does not have to be fatal or anything, just severe enough to force them into an early retirement.

We are not the only ones who think that Texas is ready to go blue. So does former Texan Rand Paul.

Currently the Senator from Kentucky, but still so Texan he wears roadkill on his head.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Sen. Rand Paul on Saturday predicted that Texas would turn blue within a decade if the Republican Party doesn’t become more inclusive. 

“What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change,” Paul (R-Ky.), who grew up in Texas, said at a dinner held by the Harris County GOP. “That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.” 

Paul, who is heavily weighing a presidential bid, noted that his assessment was shared by the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. The Lone Star state, currently the largest Republican bastion in the country, is nearly 40 percent Hispanic — a demographic that has overwhelmingly supported Democrats in recent elections. 

I rarely listen to anything Rand Paul says because you know he's crazy, but this time I think he is speaking the truth for a change.

There is a lot of Democratic energy in Texas to take back their state, and electing Wendy Davis as Governor could just be the tip of the iceberg. 

However I disagree with Paul over one thing.

There is NO way the GOP is going to get their act together fast enough to attract the Hispanic vote or more female support anytime soon.

Not when the majority of their policies seem to focus on stripping women of their reproductive rights, militarizing the border with Mexico, and pushing a religious doctrine into our public schools.

Al Jazeera reports that Catholic hospitals are spreading rapidly and that it negatively impacts the medical choices that are available to women.

Courtesy of Al Jazeera:  

Catholic hospitals provide care for 1 in 6 patients in the United States; they are, collectively, the largest not-for-profit health care provider in the country. As secular hospitals merge with Catholic ones, many health care organizations and the communities they serve are on edge. In Washington state, for example, mergers mean that nearly half of hospital beds are in facilities controlled or influenced by the church, and in many regions a Catholic hospital is the sole provider. Nationwide, Catholic health care providers grew by 16 percent from 2001 to 2011. The number of secular nonprofit hospitals dropped by 12 percent in that period; the number of public hospitals fell by 31 percent. 

Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the “spiritual responsibility” of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of women’s health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited — sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).

Proponents of Catholic health care say that which services religious hospitals offer is a First Amendment issue and that the separation of church and state requires the government to remain hands off. Catholic hospitals provide necessary care to the sick and in need, through a well-funded religious institution with many devotees and volunteers who do excellent, important work. 

But Catholic hospitals receive enormous amounts of state and federal funding, in the form of large tax exemptions, Medicare and Medicaid dollars and specific grants for certain types of care. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks — nearly half their revenue. Catholic hospitals employ and serve populations that are not predominantly Catholic. One-fifth (PDF) of physicians at religious hospitals reported facing a “clinical ethical conflict” in which their medical judgment was at odds with the hospital’s religious policy. Because Catholic hospitals receive public funds and care for a diverse population, they should have a duty to serve the actual health needs of their patients and the ethical obligations of their staffs over church dogma. 

Instead, they put the dogma first. As a result, rape victims are routinely refused emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals. Women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, which are easily ended by a shot of methotrexate or a minor surgery, often find an entire fallopian tube unnecessarily removed — decreasing the odds of future pregnancy — if they seek care at a Catholic facility. And, as Means discovered, even in life-threatening emergencies, Catholic hospitals regularly refuse to terminate pregnancies and may face penalties, including removal of church-affiliated status, if they do so to save the life of the mother. In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospital’s emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospital’s administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church. 

Refusing to provide female patients with a full range of reproductive care is discrimination. Intentionally providing substandard care when safer, better options are available is monstrous. It means women see their bodies damaged, their fertility impaired and their lives threatened. Low-income women and women in rural areas face the greatest hardships, since they may have no other option for care except a Catholic hospital. Rural living means there may not be another hospital for miles. Poverty means finding a provider that accepts Medicaid and is nearby; distance equals more gas money or more time on public transportation and off work. For many women, the closest abortion clinic is hundreds of miles away. Religion should not be an excuse for public health institutions to discriminate so broadly and do such harm. 

This is just another way that religion is attempting to control the lives of women in this country, and it simply should not be tolerated.

We are in the 21st Century, isn't it time to move past these superstitious restrictions on our lives?

