“I’m not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I’ve worked in this area for many years,” Clinton told reporters. “And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” – Sect. Hillary Rodham Clinton (via Politico)
At a time when women’s rights are being bargained away by Democrats in health care language, she sits and shrugs; all of this happening with the backdrop of Dr. Tiller’s murderer being sentenced to life in prison. You’d think Cecile Richards would sense the urgency of where women stand right now. However, Ms. Richards is as clueless as Planned Parenthood is rudderless.
If I hadn’t seen this with my own eyes I wouldn’t have believed it. When Cecile Richards said “this is a ‘pro-choice’ country, Chuck Todd stumbled over himself interrupting and challenging her saying “what do you base that on?” Meanwhile, Savannah Guthrie sits there like a potted plant. What is it about the NBC network family that refuses to acknowledge the realities of women’s rights in the U.S., while muting the female anchor, and choosing the man for a Planned Parenthood interview on abortion rights? Russert rarely had a woman on “Meet the Press” to discuss abortion, with this type of interview casting stereotypical of this network.
However, that isn’t the worst of this interview.
The only thing I can say about Ms. Richards is that she sure as hell isn’t her mother. It’s a cruel comparison, but the times today are deadly serious, with Cecile Richards simply not up to the job. We need someone with fire, passion and purpose who isn’t afraid of ruffling feathers.
Where women stand today through the Nelson language in health care was stated most clearly through Guttmacher Institute (which I linked to recently). Ms. Richards is evidently ignorant of the facts, either that or she just doesn’t care.
Abortion: Insurance Coverage Now an Endangered Species
The bill’s restrictive abortion provision is putatively designed to uphold the status quo on the question of federal funding. Accordingly, federal funds—in this case, subsidy dollars for individuals purchasing insurance plans on the new health care “exchanges” that are slated to become operational in 2014—may not be used to pay for abortion coverage (except in extreme cases), but individuals, at least in theory, may purchase a plan that includes abortion coverage so long as the abortion coverage itself is paid for with their own money. (This mirrors the Hyde Amendment, under which federal Medicaid dollars may not be used to pay for most abortions, but states may cover the procedure for their Medicaid recipients using their own funds.)
In practice, however, the complex, politicized arrangements the legislation necessitates militate heavily against the likelihood that many such plans will be purchased—or even offered. Consumers purchasing exchange plans that include abortion coverage would have to make two separate premium payments—one to cover abortion services and one to cover everything else. Insurance companies would have to jump through numerous, unprecedented hoops to estimate the cost of abortion coverage and ensure that the abortion payments never mix with other funds; they also are likely to face extensive public scrutiny and protest around their action. All told, according to an analysis by George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, “the more logical response” for private insurers marketing plans within the exchanges—and eventually in the broader market as well—“would be not to sell products that cover abortion services.”
Ms. Richards is under the delusion that her group’s mere presence at this point in women’s history justifies their existence and excuses their incompetence.
There are a lot of so called “women’s rights groups” out there, with money scarce. I don’t think Planned Parenthood has earned their keep, so I don’t know why anyone would give them money over Emily’s List. NOW and NARAL got played on health care too, but at least they had the passion of purpose to denounce the outcome, including Obama’s Stupak pandering executive order.
After the health care battle, Ms. Richards was simply satisfied that Stupak language wasn’t inserted in the health care bill. She was clearly ambivalent about the Nelson language, nonchalant even, another mid-life menopausal matron unmoved by the carving away of women’s rights.
That’s because Planned Parenthood lives and breathes because of Democrats. They don’t stand up for women, they live to raise money to keep their organization alive. After Ms. Richards’ bumbling on health care I honestly think we could do without them.
Cecile Richards certainly isn’t doing the job needed on behalf of women’s rights. Her performance on MSNBC simply a fundraiser booking. Her goal obviously to look “moderate” and sensible, you know, not too passionate to scare people off, at a time when their fundraising is about to kick in for 2010.
But Ms. Richards has proven she will sell women out in order to keep her donor base growing and the Democratic elite happy, though I’m sure her party card is filled, which after all is what counts to these people.
Ann Richards wasn’t afraid to offend, because she had the courage of her convictions. That’s the type of female leader women so desperately need today.
Unfortunately (fortunately for Obama and the U.S.), she’s currently Secretary of State.
