This blogaround brought to you by coughing.
Recommended Reading:
Todd: Karger Slams Bachmanns Over Gay Reversion Therapy
Andy: New York Issues New Marriage Licenses to Recognize Same-Sex Couples, Adding Term 'Spouse'
Annalee: This lost continent off the coast of Scotland disappeared beneath the ocean 55 million years ago.
Arwyn: Gender Diverse Parenting: A Primer
Adrienne: Words of Inspiration: Native High Schoolers' College Essays
Peter: The Left in Despair: Why the National Debate Is Conducted on the Right's Terms
Susie: Campaign Cash
Atrios: Don't They Have Parents?
Maha: Rupert Murdoch vs. Democracy
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Wednesday Blogaround
Breaking News
Pets are awesome (with requisite caveats about being a person who enjoys the company of animals here):
Lots of research has indicated that having a dog or a cat can help people live happier, healthier lives. But it's been unclear whether there really is a cause-and-effect relationship between pet ownership and better physical and mental health. Now, new research indicates that the benefits of having a canine or feline companion are real and broad.The most unbalanced and unhappy I ever felt in my life was my first few years of college, when I was living in dorms in which I was not allowed to own a pet. There were many reasons that my emotional equilibrium was off during that time, but I remember frequently wishing, so desperately, that I could have a pet. I grew up with animals, cats and dogs and horses and turtles and rabbits and birds, and the first opportunity I got to have animals as an adult, once I moved out of the dorms and into an apartment, I adopted my beloved Jimmy, and I have lived with animals ever since.
A team of psychologists from Miami University and St. Louis University conducted a series of studies aimed at trying to tease out the benefits of pet ownership.
"Although there is correlational evidence that pets may help individuals facing significant life stressors, little is known about the well-being benefits of patterns for everyday people," they wrote in a paper published online this week by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
...The researchers found that, in fact, there were lots of differences [between pet owners and people who do not own pets], with pet owners faring much better overall. For example, pet owners tended to be less lonely, have higher self-esteem, get more exercise, be more extroverted and were less fearful about getting close to other people.
..."In summary, pets can serve as important sources of social support, providing many positive psychological and physical benefits for their owners," the researchers wrote.
I am, without a doubt, a person whose life is better because of the animals with whom I share it.
*goes to the treat drawer*
Film Corner!
Below: The trailer for the upcoming Adam Sandler comedy, Jack and Jill. Trigger warnings for transmisogyny, violence, fat hatred, disablist language, and reference to self-harm.
Adam Sandler and Katie Holmes are a happily married couple with two kids, one of whom appears to be of Indian or Middle Eastern descent, which I'm sure will be mined for MAXIMUM LAFFS. Decorations inform us that it's Christmastime. As action-comedy music begins, a male voiceover says, "In every family, there's one person who drives you a little crazy. But during the holidays, there's no escaping it when it's your sister…your twin sister!"
Jack (Sandler) begrudgingly goes to the airport to pick up his sister…his twin sister!...Jill, who turns around and is—SURPRISE!—Adam Sandler in a shitty wig and ladies' clothes. Well, why should Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence and Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis and Tyler Perry and Marlon Wayans and Shawn Wayans and John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman and Robbie Coltrane and Eric Idle and Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari have all the fun?!
(I kind of can't believe that Mike Myers has not starred in at least one film where he's playing a ridiculously offensive female character in hideous prosthetics. LUCKILY THERE IS STILL TIME!)
Anyway!
Jack and Jill are exactly alike—but, of course, this means that Jack is awesome and Jill is horrible. "She isn't subtle," we are told, as Jill is rude to one of Jack's dinner guests, to which Jack responds by insulting her, because no doy he is a great person. "She isn't shy," we are told, as she gives Jack a list of things she'd like to do while visiting him in his beautiful home in the sunny state in which he lives his affluent and privileged life, to which Jack responds by looking at the list like it's a piece of fetid garbage. One of the items is horseback riding, and we cut immediately to a scene of Jill breaking a horse's legs by climbing on its back, because, even though she is the same size as Jack, she is enormous by virtue of her femaleness.
"And she isn't leaving," we are told, as Jill suggests she'll stay through Hanukkah, prompting cheers from her sister-in-law, niece, and nephew, and prompting Jack to mime putting a gun in his mouth.
His friend makes fun of how ugly his twin sister is and Jack just grins. His wife tells him to try to be nice. He takes Jill to a Lakers game, where she is spotted by Al Pacino, who sends her his number in condiments on a hotdog.
Nope!