After having their funding severely cut in Texas and being forced to close numerous clinics, Planned Parenthood receives help from a wealthy benefactor. And you will NEVER guess who it is. (No fair peeking at the picture.)

Courtesy of Salon:  

Thousands of women have lost access to vital healthcare since Texas dismantled its Medicaid-funded Women’s Health Program in 2011 because Planned Parenthood acted as a service provider under the program. As a result of these cuts, and the persistent targeting of reproductive health clinics by anti-choice lawmakers, many clinics have been forced to close in recent years, leaving Texas women without low- and no-cost options for reproductive healthcare. 

Enter: Ross Perot. 

The Perot Foundation of Dallas, which was founded by the billionaire and former presidential candidate, announced this week that it would be donating $1 million to the beleaguered women’s health provider to help serve the women of Texas. 

“For nearly 100 years Planned Parenthood has helped to educate men and women regarding family planning and general family health,” said Margot Perot in a written statement. “Our family has supported this nonprofit for many years because we are impressed with the work they do — providing birth control; scientifically based education; breast health exams; and basic, life-saving healthcare for women who cannot afford services otherwise.”

I literally thought that the next time I posted about Ross Perot would be to inform everybody of his passing. I NEVER thought that he would be one of the few reasonable people in Texas when it came to women's reproductive rights. 

I can barely think of Perot without remembering Dana Carvey's brilliant impersonation.

Good for the Perot Foundation. Hopefully there are other reasonable organizations that will help to offer cover from the GOP's war on women in Texas and other deeply red states as well.

Since when do corporations have "religious rights?" Well, apparently since now.

Courtesy of RH Reality Check: 

After hearing arguments Friday, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued an order temporarily exempting Hobby Lobby from complying with the contraception benefit in the Affordable Care Act, which requires it to offer insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar birth control or face steep fines. The ruling moves the national fight over the constitutionality of the contraception benefit a significant step closer to the Supreme Court, but also shows a deep divide within the federal judiciary over whether or not corporations have constitutional religious rights. 

The terse, four-page order is the first to flatly bar the federal government from enforcing any part of the contraceptive benefit in the federal health-care law. Judge Heaton, who earlier had turned down an identical request by Hobby Lobby to delay enforcement (his request was overturned by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals), took the opportunity to jab back at the court of appeals, holding that Hobby Lobby had “newly recognized religious rights” that drove much of the conclusion to block enforcement, despite his earlier order refusing to do so. These “newly recognized religious rights,” Heaton’s order makes clear, stem from the Tenth Circuit’s ruling that business firms can take on the religious views of their owners and then exercise those rights on their own in the way they conduct their business operations. 

Judge Heaton made clear that, thanks to the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, he had very little choice other than to grant Hobby Lobby’s request to block the benefit.

Damn do I find THIS troubling. 

So if, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals contends, business firms can take on the religious views of their owners what stops a business owned by Muslims to demand that all of their female employees wear Hijabs or even cover themselves completely?

What stops a Jehovah's Witness business owner from mandating that there be no mention, or celebrating of birthdays or Christmas on the premises due to their belief that they are pagan customs?

Or for that matter if a business is to be an extension of the owner's religious faith, what stops them from discriminating against those of other faiths?

I guess Mitt Romney was right, "Corporations are people my friend."

Like I said, troubling.

Draw the Line - Sign the Bill - Spread the Word.

If YOU want to draw the line as well, just click here.

I don't know about all of you but I am beyond tired of this shit!

For our third post this War on Contraception Friday we get serious: For a growing population in this country once the baby is conceived, the rights of the mother are no longer valid. Update!

Courtesy of Salon:

I was taking an afternoon nap when the hemorrhaging started while my toddler napped in his room when I woke up to find blood gushing upward from my body. Though I didn’t know it at the time, I was experiencing a placental abruption, a complication my doctor had told me was a possibility. My husband was at work, so I had to do my best to take care of me and my toddler on my own. I managed to get to the phone and make arrangements for both of my children before going to a Chicago hospital. 