Now that’s interesting, says three comments and none appear. Sortta like Dem support for womens reproductive rights. They SAY they support them…..but when you actualy NEED them to stand up…..they disappear!
The count includes trackbacks, secularh.
What are trackbacks? Call me clueless. Good post Taylor… Thanks
Trackbacks are sites, people automatically linking to this post.
Thanks.. Wish I could track the trackbacks.. (maybe I can..)
Cecile Richards said that the USA is a pro-choice country? She better get a clue and look at whats happening or women are going to be screwed for years to come.I have friends who I battle with over this issue. I am pro-choice,but have friends that say they are pro-life. They think that women who are pro-choice want to use abortion as a birth-control method. I keep having to explain that its about women who are in difficult situations to have a right to get a abortion because of rape or incest or in emergency situtations or drug users or other women in situations who don’t want to bring a child in this world that could be effected by the wrong choice’s that the woman has made in her life. But there are many reasons why a woman should have the right to choose. Men would be in a uproar if women wanted to put in the health care bill that they had the right to tell men they have to get a vasectomy. Its not right to tell anyone what they can do to someone else’s body. Anyway, things could change in this country if the pro-life movement gets a better message and can use lies and other means to advance their cause. So planned parenthood better get someone else to replace Cecile Richards or pro-choice women and men will not look to planned parenthood to fight for the cause of reproductive rights.
I have no idea why people still give to PP.
Thanks fairmindedindependant . Agreed.
Are contraception and family planning counselling excluded in the new health care bill? Doesn’t everyone have access to legal, safe abortion in most states and localities? Peace
The number of uninformed on the issue is staggering. People don’t even try to find the information, taking for granted a right that’s been around for decades. A legal procedure that Dems & Rep. are making harder for women to get. Not surprisingly, this hits the poor, but also minorities hard. In rural areas, well, fuhghettaboutit. Additionally, the Catholic Church has bought hospitals in many rural places, not providing family planning, and definitely giving no counseling, particularly on chemical availabilities to women, but also, obviously, abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
Distance from an Abortion Provider (p.39 @ link above):
Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties had no abortion provider in 2005.
In nonmetropolitan areas, 97% of counties had no provider. As a result, many women must travel substantial distances to access the service.
About one in four women who have an abortion travel 50 miles or more for the procedure, a significant distance and a documented barrier to timely care (Henshaw and Finer, 2003).
The proportion of unserved counties has increased steadily since 1978.
The proportion of women in counties without a facility that provides even one abortion a year has also increased and reached 35% in 2005.
The proportion of women in unserved counties would be higher if not for the efforts of nonprofit organizations to establish and maintain clinics in areas without other providers.
So access to adequate health care for every citizen is the underlying problem? Perhaps we should attack the issue from that point of view? It seems difficult to fathom that the Republicans or conservative Democrats could easily oppose the demand for an accessible health care delivery system for everyone. It would require more doctors and facilities. But I’m sure that if we redirected the billions of dollars that we are currently spending to fight the phoney wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we’d have plenty of money available to construct an adequate health care delivery system here in the United States. Don’t the Afghanis have universal health care? Peace
Many states put restrictions on abortion. In some states a minor must obtain parental notification and/or consent before she can have an abortion regardless of whether or not she wants her parents to know. So much for her privacy.
Then there’s the requirement that a woman must wait a specified period of time so she can receive counseling before the procedure is performed.
Or how about requiring that the woman be given non-proven and false information about abortion.
Many states have such restrictive laws that women find it difficult to obtain an abortion. Of course the anti-abortion forces are out threatening and even killing doctors and health care workers. Over 87% of counties in the US have NO abortion provider at all which means women and girls have to travel to far off places to get an abortion.
Telepathic writing Taylor.
Yeah, for some reason the info from Guttmacher didn’t appear when I first loaded the comment, so I had to do it again.
You’ll be hearing more voices coming from PP now, as they beg for money, so they can protect women’s reproductive rights. Hah! Where have they been? I have supported PP for years and years and years. No more! The abortion issue wouldn’t even be an issue if PP had been doing their jobs. Many of us in maternal health felt that PP just wasn’t cutting it. We knew we were on the edge; saw it coming.
Margaret Sangar, although she had some archaic ideas, was willing to go to jail for handing out contraceptives. Her slogan was “every woman must be mistress of her own body.” This was back in the beginning of the 20th century.
Now I love me some Hillz, but as Amanda Marcotte so brilliantly notes, she also regurgitates the “Safe, rare, and legal” bullshit. Which basically concedes that women having autonomy over their bodies is icky but necessary and let’s just make it so that it doesn’t happen much and you don’t have to worry your godbothering angel-puff brain about it because we agree that it is totally gross.
If you really give a crap about the autonomy of a woman’s body, it should be that abortions should be “safe, and legal”. Period.
Using abortion as a method of birth control is just fine with you then? Peace
Quite frankly Imhotep, why a woman gets an abortion is none of your business or my business. Or anyone’s business. That’s her right. And I’m not about to make judgments about someone else’s decisions.
It most certainly IS her right. Abortion is legal. But it’s my right NOT to be required to pay for an abortion with my tax dollars. Or do these rights that you demand only flow in one direction? Peace
Abortion is legal. Right now the ability to pay, as well as access, because Medicaid through states isn’t required to provide the service, is keeping poor women from getting help.
Hyde should be repealed, with poor women allowed access to abortion funding federally or through Medicaid.
It is not your right to keep funding from poor women for a medical service that is LEGAL.
Maybe if Hyde was repealed we’d get a real discussion on stopping abortion by making pharmaceutical methods readily available to women who have no access to abortions, instead of continually talking about a procedure that is LEGAL.
Tax dollars go to all sorts of things right-wingers don’t want to fund, but is the government’s job to provide. Aid to poor women shouldn’t be any different.
Breast enhancement is also legal but I sure hope that my tax dollars aren’t being spent to provide poor women with larger breasts. I have absolutely no problem with funding necessary abortions for poor women. What I do have a problem with is women using abortion as a method of birth control and my tax dollars being spent on that procedure. I told you that this was a wedge issue. Peace
Comparing breast englargement to reproductive surgery like abortion is RIDICULOUS.
It’s legal, and offering the argument that women use abortion as birth control is a right-wing argument.
Yeah, and civil rights in the 1960s was a “wedge” issue too; gays in the military a “wedge” issue, too. A “wedge issue” defined as something the uninformed use to justify their prejudice (or stupidity).
Imhotep you have repeatedly proven yourself unable to engage on this or any other woman’s topic. I really wish you would just stop. Maybe your time would be better spent doing some soul seraching about the church that has put these ideas in your head. That church is proving itself to be full of male hubris and a protector of pedophiles a far cry from it’s teachings on morality.
In fact, “safe, legal and rare” came out of WJC’s administration.
That said, there is still no woman who would say what she did in Canada.
That’s why I like her. I think she is right.
Limited to my experience only, folks who financially support PP most often do so based on the services they see provided locally. I knew the PP health clinic in the area where I lived was a “safe” place to send LGBT individuals. At that clinic, and in the fairly extensive education division, they did a very good job of addressing STDs and HIV/AIDS. Their high school student volunteers wrote and presented a variety of skits for their peers, which included a focus on everything from pregnancy to sexually transmitted diseaes to date rape.
None of that, of course, excuses what Richards is doing. But I think it might help understand why there are those who still see PP as providing needed services.
It is the leadership that is the problem with PP in my opinion. They do provide services that would otherwise not be provided in many areas.Their clinics are a safe non judgemental place for teens to go for birth control and their education programs are very good.It is a crying shame that all the people in the trenches have such terrible leadership.
It’s important to remember that when they do fundraising appeals, which is what Cecile Richards was doing on MSNBC, they specifically reach out on women’s rights, abortion and “electing a pro-choice Congress.”
However, people don’t pay their salaries for Richards and others to turn a blind eye when their primary benefactor, the Democratic Party, goes right, or when the people we pay them to elect turn out to be decidedly weak on women’s rights.
I did not realize that Cecile Richards was Ann Richards daughter.Wow she got none of her mothers genes. What a pale imitation.
A leadership problem as with so many “progressive” organizations that seem to have moved so far into the DC Elite realm that they’ve lost connections at local, and even state, levels. I have a good friend, of many years, who is an educator with PP, and I know the work he does is much needed. But what to do about the Richards and Gandys (well, she’s no longer with NOW at least) and others who seem to have gotten lost in DC mentality.
And yep, Cecile didn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. Unfortunately.