In the car on the way home, Jack says Jill has to call him, to which she responds by saying, "Oh, will you stop already? You know all he wants to do is play Twister with your sister!" Ha ha—obviously she is SUCH AN ASSHOLE for being a frigid prude who doesn't want to fuck a celebrity who propositioned her with a hotdog-gram.
Cut to the whole family vacationing on a cruise ship. (Whut? This movie is definitely garbage even by garbage standards.) It turns out Jack and Jill were "double-dutch kings!" and they jump rope together in front of a huge and appreciative crowd, because, as everyone knows, jump rope is a very popular thing on cruise ships.
Montage of crappy scenes from this shitty film reinforcing the premise that Jack is normal and good and Jill is weird and horrible.
Cut to a dinner scene at which Katie Holmes mentions how some twins can feel when the other one is hurt. Jill slaps herself in the face. Jack says he didn't feel it and tells her to do it a little harder. She continues to smack herself harder and harder until Katie Holmes stops her: "No, Jill, stop it! He's kidding!" Jill gives him a you-devil look: "What?!" His young son then punches her in the face, knocking her out of her chair and onto the floor. "Feel that, Daddy?!" he asks. Jack nods: "I actually did feel something there—pride in my son."
Coming in November.
My guess is that this is another one of those films I call Deathbed Confession Cinema, in which you get to laugh at fat jokes and/or transmisogyny and/or ethnic jokes and/or other marginalizing humor for two hours before a heavy-handed dénouement in which a childish moral of the story—"X" are people who are deserving of love and respect, too!—is tacked on to hastily absolve both filmmakers and audience their production and enjoyment of the preceding onslaught of mockery.
Jill will be an object of ridicule and contempt for the entirety of the movie, as seen through protagonist Jack's eyes, and then there will be a contrived reversal at which point Jack will realize the error of his ways in an allegedly feelgood ending that is simultaneously oppressively didactic and hopelessly hollow.
And which probably mistakes pity for empathy.
Deathbed Confession Cinema is nasty stuff. The films are consciously marketed (as here) as sexist, queer-hating, fat-hating, xenophobic, lowest-common-denominator muck, and spend most of their screen-time being precisely that, and then cynically attempt to justify it with a pithy ending in which a gross protagonist is "enlightened" about his (always "his") bullying ways.
So the film's premise stinks for that reason.
It also stinks for the reason that it functions, if not intentionally, as some crypto-Freudian commentary on hatred of the feminine in the male self. Jill is the feminine aspect of Jack, and she manifests as every negative stereotype of the feminine—weak, stupid, ineffectual, incompetent, unsexual, infantile—whose only positive attributes appear to be nurture and entombing her feelings of rejection.
And, of course, serving as a punching bag for Jack's son, because there's no better male bonding ritual than violent misogyny.
It's interesting that the trailer suggests Jack and Jill's inevitable reconnection may begin with a game of double-dutch, which is an almost exclusively female childhood activity, suggesting that men achieve decency and wholeness by embracing their feminine aspect through participation in female spheres. Which, you know, would be a pretty cool message, if it weren't tacked onto the end of Deathbed Confession Cinema that had spent the preceding two hours denigrating the feminine aspect.
In defter hands, this story might have made a compelling allegory. But, alas, Hollywood prefers the Invisible Hand to deft ones.
Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations
Here's the latest...
New York Times—McConnell Proposal Gives Obama Power to Increase Debt Limit:
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Tuesday that a bipartisan budget deal with President Obama was probably out of reach, and he proposed a plan under which the president could increase the federal debt limit without Congressional approval for offsetting spending cuts.TPMDC—McConnell Debt Back-Up Plan Gives Dems Opportunity To Break GOP Anti-Tax Hegemony:
...Mr. McConnell's proposal would give Mr. Obama sweeping power to increase the government's borrowing authority, in increments, by up to $2.4 trillion — enough, it is estimated, to cover federal obligations through next year — only if Mr. Obama specified spending cuts of equal amounts. But Congress would not have to approve the spending cuts prior to the debt-limit increase.
It is not clear whether House Republicans would sign on to such a measure, given their drive to extract deep spending cuts in return for any debt-limit increase.
The plan itself was clear enough: Republicans don't really have the stomach to allow the country to default on its debt in pursuit of their decades-long goals of slashing deeply into popular entitlement programs. But instead of admitting that and extending President Obama's borrowing authority through the 2012 election, McConnell proposed a Rube Goldberg-esque scheme by which Obama, by accepting some public embarrassment for himself and his party, could raise the debt limit on his own, with no policy strings attached.The Hill—McConnell fallback plan would leave debt-ceiling hikes to Obama:
No spending cuts for Republicans. No tax increases for Democrats. In effect, a clean debt-limit hike with all attendant political consequences, such as there are any, falling on the latter.