Everyone knew the pregnancy wasn’t viable, that it couldn’t be viable given the amount of blood I was losing, but it still took hours for anyone at the hospital to do anything. The doctor on call didn’t do abortions. At all. Ever. In fact, no one on call that night did. Meanwhile, an ignorant batch of medical students had gathered to study me — one actually showed me the ultrasound of our dying child while asking me if it was a planned pregnancy. Several wanted to examine me while I lay there bleeding and in pain. No one gave me anything for the pain or even respected my request to close the door even though I was on the labor and delivery floor listening to other women have healthy babies as the baby I had been trying to save died in my womb. 

Finally another doctor was located, the abortion was performed, and the mother's life was saved.

Later I found out that the doctor had taken my husband aside as they brought me into surgery. She promised him she would do her best to save me, but she warned him there was a distinct possibility that she would fail. The doctor who didn’t do abortions was supposed to have contacted her (or someone else who would perform the procedure) immediately. He didn’t. Neither did his students. Supposedly there was a communication breakdown and they thought she had been notified, but I doubt it. I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever. 

My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway. My husband had told them exactly what my regular doctor said, and the ER doctor had already warned us what would have to happen. Yet none of this mattered when confronted by the idea that no one needs an abortion. You shouldn’t need to know the details of why a woman aborts to trust her to make the best decision for herself. I don’t regret my abortion, but I would also never use my situation to suggest that the only time another woman should have the procedure is when her life is at stake. After my family found out I’d had an abortion, I got a phone call from a cousin who felt the need to tell me I was wrong to have interfered with God’s plan. And in that moment I understood exactly what kind of people judge a woman’s reproductive choices.

What a completely terrifying story! I cannot imagine how angry I would have been if I had been this woman's husband!

This is why inserting religion into our politics, our health care, and our public school systems can be so incredibly dangerous.  When people place the desire to honor their faith before the requirement to help their fellow man, bad things can happen. Even fatal things can happen.

This woman was surrounded by medical professionals and yet NONE would help her, deeming the life of an unborn, nonviable, life more worthy of protection than the life of a wife and mother of two.

You would think that in the year 2012 that would be a no-brainer. That people would be more than sophisticated enough to make a decision like this.  But sadly, rather than becoming MORE rational, we are becoming less rational as it pertains to reproduction.

And that is made crystal clear by the fact that Oklahoma might very soon become the first state to pass the so-called "Personhood" bill:   

The Republican-controlled state Senate voted 34-8 to pass the "Personhood Act" which defines the word person under state law to include unborn children from the moment of conception. 

The measure now goes to the state House where pro-life Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than a 2-1 margin.

So today in some sections of America, sections which are increasing in size mind you, women's reproductive rights are under attack yet again. Not only is the fetus suddenly placed in a dominate position once conceived, but in fact access to methods in which to prevent that pregnancy are also fending off attacks.

And these attacks are not inspired by alternative scientific theory or medical advice.  These attacks are purely the result of faith in a religious point of view.  Women all over the country may soon find themselves relegated to nothing more than breeding stock, because male dominated religious organizations have deemed that to be God's will.

Welcome to the reproductive dark ages in America folks.

Update: Just to better illustrate this attack on reproductive rights, let me add that Virginia just passed a law where women seeking termination of their pregnancy are first medically traumatized in an obvious attempt to change their decision:

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed.

I guess the slogan "Virginia is for lovers" no longer applies. Unless of course those lovers are same sex lovers or otherwise unable to conceive.

A big day for a woman's right to control her own reproductive organs as Mississippi's "Personhood" initiative fails.

Courtesy of CBS News:

Mississippi voters Tuesday defeated a ballot initiative that would've declared life begins at fertilization, a proposal that supporters sought in the Bible Belt state as a way to prompt a legal challenge to abortion rights nationwide. 

The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted. If it had passed, it was virtually assured of drawing legal challenges because it conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion. Supporters of the initiative wanted to provoke a lawsuit to challenge the landmark ruling. 

The measure divided the medical and religious communities and caused some of the most ardent abortion opponents, including Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, to waver with their support.

I cannot express how happy I am that this initiative failed.  If it had passed it would have started the kind of chain reaction across the southern states that could have eventually rendered Roe vs Wade essentially impotent.

Good on you Mississippi!