Men Protecting Us Little Women AGAIN

My fantasy Sunday morning show is Rachel Maddow hosting a panel made up of Ana Marie Cox, Arianna Huffington, Jessica Valenti, Digby, and Donna Brazile discussing the merits of the public money paying for prostrate exams and Viagra. Maybe then David Gregory and NBC will get a clue as to why it is so insulting for him to use a panel of men to discuss abortion.

Taylor Marsh covered it well:

Well, as with the late Tim Russert, once again with David Gregory on “Meet the Press,” women are not seen or heard at a time when abortion politics has been at the center of the healthcare debate. (I’ve been covering this reality for years.) That women also pay more for health insurance evidently doesn’t meet the “Meet the Press” standards for being included in the debate. That says it all, not only about the continuing If It’s Sunday, It’s Misogyny . . .

Silly me, why would the opinion of a woman be useful when talking about abortion rights anyway? We're so lucky to have the menfolk talking for us silly women!

Viagra vs Abortion

The fabulous Digby has hit the nail on the head as usual:

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)

Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings. . .

I completely agree. Where do I sign the petition?

Stupak Amendment is a Poison Pill

I say if the Stupak Amendment is in the final bill after conference -- vote against it. I will not throw young women under the bus for these Blue Dogs and Republithugs.

Joel Connelly Spouts Ignorance

Joel Connelly's column on Sunday takes the side of pharmacists who are forced against their poor fragile sensibilities to disburse emergency contraceptives. He cites a poor pharmacist who:

... is able to practice her profession thanks to an injunction by U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton, who suspended a state regulation. It requires pharmacies to dispense Plan B and permits individual pharmacists to decline only if a fellow worker on hand at the same store will supply the drug.

Connelly concudes:

I'd argue for a policy of conscience and respect. The pharmacist should not be forced into a Hobson's choice: Violate conscience or pay the penalty of losing your job.

And then Connelly states: that a

. . . scribe can write a column sympathetic to the pro-life viewpoint.

Here's my response that I sent to him:

Unfortunately you have the facts wrong in your column of February 1, 2009. The morning after pill does not cause an abortion. It does not kill a fetus or even a blastemas. Plan B or Levonorgestrel simply prevents a pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. It is NOT an abortion pill and cannot terminate an existing pregnancy. Certain groups who are against contraceptives have deliberately used framing and word choices to tie their cause with the more emotional anti-abortion cause and have almost successfully confused the 2 issues. You have fallen victim to their confusing rhetoric.

Also being "anti-abortion" is not automatically "pro-life". Just as being "pro-choice" is not "anti-life". Again, you are confusing the rhetoric of groups with an agenda with facts.

Finally I wonder if your support for "a policy of conscience and respect" would extend to an anesthesiologist who doesn't believe in administering drugs? Or a pediatrician who cannot in good conscience provide vaccinations? Or a veterinarian who refuses to euthanize even dangerously sick animals?

If people cannot in good conscience do their job, in my opinion, they should find another field.

Huckabee

I'm a little sad that Huckabee is crashing and burning so soon. His meltdown after the Bhutto assassination showing his complete lack of any international knowledge came too soon. I was looking forward to him gathering steam and then watching the inevitable overt trashing of the evangelicals by the Republican party. For a couple decades they have talked the talk and courted them but almost never delivered on any of their wishes. I'm sure the evanelicals know they are the ugly cousin, just invited to the party becuase the Repubs have to, but otherwise ignored and forgotten. But if Huchabee started gathering steam, the repubs would have to start trashing him and it would be obvious to even the most die hard denier.


I have a question for Huckabee after his performance yesterday on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Some Americans believe that life does not begin at conception, and that it's...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, scientifically I think that's almost...a point that you couldn't argue. How, how could you say that life doesn't begin at conception...
MR. RUSSERT: Right. Do you respect that view? [..]
GOV. HUCKABEE: I respect it as a view, but I don't think it has biological credibility.

So since two-thirds of fertilized eggs are spontaneously discarded through the menstral flow, should we start holding funerals and burials for all our pads and tampons?

Sorry to be crude. But his argument always gets me. I can go along with the viability test but the 'moment of conception'!!??