McConnell described his proposal as a "last choice option" to avoid a national default if Congress fails to reach a compromise to raise the debt limit by Aug. 2.Naturally, his attempt at being vaguely reasonable (by GOP standards) was immediately met with "immediate, fierce criticism from grassroots conservatives, who are furious at the lack of firm spending cuts."
"It's extremely important that the country reassure the markets that default is not an option and reassure Social Security recipients and families of military veterans that default is not an option," McConnell said.
The Hill—Tea Party group tells McConnell to 'find his spine': "The influential conservative Tea Party organization FreedomWorks is pushing back on a plan by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to hand much of the responsibility for raising the debt ceiling to President Obama. 'Sen. McConnell thinks cutting spending is too hard. Help him find his spine! Call him at 202-224-2541,' the group tweeted."
CNN—Gingrich blasts McConnell over debt ceiling: "Despite recent public scraps with his own party, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich didn't hold back Tuesday on the subject of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's debt ceiling plan. 'McConnell's plan is an irresponsible surrender to big government, big deficits and continued overspending,' Gingrich tweeted."
TPMDC—Grover Norquist: Rumors Of My Support For The McConnell Debt Plan Are Greatly Exaggerated: "A couple hours after the National Review posted Norquist's initial take on the plan (and as conservative anger at McConnell bubbled up) Norquist pushed back, claiming that he's not endorsing anything, yet. 'Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist did not endorse any particular debt limit contingency plan, as has been alleged,' ATR wrote in a blog post. 'He did endorse the objective of Leader McConnell's effort to force the President to put his spending plan in writing.' Though he's not officially endorsing it, Norquist is continuing to say nicer things about McConnell's plan than just about anyone on the right."
Meanwhile...
Gallup—U.S. Debt Ceiling Increase Remains Unpopular With Americans: "Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure."
WaPo—Congress hears outcry from business lobby on debt ceiling and deficit: "A sprawling coalition of Wall Street and Main Street business leaders sent an unmistakable message to lawmakers Tuesday: Enough squabbling. Get the debt ceiling raised. The message, sent in a letter to President Obama and every member of Congress, puts pressure on GOP lawmakers, who have staked out an uncompromising stance against raising taxes in the partisan wrangling over the country's borrowing limit."
And meanwhile still...
ThinkProgress—Cantor Proposes Cutting $353 Billion from Medicare and Medicaid: "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has proposed $353 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, which he suggested in the deficit reduction talks yesterday at the White House. Cantor's plan would cut $100 billion in matching payments to states for Medicaid, and save $109 billion by increasing co-payments, reducing home health payments, and prohibiting first dollar coverage for Medigap policies."
Discuss.
Question of the Day
A perennial favorite: What are you reading?
This week I'm digging into Contested Will by James Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro looks into the many speculations about who really wrote all those plays credited to William Shakespeare.
MESSENGER: I see, lady, the gentleman is not in your books.
BEATRICE: No an he were, I would burn my study.
-- Much Ado About Nothing.
Obama Says GOP Is Holding People's Checks Hostage
CBS: "Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3."
President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.On one hand, I'm glad to see the President underlining precisely what's at stake and laying responsibility clearly at the feet of the Republicans and their ideological rigidity.
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.
...Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."
On the other hand, I'm like, "No shit, dude. That's why you shouldn't bother negotiating with these assholes IN THE FIRST PLACE."
Concessions to the inflexible doesn't make them bend. It just leaves you with a weaker position.
And, make no mistake: "We will stand the line and defend Social Security and Medicare against Republican attempts to destroy them" is a stronger position than "We offered to help them destroy Social Security and Medicare, and they STILL wouldn't budge!"
Daily Dose of Cute
Video Description: Just straight-up video of Tils lying on the couch being cute. She rolls around, paws at the camera, and generally looks adorbz.
Echoes from Katrina's Aftermath Still Reverberating
[Trigger warning for violence.]
Former New Orleans police detective Jeffrey Lehrmann testified this week "that he participated in a plot to fabricate witnesses, falsify reports and plant a gun to make it seem police were justified in shooting unarmed residents on a New Orleans bridge after Hurricane Katrina."
Jeffrey Lehrmann, a government witness in the federal trial of five current or former officers, said he saw Sgt. Arthur "Archie" Kaufman retrieve a gun from his home several weeks after the deadly shootings on the Danziger Bridge. Kaufman later turned the gun in as evidence, claiming he found it under the bridge a day after the 2005 shootings that left two people dead and four others wounded.After Madison had been shot by another officer, Lehrmann handcuffed him, only to be told later that Madison had died.
