Blogs Comment On Women's Suffrage Anniversary, Military Abortion Ban, Other Topics

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Abortion;  Stem Cell Research;  Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 30 Aug 2010 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Stem Cells, Politics and the Law," Michael Tomasky, The Guardian's "Michael Tomasky's Blog": The main issue in this week's embryonic stem cell ruling is "the direct connection between a ruling like this ... and the way the GOP plays politics in the U.S. Senate," according to columnist Tomasky. Judge Royce Lamberth initially threw out the case, but it was appealed and returned to a panel of three conservative judges on the District of Columbia circuit, who decided that it should move forward, according to Tomasky. Lamberth then reversed his decision. Tomasky asks, "Why did this question go to three conservatives?" He writes, "Part of the reason may be that Obama has not filled two vacancies on the D.C. Circuit." However, "everyone who knows anything knows that whatever appointments he'd tried to make would now be languishing in the circle of hell known as the senatorial hold," Tomasky states. This week's decision "is where GOP Senate obstructionism isn't just about politics and actively hurts the republic," Tomasky continues, concluding that "as far as Republicans are concerned, this decision ... is precisely where their obstructionism pays dividends and is why they do it" (Tomasky, "Michael Tomasky's Blog," The Guardian, 8/27).

~ "Virginia Uses Pretense of Public Health To Shut Down Abortion Providers," Pema Levy, Change.org's "Women's Rights": "Since becoming [Virginia] attorney general in January, [Ken] Cuccinelli (R) has launched a tireless, yet largely unsuccessful, culture-war offensive," most recently by releasing an opinion that the state Board of Health has the authority to regulate abortion clinics, Levy writes. "There are a few ironies in the current situation," she continues. First, proponents of Cuccinelli's opinion "use terms like 'equality' and 'women's life and health', lauding [it] as a victory for women's safety," she says. However, "abortions are very safe in the United States, and the surest way to make them unsafe is to make them harder to get," Levy writes. She continues, "Rather than protect women, Cuccinelli and his cohorts' antiabortion activism would abandon women to unsafe abortion providers." The second irony "is the argument that abortion should receive equal treatment when it comes to regulated medical procedures," Levy states, adding, "In fact, the medical establishment has shunned abortion providers" (Levy, "Women's Rights," Change.org, 8/26).

~ "Waiting for Equality," Deborah Vagins, American Civil Liberties Union's "Blog of Rights": The 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment -- which gave women the right to vote -- "serves as a reminder that although women have won political rights, we must still work to achieve economic rights," Vagins, legislative counsel for ACLU, writes. The U.S. is "on the verge of securing monumental rights for women," with the Paycheck Fairness Act (S 182) "poised for passage in the Senate," according to Vagins. The bill would "update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act" and "provide workers with tools they need to help close the wage gap," Vagins writes. The bill passed the House in 2009 with "overwhelmin[g]" support, and it is backed by President Obama, Vice President Biden and more than 40 co-sponsors in the Senate, she adds. Vagins continues that the Paycheck Fairness Act is "the next milestone in the fight for equal rights, and the Senate must act now so that women today and for generations to come can bring home the pay they rightfully earn" (Vagins, "Blog of Rights," American Civil Liberties Union, 8/26).

~ "Lift the Military Ban on Abortion Once and for All," Brandann Hill-Mann, Change.org's "Women's Rights": A recent report from the Guttmacher Institute shows "that the current ban on allowing women access [to] abortions in military facilities overseas -- even with their own money -- is absurd," Hill-Mann writes. She continues that this is a "hypocritical policy, insisting that women put on a uniform or support a man who does, giving their lives to defend a country that allows other women access to a legal and protected medical procedure that is denied them while ordered to another country." The Burris amendment included in the Senate Defense Authorization Bill (S 3280) "would fix all that" and "ensure that military women would have access to the highest quality of care available to military personnel and their families," Hill-Mann writes. She concludes, "It is vital to speak up and let lawmakers know that uniformed women and civilian dependents deserve all medical care" (Hill-Mann, "Women's Rights," Change.org, 8/24).

~ "A Stem Cell Shock," Russell Korobkin, Huffington Post blogs: In challenging the legality of the Obama administration's embryonic stem cell research guidelines, Judge Royce Lamberth makes a "spectacular leap of logic" by "conclud[ing] that any research that bears a relationship to research ineligible for federal fund is part of the same 'project' and therefore also ineligible," according to Korobkin, an author. Such logic "would equate research on acorns with research on oak trees, research on milk with research on cows and research on air with research on oxygen," Korobkin continues. He notes that the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations have all interpreted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment -- which bars the use of federal funds for research that destroys embryos -- "to mean that government funds cannot support the creation of embryonic stem cell lines, ... but that there is no statutory bar to funding scientists who use the resulting stem cell lines as tools in the search for cures." According to Korobkin, the "key is to remember the Dickey-Wicker is an appropriations rule that concerns only what type of projects may receive federal financial support, not what projects are legally permissible." He adds, "The relevant question, therefore, is for what purpose the requested federal money would be used?" He argues, "If the money will be used for any other purpose, the grant is legally permissible" (Korobkin, Huffington Post, 8/27).

~ "WashPo Makes Amends on Cuccinelli Fail, Sort Of," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Jacobson discusses the Washington Post article on Tuesday that "fail[ed] to provide the facts in response to assertions by anti-choicers" that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) was acting "to restrict women's access to abortion care [in order] to 'protect' their health and well-being." Jacobson writes, "Cuccinelli's claims to be concerned about the health and safety of women are false and misleading," adding, "Yet the Post repeatedly quoted anti-choice supporters and members of both the far right in the Virginia Legislature and on Cuccinelli's staff espousing their 'concern for women.'" However, in an editorial published on Wednesday, the Post "indirectly call[ed] itself out by actually citing medical evidence," Jacobson continues. She writes that although it "is a laudable step," the Post "needs to go much further." According to Jacobson, "The Post has developed a habit, running from poor coverage of the failures of prevention policies under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to coverage of abortion care, of giving ideologues equal space and equal credibility on sexual and reproductive health issues, even when they skew the evidence or ignore it altogether." Jacobson writes, "To retain its once-lauded credibility on providing facts, the Post needs to run a front-page article examining the actual science and medical evidence on abortion and contraception and stop trying to placate or provide free advertising for the ... fundamentalist political agenda" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 8/25).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

© 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations