14 February 2012: DC Exile Day 21
This morning, Cone Alone returns with a new twist. I truly hope you enjoy the changes.
Personhoodwinked
13 February 2012: DC Exile Day 20
This morning, the Virginia House of Delegates are hearing debate on HB 1. HB 1 is what is known as a “personhood” bill, meaning it would grant full constitutional and “personhood” rights to zygotes from the moment of conception. The bill’s patron is Delegate Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, who is nothing if not a one-track-minded opponent of women’s health.
It should be no secret I am adamantly opposed to such a bill. Not only does it have the potential to change language so that Virginia could effectively outlaw abortion and ban many forms of birth control, it is another bill in a long line of attacks that do nothing but single out women in an attempt to eradicate their rights.
I’m sure the views from the floor of Virginia’s House of Delegates will be outrageous, so I’ll do my best to put up the highlights here. (You can also listen to the debate live.)
11:50 a.m. (MST) – The House return from a pizza day recess. (Unless I absolutely misheard what they said when going to recess, but I don’t think I did.)
11:52 a.m. (MST) – Debate on HB 1 begins. Floor amendment and floor substitute to be heard. Del. Marshall addressing what he calls “standard objections of the bill” (based on statue in Missouri in 1986). Del. Marshall says that voters in Virginia who said they disagreed with the bill were not “informed.” Del. Marshall also argues that bill would not affect birth control or miscarriage, but does not mention abortion. (Correction – He did say the bill will have no effect on abortion).
12:01 p.m. (MST) Delegate Jennifer McClellan’s substitute bill is ruled not germane. Amendment introduced by Delegate Vivian Watts, D-Fairfax – “Nothing in this section should affect lawful contraception.” Del. Marshall responds to the amendment by saying the amendment is not related to the bill and would put lawmakers on record as “being against the law of gravity.” Del. Watts responds by pointing out “the moment of conception” language in HB 1. Calls out Human Life Alliance piece of literature that describes birth control as abortion. Del. Watts tried to have the dialogue with Del. Marshall in committee, but Del. Marshall refused to offer a definition of conception. Del. Watts – By voting for this bill, “you are voting against birth control.”
12:07 p.m. (MST) The House votes to pass by Del. Watts’ amendment. Delegate Joseph Morrissey, D-Henrico, questions Del. Marshall. When Del. Morrissey asks Del. Marshall if the intent of the bill is to outlaw abortion, Del. Marshall responds in the affirmative. Del. Morrissey mentions the property rights of the zygotes and asks if the cell can sue the mother for drinking, drugs and over indulgence in sugar. Del. Marshall responds by quoting Dr. Seuss. Del. Morrissey – This legislation gives cells property rights. What specific property rights? Del. Marshall – Zygotes is Latin and we should use English in this body.
12:11 p.m. (MST) Del. Morrissey continues to question Del. Marshall. Del. Morrissey – What do you mean when you say “the personhood bill would give the state the backbone to criminalize abortion”? Del. Marshall – This bill does not criminalize abortion in and of itself. Del. Morrissey – The real intent is to create a civil action for a fetus. Why not just amend the wrongful death statute? Why this approach? Del. Marshall – Purpose of this bill is for courts to understand that “child” in utero is a human being. Del. Morrissey – Why not amend the wrongful death code? Del. Marshall – Purpose is to recognize unborn children as human beings. Del. Morrissey – Didn’t Supreme Court rule on substantive Missouri law and not preamble on which HB 1 is based? Del. Marshall – They reversed the Court of Appeals decision and did rule on it. Del. Morrissey – Is it Marshall’s position that the Supreme Court ruled on language on which HB 1 is based? Del. Marshall – Roundabout yes. Del. Morrissey – Was this bill drafted by legislative services? Del. Marshall – No. It was drafted by Rita Dunaway of The Rutherford Institute, a conservative thinktank.
12:19 p.m. Delegate Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, takes the bill head on saying the bill has implications on “the right to privacy and on birth control.” Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax, questions Del. Marshall. “In your opinion, does this bill affect access to current forms of contraception?” Del. Marshall – It does not. Del. Filler-Corn – Does this bill affect in vitro fertilization? Del. Marshall – No. Del. Filler-Corn – Then why is it not appropriate to have an exception for all forms of birth control? Del. Marshall – No. Del. Filler-Corn – If the bill is not intended to strip away the option of contraception, then what is the fear of including an amendment to protect birth control? Del. Marshall – This bill does not deal with nuclear weapons, so there is no point for an amendment saying such.
The bill is passed to the third reading calendar. That means they will hear the bill once more in the House and if it passes the full floor it will move to the Senate for consideration.
12:26 p.m. (MST) – Let’s sum up. Women’s health proponents wished to amend the bill to explicitly protect birth control. Delegate Bob Marshall and House members opposed to women’s health rejected the amendment and did not want to be on record as voting against birth control. I learned (perhaps some persons knew it already) that the Virginia “personhood” bill was drafted by a lawyer at a religious, conservative thinktank.