Lehrmann said Kaufman instructed him to fill out paperwork that claimed the gun belonged to Lance Madison, whose mentally disabled brother, Ronald, was shot and killed on the bridge. Lance Madison was arrested on attempted murder charges and held for more than three weeks before a judge freed him.
Lehrmann said Kaufman, his supervisor, had grown concerned because the judge who freed Madison didn't believe Kaufman's testimony at the hearing.
"Therefore, we needed a gun," Lehrmann said.
Lehrmann said the officers immediately afterward started to "get their stories straight."This is, of course, not a surprise. It has been known for some time that, in the aftermath of Katrina, gun-owners were forced—at gunpoint—to hand over their guns, even in areas unaffected by the hurricane, as part of the martial law that was quietly instituted, including giving police orders to shoot looters.
"We had a lot of problems because it was a bad shoot," he said.
"What was the goal of the cover-up?" prosecutor Cindy Chung asked.
"Protect the officers from legal ramifications," he said.
Still, I don't even know what to say, other than I'm glad this information is finally coming to light at long last. I fervently hope that justice will be done, and fear that it won't be.
[H/T to Spudsy. Related Reading:
Quote of the Day
"I'm running for the presidency of the United States, and I'm here today to talk about job creation, and also the fact that we do have a business that deals with job creation. We're very proud of the business that we created."—Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Idiculous), responding to being asked if reparative therapy is conducted in the therapy center that she co-owns with and is run by her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.
Pressed again, Bachmann replied, "Well, I'm here to talk about my run for the presidency of the United States. As I said, again, we're very proud of our business and we're proud of all job creators in the United States. That's what people really care about."
Whooooooooops! No, I'm pretty sure people actually care about whether you are making money off of "therapies" sought by people who are ashamed (or whose families are ashamed) of who they are because of institutional hatred of homosexuality and LGB people, a hatred culturally and legally promoted by you as an avowed anti-gay legislator who supports federal anti-gay legislation.
Apart from being evidence of your well-documented lack of decency, Rep. Bachmann, one might suggest that's also what the kids call a "conflict of interest."
Also: LULZ at your pride for "all job creators in the United States." Cool. I hope you'll donate to national job-creator Planned Parenthood, then, so they can HIRE MORE PEOPLE!
Seen
In my fortune cookie:
A man's best possession is a sympathetic wife.
Yep. OMG you guys, I gotta get me one of those "possessions," like, yesterday.
More Attacks on Planned Parenthood
Another ironically-named group, Americans United for Life (AUL), has put out a ginormous publication in an attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood. The group claims it went through 20 years of Planned Parenthood records in an effort to expose the organization as...something.
In an executive summary of the report, AUL noted that Planned Parenthood “often tries to underplay the significance of abortion to its business model. However, as this report details, abortion has a tremendous impact on Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. This is true to a greater degree each year, and Planned Parenthood has plans to expand its abortion business.”The report was given out on capitol hill and the group is trying to get a congressional investigation happening into the group. Predictably, the anti-abortion camp is positively jubilant at this report.
Planned Parenthood released a rebuttal, of course, some of which can be read here. I wanted to know what the actual "media release" said, so I emailed Tait Sye, Planned Parenthood's press contact, and asked for the media release. She very nicely emailed it back to me.
TO: Interested PartiesPlanned Parenthood goes on to highlight some of the report, here is the rest of the release in full (emphasis theirs):
FROM: Planned Parenthood
RE: Fact Check on AUL’s Misleading "Report" on Planned Parenthood
DATE: July 7, 2011
Planned Parenthood statement on Americans United for Life (AUL)’s ideologically-driven publication:
“Planned Parenthood is proud of the trust millions of women place in us every year to provide high quality health care. We approach our work with a deep sense of responsibility to the patients we serve, and recognize that the importance of our work is growing because in many communities, we are often the only source of affordable quality health care for women.
It’s clear that a strong majority of Americans support Planned Parenthood, since a recent CNN poll shows 65 percent of Americans support continued funding for Planned Parenthood to provide primary and preventive health care, including contraception, cancer screenings, and STD tests and treatment, through public health programs like Medicaid.
The publication manufactured by AUL rejects scientific evidence, promotes false health claims, and recycles misleading and discredited charges, as well as old issues that have already been addressed. In an effort to undermine women’s access to Planned Parenthood, AUL draws unfounded and inaccurate conclusions from select pieces of data often taken out of context.
Simply put, this ‘so-called’ report actually insults the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
Planned Parenthood takes seriously our role and responsibility as a trusted health care provider. We promptly address any concerns that are raised, and take corrective action if necessary. Our top priority is and always will be providing high quality health care to women.
In contrast, AUL’s policies are in direct conflict with what the vast majority of Americans support. For instance, AUL opposes common forms of birth control. And as evidenced by their ‘so-called’ report, they have little regard for the facts or improving women’s health outcomes."
FACT CHECK: A cursory review of AUL’s “so-called” report reveals a number of distortions and misrepresentations:AUL has, of course, released a rebuttal that can be found at their site. The Heritage Foundation is hosting AUL's lawyer in a conference today on their site as well. AUL CEO and President Charmaine Yoest makes no bones about that AUL's intention to use its resources to help strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding and it's come up with model legislation for states to use (which they've titled "Joint Resolution to Promote Women’s Safety by Investigating and Defunding Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion Providers"). By the way, the basis for defending this "legislation" is based on discredited Live Action videos done by virulent, obsessive Planned Parenthood hater Lila Rose.
AUL Claim: AUL’s “so-called” report [ed note: report is .pdf -- Misty] claims a 2010 US General Accounting Office report “demonstrates that even the federal government does not know” how much federal funding Planned Parenthood receives. (pg. 8)
FACT CHECK: This is a recycled charge about alleged missing money that a 2011 PolitiFact fact check rejected as “Pants on Fire” lie. Planned Parenthood health centers are similar to hospitals and other providers that receive payments from public programs like Medicaid for specific medical visits, treatments, and procedures. Planned Parenthood undergoes routine audits to ensure proper use of public funds.
AUL Claim: AUL’s “so-called” report claims “some Planned Parenthood clinics appear willing to provide inaccurate and misleading information regarding fetal development and the risks of abortion to women’s health…. Planned Parenthood failed to provide the young woman who sought its advice essential information, including the fact that induced abortion increases the risk of miscarriage by 55 percent in subsequent pregnancies, and that there exists a heightened risk of suicide and psychiatric admissions to women who have had an induced abortion.” (p.22)
FACT CHECK: This is blatantly false and scientifically inaccurate. A 2008 American Psychiatric Association report found no reliable evidence that abortion is linked to suicide. Their report says, “In the view of the TFMHA (Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion), the best scientific evidence indicates that the relative risk of mental health problems among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy is no greater if they have an elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.” A Guttmacher report states, “Several reviews of the available scientific literature affirm that vacuum aspiration—the modern method most commonly used during first-trimester abortions—poses virtually no long-term risks of future fertility-related problems, such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion or congenital malformation.” The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care states in a study abstract, “Abortion is clearly safer than childbirth. There is no evidence of an association between abortion and breast cancer. Women who have abortions are not at increased risk of mental health problems over and above women who deliver an unwanted pregnancy. There is no negative effect of abortion on a woman's subsequent fertility.”
AUL Claim: AUL’s “so-called” report says: “Notably, the RU-486 regimen often fails to cause a complete abortion…. off-label use by Planned Parenthood clinics up to 63 days or beyond is common, despite the increased risk of failure and the increased risks to women’s lives and health.” (pg. 22)
FACT CHECK: AUL is false in asserting a high failure rate of medication abortion (RU-486). Medication abortions are successful about 97 percent of cases. AUL is also false in asserting that Planned Parenthood’s use of evidence-based protocol is unsafe. A study in Obstetrics and Gynecology (12/08; Vol. 112; No.6) showed a 96.2 percent efficacy in the buccal protocol up to 63 days (Planned Parenthood’s protocol). Planned Parenthood’s Medical Standards and Guidelines are evidenced-based and the 63 day protocol was only approved after research was completed and published in the leading peer-reviewed journals. It is common practice for evidence-based protocol or off-label use of drugs. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that 21 percent of all prescriptions were for off-label use of drugs.
AUL Claim: AUL’s “so-called report” says, “Planned Parenthood’s ‘services’ for its pregnant clients are overwhelmingly abortions…. In sum, abortion represented over 97 percent of PPFA’s pregnancy-related services in 2009.” (pg. 2)
FACT CHECK: This is a recycled charge similar to a misleading claim made by Rep. Jean Schmidt that PolitiFact fact checked, and called “false.” They write, “(t)he anti-abortion groups came up with the 98 percent figure by comparing the number of abortions to the number of procedures in the other two categories… But there are problems with that calculation. First, it assumes that pregnant women only go to Planned Parenthood for one of those three options.”
AUL Claim: AUL’s “so-called” report says, “Ectopic pregnancies ‘treated’ with the RU-486 regimen can rupture and kill the woman.” (p.22)
FACT CHECK: There is no evidence from published research studies to suggest that mifepristone increases the likelihood of rupture in an ectopic preganancy. In fact there are several studies, including a Cochrane review of 35 studies, that demonstrate that mifepristone increases the success of standard medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy (methotexate). This would suggest that if mifepristone has any impact on the natural course of an ectopic pregnancy it is positive.