So, if you live in Virginia, religious White men got one more way to control your reproductive life.
Sanctum Santorum
12 February 2012: DC Exile Day 19
A couple of days ago, I discussed the new no-cost birth control mandate. I just read an update from Reuters that President Obama is sticking by his decision despite continued whining outcry from Catholic bishops and Republicans.
According to the article, Rick Santorum (I’m sure you’ve heard of him by now), responded to Obama’s decision by saying,
They’re forcing religious organizations, either directly or indirectly, to pay for something that they find is a deeply morally wrong thing and this is not what the government should be doing.
Not that logic is ever part of the equation when it comes to debates like this, but the problem is not that religious organizations must pay for something – the problem is that religious organizations and Santorum consider birth control (especially affordable/free birth control) a “deeply morally wrong thing.”
He’s such a pill.
Catholischism
10 February 2012: DC Exile Day 17
Let’s get caught up on some news from the past week.
Big Miracle
On Thursday, GF and I went to see the new film, Big Miracle. The film stars John Krasinski, Drew Barrymore and Kristen Bell. The film’s plot revolves around three whales trapped under ice (much like James Hetfield was) off the coast of Alaska. It takes a daring young reporter, a fiery unstoppable Greenpeace activist and a host of other characters to deal with rescuing these adorable gray whales. The film had two highlights for me. The first involved seeing a Russian tanker (that’s a type of ship for you nautical newbies). Ever since I was in elementary school I had a passive fascination with Russia. It is one place on earth that has a magical, sexy allure for me. When I was a kid, I would stand in the shower (taking a shower) and point my pointer finger in the air. My pointer finger was crooked toward the right (east if you’re facing north) and I always said aloud to myself (quietly and in what I thought was a Russian accent), “Yes. It points to Mother Russia.”
The second highlight of the film was seeing the Russian ship crew taking shots of vodka. I learned that it must be ok to drink and drive if you’re driving a massive piece of metal that is generally in open water. (“Wait, what’s that poking out of the water up ahead? That looks like ice. Nah. It can’t beahhhhhhhh! Cue the violins!”)
Halting the Big Miracle
Catholic bishops and leaders have been wrangling with President Obama regarding the decision that all women should have access to free birth control. President Obama issued a compromise to the mandate that all employers offer no-cost birth control. The coverage from Slate and Mother Jones is helpful in explaining just what the decision means for women working at religiously-affiliated charities, hospitals and schools. NARAL Pro-Choice America calls the decision a “reaffirmation of the commitment to ensuring contraceptive coverage.”
Based on my initial understanding of President Obama’s decision, it seems like a fair compromise and one that will allow all women in the US to benefit from no-cost birth control despite the Catholic bishops’ best attempt to stop women from having access to the full rights of citizens.
Bigoted Miracle
Why do Catholic bishops have any say in the political decisions of this country? The answer should be “they don’t,” but that is sadly not true.
I do not believe that any religious organization should be allowed to open any sort of usually-public institution. Religious organizations should not be allowed to open hospitals, schools, universities, post offices, fire departments or police stations. Religion is inherently a private matter in which private citizens can make private decisions to follow make-believe. (I did it for a large portion of my life.) But those private decisions and beliefs should never get to sway public policy. If Catholic bishops are opposed to birth control – the end. There should be no more to that sentence because it doesn’t matter what comes after their belief as far as public policy is concerned.
Sometimes I feel that we wrongly assume “freedom of religion” is synonymous with and equivalent to “freedom of unchallengeable bigotry.”
Handel’s Pariah
7 February 2012: DC Exile Day 14
Earlier this morning, Mother Jones reported that Karen Handel, Vice President of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, resigned her position amid the recent hoopla.
The hoopla, if you haven’t read yet, is about Komen’s decision to stop giving grant money to Planned Parenthood.
The outcry was vast, rapid and uplifting. GF has been working for years to point out the dangers of money and corporations within the breast cancer movement and the hypocrisy of “racing for a cure” while placing pink ribbons on products that are known to cause cancer. (If you’re interested in getting involved in this kind of activism, I’m sure GF would recommend several organizations: Breast Cancer Action, The Breast Cancer Fund, National Women’s Health Network and Women’s Voices for the Earth.)
While I am glad Handel resigned, I find her resignation letter insulting and condescending. At one point she states:
What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.
I believe Komen made the decision about politics when they singled out an abortion provider that also happens to be one of the largest providers of breast cancer screenings for low-income women. And I don’t think the “development” Handel mentions should “sadden us all greatly.” We should have every right and every avenue to call “bull shit” on companies, nonprofits, organizations and leaders who negate their own mission by undermining healthcare for their own political reasons.
I do hope that Komen continues as an organization, but I hope they are forced to take a hard look at how and why they exist.
The Joseph Richards Show 