AUL Claim: AUL’s “so-called” report says, “Planned Parenthood boasts of its role in the approval of a new drug, ella, yet provides considerable misinformation about the drug.” (pg. 24)
FACT CHECK: It is false to assert that Planned Parenthood is providing misinformation about ella. The health information on Planned Parenthood’s website is medically accurate and evidenced-based. It is written and fact checked by health professionals. For patients that receive emergency contraception (EC), the information shared during the consent process is as follows: How does EC work? One type of EC (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice) is made of one of the hormones made by a woman’s body — progestin. Another type (ella) blocks the body’s own progestin. Both types of EC keep a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm.
AUL Claim: AUL’s website says: “Some drugs classified as ‘contraceptives’ by the FDA, such as Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) and Plan B (the so-called ‘morning after pill’), can kill an embryo by blocking its ability to implant in the uterus…. Thus, if HHS decides to include ‘contraception’ as ‘preventive care,’ all insurance plans will be required to provide coverage of these abortion-inducing drugs.”
FACT CHECK: It is scientifically and medically inaccurate to claim that contraceptives such as IUDs and Plan B are “abortion-inducing drugs.” They prevent pregnancy, not induce an abortion. It is further scientifically and medically inaccurate to claim that blocking implantation is an “abortion.” A World Health Organization letter states, “To date, there is no scientific evidence supporting the contention that hormonal contraceptives and IUD prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum.”
In short, a quick review of AUL’s “so-called” report reveals an uncredible document with significant scientific errors and misleading health claims. It’s clear that AUL is an ideological organization that will not let facts get in the way of their goal to overturn Roe v. Wade, and undermine women’s ability to go to Planned Parenthood and see the health care provider they trust.
In an effort to keep momentum for a congressional hearing and get their agenda moving faster, AUL included--in it's report given out on capitol hill--a list of 44 “potential witnesses for congressional hearings”. Florida Rep Cliff Stearns (R-idiculous), who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, has indicated he might, indeed, push for investigation because he's not convinced there is any good reason to fund Planned Parenthood at all.
Photo of the Day
Winners of the Google Science Fair (L-R): Lauren Hodge, Shree Bose, and Naomi Shah.
The girls swept up at the inaugural Google Science Fair, winning all three age categories. Shree Bose also won the Grand Prize.
And lest you get visions of baking soda volcanoes: Lauren Hodge, winner of the 13-14 age group, "studied the effect of different marinades on the level of potentially harmful carcinogens in grilled chicken," Naomi Shah, winner of the 15-16 age group, "endeavored to prove that making changes to indoor environments that improve indoor air quality can reduce people's reliance on asthma medications," and Shree Bose, winner of the 17-18 age group, "discovered a way to improve ovarian cancer treatment for patients when they have built up a resistance to certain chemotherapy drugs." !!!
Our judges said the unifying elements of all three young women were their intellectual curiosity, their tenaciousness and their ambition to use science to find solutions to big problems. They examined complex problems and found both simple solutions that can be implemented by the general public—like changing your cooking habits or removing toxins from your home—as well as more complex solutions that can be addressed in labs by doctors and researchers, such as Shree's groundbreaking discovery, which could have wider implications for cancer research.Emphasis mine. What extraordinary young women.
LOVE the Lego trophies, btw.
Introducing "A Cunt of One's Own"
[Note: I'm excited to announce a new project. I'm cross-posting this introduction at a new blog, which you can find here. While the blog is new, I've been working on it long enough to post a bit more background, including a video where I explain what the hell is going through my mind. I've also created a project-specific Twitter feed for those who want to follow various cunty happenings.]
As I may have mentioned on the Internet once or twice, I'm a trans woman. As I may not have mentioned, I'm faced with significant medical bills. These things are related.
Thus, I'm announcing the A Cunt of One's Own project. I'm a feminist writer trying to raise enough money to buy a vagina, so there really wasn't anything else I could have named it. The kids, they love the Virginia Woolf references.
This project has a couple of purposes. First, I need to raise $15,000 to pay my medical bills. That's an end in-and-of itself.
Second, I want to challenge the way that society thinks about trans* people and medical care. People with cis privilege tend, accordingly, to be oblivious to the hurdles that trans* people face. And hell, people with medical bills hold public fundraisers all the time that frequently include all sorts of fun medical tidbits. Why not a fundraiser for my queer ass (crotch, actually) bills?
During the next year, I will be blogging about trans*ness and health care at A Cunt of One's Own. The issues I'm dealing with aren't just about trans* people, though. The same forces that conspire to regulate trans* bodies oppress (other) women, people of color, the poor, the incarcerated, the fat, the disabled, and other intersecting groups that society views as less than. I plan on having a lot of fun using my personal experiences to explore these larger issues of bodily autonomy.
I can't not plan on having fun. This shit is too serious.
I'm immensely grateful for any donations that people are willing or able to make. The are other ways to help, including spreading the word. Perhaps most importantly, I invite you to follow, comment on, and otherwise participate in A Cunt of One's Own.
Thank you,
Kate
xox
Today in Anti-Woman Douchecanoery
First up is New Hampshire. Oh, New Hampshire. The NH Council voted last week to not renew a contract with Planned Parenthood there. PP there has operated under a limited pharmacy lisence based on that particular contract. Without the contract, the clinics are now no longer dispensing contraception. The reasoning for the denial of the contract? The same, tired bullshit about not wanting taxpayers to fund an organization that provides a medical service some people don't like.
The Planned Parenthood contract, which accounts for about 20 percent of its annual New Hampshire budget, would have paid for education, distributing contraception, and the testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The organization's abortion practice is paid for by private donations, Trombley [Steve, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England] said, with audits ensuring no public money is used.The centers are turning away 20 - 30 people per day--people who cannot afford to pay full cost for contraception. Some, in part, due to lack of insurance. Don't, however, look to the council to necessarily care:
Last year, Planned Parenthood provided contraception for 13,242 patients in New Hampshire, Trombley said. The organization also provided 6,112 breast exams, 5,548 screenings for cervical cancer and 18,858 tests for sexually transmitted infections. If the contract is not renewed, Planned Parenthood will drastically reduce its services, Trombley said. The organization employs 80 people in New Hampshire.
Planned Parenthood treats 52 percent of patients whose care is subsidized by the New Hampshire state family planning program, Trombley said. It provides its services on a sliding scale based on income, with 70 percent of patients paying nothing or near nothing for birth control pills because they earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty line.
Another executive councilor who opposed the contract, Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester, said he had asked if the contract could exclude the issuance of condoms. Wieczorek said he supports paying to test for sexually transmitted diseases but does not believe the state should subsidize contraception.Really, that just says it all right there, don't you think?
"If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he said.
Next up: More Wisconsin.
In Wisconsin, an anti-abortion group is demanding the attorney general start enforcing a provision added onto Scott Walker's budget clusterfuck that is directed at university med students and their ability to learn adequate and comprehensive patient care procedures.
State law has long prohibited the use of public funds to pay physicians to perform most abortions. As amended by the Republican-controlled Legislature last month, that state law now specifies that UW Hospital and Clinics is in fact a state “agency” and subject to this law.The "Right to Life" group opposes this reasoning saying that it's just "legalistic manipulations". The group blathers on about how "residents need to be instructed how to save, preserve and respect life, not how to kill preborn children..." but they obviously don't give a shit about saving, preserving, or respecting the lives of women who need the medical procedures a resident learns how to do in training. Just for one example: after 10 weeks gestation, a miscarriage is more likely to be incomplete and a woman may need a D&C. Does this so called "pro-life" group care? No. They don't. They don't give a shit about women except as incubators for those "preborn children" (once born, though, those same people scream "BOOTSTRAPS!").
UW Health asked Gov. Scott Walker to veto the provision, charging that the claim UWHC uses state funds is “incorrect” and will set a dangerous precedent with “disastrous consequences” that will ripple far beyond the controversial issue of abortion training. UW claims that without the training, which involves two rotations for one month outside the university premises at Planned Parenthood clinics, its gynecology and obstetrics training program could lose its accreditation and women in Wisconsin could lose access to many health services across the state, not just abortions.
[...]
Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen, the medical director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin who also has an academic practice at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, says it is vital for medical students to be trained in abortion services.
“There are medically indicated pregnancy terminations, and physicians need to have skills to do that,” says Broekhuizen. He notes that even physicians who do not work in abortion clinics may well need to perform an abortion.
“There are situations where patients have fetal death in utero at 16 to 18 weeks of gestation,” he says. “The mode of delivery in the case of a dead fetus is exactly the same procedure as an abortion procedure. So learning these techniques is an essential part of what an ob/gyn needs to know in order to provide comprehensive care to women, regardless of where they choose to practice.”
And this is why, he says, the accreditation organization for ob/gyn programs requires that training in abortion services be offered. “Residents can opt out if they have moral objections, but that should be part of the training.” And without elective abortion procedures offered at UW or any other Madison hospital, the only option for such training is Planned Parenthood, he adds.
In opposing the Republican budget measure, UW Hospital officials also argued that UW does not pay for the training because Meriter Hospital funds that portion of resident training.
There are not words to describe my contempt for these anti-life crusaders. They like to point at pro-choice people and call them "pro-death" but pro-choicers aren't the ones condemning women to not have access to medical care or comprehensively trained physicians.
News from Shakes Manor
So, I've got the flu or the cold or wevthefuck it is that's going around which makes you epically sick in the face, and, when I woke up this morning, it had settled firmly in my throat and chest, completely fubaring my voice.
I sort of sound like a vocoded Vin Diesel. Which, although a very appropriate voice for a Steampunk Abortion Robot, is definitely a change from my usual tone.
When I just asked Dudley if he needed to go out, he cocked his head at me and gave me a look that seemed to say, "What have you done with my Two-Legs, alien?"
Assange's Curious Defense
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape apologia, and victim-blaming.]
Hey, remember when the rape allegations against Julian Assange were first made public, and Very Important Men (and Women) were falling all over each other to mendaciously misrepresent the charges and discredit the complainants and peddle conspiracy theories and defend Assange on the basis that he does Important Work and, more importantly, he doesn't SEEM like a rapist to them, right, Daniel Ellsberg?
Sex charges against Assange are grave, but having heard his account personally, I believe they're false and slanderous.Whoooooooooooops! They are—SURPRISE!—in fact not false and slanderous. Angus Johnston has the latest from a London court, where Assange is contesting an extradition order:
[Assange lawyer Ben Emmerson provided] accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today's hearing — the validity of Assange's accusers' central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently "consented to … continuation" of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.I don't guess I need to point out that retroactive consent does not magically make a sexual encounter not rape.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: "[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly."
As in the case of the first incident, Emmerson argues that subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual, and legal.
I will, as an aside, note that, contrary to pervasive narratives about women who "feel guilty" after a consensual act inventing rape charges, the reality is that women who feel shame, or fear, or regret after an actual rape frequently re-imagine the encounter as consensual, because admitting rape even to themselves is so difficult. Rapists are exponentially more likely to indirectly benefit from women "consenting" after the fact as a survival strategy than are innocent men likely to be victimized by false rape charges.
Supposing Assange's victims did actually "consent" to the continuation of acts of rape, about which I am profoundly dubious, Assange's own attorney now effectively concedes that was, at best, what happened here: His victims gave "subsequent consent" to sexual activity for which explicit consent was neither sought nor given, after having been assumed, for months, to have invented the act of rape out of revenge or because they were government operatives or whatthefuckever.
I think I may have pointed out once or twice or three million times in this space that the people who benefit from rape apologia and victim-blaming, of the precise sort that we've seen with regard to the accusations against Julian Assange, are rapists.
Which is a pretty strong incentive not to engage in it, if you don't like rape or rapists.
But somehow it's never strong enough to deter the invocation of the same old tired rape culture narratives when it comes to defending an Important Man Doing Important Work.
Whoops. You defended a rapist.
I'm sure some of Assange's defenders, whether they publicly admit it or not, are furious that Assange made them look stupid. Well, don't worry your Important Heads about it, Very Important Rape Apologists: I can assure you that you looked stupid already.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Actual Headline: Doctors dispute Megan Fox no-Botox photos.
Actual Opening Paragraphs:
Cosmetic doctors dispute the claim by actress Megan Fox that photos she published last week are proof that she is not using Botox.Actual Title of Accompanying Slideshow: Megan Fox: Pretty, Then Sexy, Now 'Done.'
Some doctors said the photos show a face in which the effects of Botox injections are slowly wearing off. Many others said one photo (top left) displays such unnatural wrinkle patterns that the image apparently has been digitally altered.
"Looks like Megan is just as talented with Photoshop as she is in entertainment," said plastic surgeon and blogger Dr. Nicholas Vendemia of New York.
In case it's not self-evident, let me be perfectly clear: The point of this post is not to invite speculation about whether Megan Fox uses Botox, nor to invite judgment on her appearance (or talent, or choices, or anything else).
The point of this post is to highlight what a ridiculously fucked-up culture we live in, where a woman is put under enormous pressure to alter ("improve") her appearance and simultaneously put under enormous pressure to pretend she puts absolutely no effort into her appearance at all.
And if a famous woman gets chemical or surgical procedures, she is a vain harpy. And if she does not, she is a grody wrinkled hag. And if she says she hasn't had such procedures, whether she has or hasn't, her image will be publicly scrutinized for "proof" that she is a liar by doctors whose livelihoods are predicated on women's insecurities about their looks.
This is a sick, sick game that women are asked to play, and if there is a better incentive for not playing it than even Megan Fox isn't beautiful enough, I can't conceive of it.
