The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
3 June 2011
Dear President Obama,
I am very saddened at your administration’s (viz a viz YOUR) lack of commentary on the war being waged against women in our country. I’m aware that sounds overly dramatic, but frankly, the laws criminalizing healthcare for women are making this a war. Your silence implies tacit agreement. You and your administration have sat back and said nothing as state legislatures all around the country – in every single state, including my loose-moraled, Hollywood-celebrity-“gay-loving” state of California (yes, sarcasm) – have attempted or have succeeded in passing legislation limiting not only a woman’s right to choose, but limiting women’s rights, period. I shouldn’t need to remind you that Roe v Wade is still the law of this land, upheld by the SCOTUS as a privacy issue. Yet states are individually taking away women’s rights to choose, and even moreso, are limiting access to basic healthcare for women. Do you require some examples? I’m happy to provide them.
Federally:
HR-3: I never heard a word from the White House – specifically YOU – when the GOP inserted language to make the IRS the gatekeeper for ensuring women’s abortions were truly medically necessary by investigation should they choose to write it off as a medical expense (now that they’ve managed to take away insurance coverage in many states). Or when it changed the definition of rapes covered to nly include forcible rape (to which they also limited and changed the definition)? Your rape wasn’t “rapey” enough to qualify? So sorry.
While debating HR-3, Michelle Bachmann stood on the floor of the House and claimed that women go to the mall to get Starbucks, groceries, and abortions.
Virginia Foxx (R-NC), whose amendment H.AMDT.298 to H.R.1216 defunds medical schools that provide training of physicians to perform abortions. Question: How do you defend knowing that in the near future there will be physicians in emergency rooms and hospitals who cannot provide potentially lifesaving procedures for women because they simply don’t know how?
At the State level:
Kansas (R) Pete DeGraaf, who suggests women plan ahead for their rapes and likened rape to a flat tire. When questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims, he said: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life? I have spare tire on my car. I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
Frankly, it has taken decades - no, centuries - to come to a socially accepted position that rape is not a woman’s fault, and that she deserves protection under the law. In a single comparison, DeGraaf has minimized women in such a way that negates the years of education and work in this area.
In Idaho, where SB1165 has passed. It makes no exceptions for rape/incest/emotional health of the mother because, as Rep Brent Crane said, "the 'hand of the Almighty' was guiding passage... His ways are higher than our ways. He has the ability to take difficult, tragic, horrific circumstances and then turn them into wonderful examples.”
Georgia Rep Bobby Franklin of the 43rd district has been hard at work. He's the stellar supporter of women's rights that introduced the bill that changed rape victims and victims of domestic violence to accusers, but acknowledged victims of burglary were still victims (HB 14). Not that burglary victims aren't victims, because they are. But why single out crimes against women (for the most part) and call those women accusers, and not all victims of crime? Accuser intimates that the acusee is the wronged party. And while we do have a presumption of innocence in this country, it is hypocritical, demeaning, sexist and appalling to single out (mostly) female crime victims as accusers rather than victims. Now Franklin has introduced a bill that says "prenatal murder" (meaning the death of a fetus at any time from the point of conception until birth) shall be unlawful in all events, and his bill (HB 1) mandates that miscarriages be reported to the authorities and investigated with an eye toward prosecution as well as mandating that Roe v Wade is null and void in the state of Georgia because 1) the SCOTUS really had no jurisdiction over the case in the first place, and 2) Georgia wasn't a party to the suit, so the federal ruling made in the case doesn't apply to them. (Wouldn't it be nice if we could all say that about rulings we don't agree with? I've got plenty on my list of rulings to ignore - how about you?). Franklin's bill includes clauses that relate to unattended spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), by stating that every fetal death must be investigated and determined whether human involvement in the causation can be proved.
Really? Who’s to determine that the glass of wine a woman had before she knew she was pregnant wasn’t human involvement in a prenatal murder? Or a miscarriage (for most of which a cause can never be determined) that decimates a family only to have them now investigated for murder? And how would he suggest that women preserve evidence for examination?
There’s more on enforcement contained in the bill:
(3) When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare and file the report within 30 days;His motivation for all this? (from HB 1)
(26) The act of prenatal murder has caused a significant reduction in the number of citizens in this state who would serve as workers, entrepreneurs, teachers, employees, and employers who would have significantly contributed to the prosperity and continuation of this state;
Louisiana HB645 (formerly HB587) is a bill put forward by Rep. John LaBruzzo (R – Metarie). The bill would outlaw all forms of abortion, even if it is medically necessary to save the mother’s life. Physicians are supposed to, no… REQUIRED to let a woman die in their emergency room rather than perform life-saving procedures. And might I add, if the woman dies, so very likely does the fetus, defeating the purpose of this bill. Any doctor performing an abortion could receive punishment of up to 15 years in jail along with hefty fines. The bill is was at one point specifically worded so that abortion would be outlawed “to the extent allowed by the Supreme Court.” That wording was taken out, making it instead a total ban on abortion. The clause that prohibits physicians from saving the life of the mother states two things unequivocally: that a physician must ignore their Hippocratic oath, and that a fetus’ life is more important and worthy than a woman’s.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed a measure to further restrict abortions in Indiana and has made it the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, which also provides lifesaving care to women such as cancer screenings, physical exams, contraception, and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases, among others.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill requiring a sonogram for women seeking abortions. Women will not only be forced into the ultrasound process but most will have to wait 24 hours AFTER having one to be able to go ahead with her abortion. There is a caveat for women who live more than 100 miles away--they "only" have to wait two hours. This same bill also requires counseling (conveniently, by ministers) prior to receiving an abortion.
Missouri State Rep. Paul Curtman, a bill was passed that makes it a felony to perform an abortion past 20 weeks, said it’s clear that "we're all entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law,'' whether we’ve been born or are still in the womb. Too bad we’re not following through on the “already been born” part by protecting the rights of those who already took their trip through the birth canal. The only health exceptions after 20 weeks will be those where the risk of death or "permanent damage to a major bodily function because of the pregnancy." The law also defined what constitutes the health of the mother, making legislators now officially doctors as well as lawmakers. To invoke the “health of the parent” exception, the mother needs two doctors to testify, and they can't have a "legal or financial affiliation or relationship [that] is a result of being employed by or having staff privileges at the same hospital as the first physician."
In your home state of Illinois, a judge overturned a law signed by then-Gov. Blagojevich that required pharmacists to quickly fill emergency contraception (the “morning-after” pill). Now public pharmacists can pick and choose what prescriptions they want to fill based on their own set of beliefs. What happens to a woman in a town with only one pharmacy, when the pharmacist refuses to fill her prescription?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s budget proposes the elimination of a recently passed law that requires insurance plans that cover prescription drugs to also include coverage for prescription birth control. Walker’s budget summary says the requirement is an “unacceptable government mandate on employers with moral objections to these services,” and that it “increases the cost of health insurance for all payers.”
Iowa State Rep. Dawn Pettengill, (R-Mount Auburn) introduced a bill (Senate File 534) that has passed abortion restriction that allows absolutely no exception for the health of the mother – once again endorsing the idea that an unborn fetus' life is more valuable than a woman's. It also focuses on bringing charges of infanticide against doctors who perform abortions. Physicians could face felony charges resulting in up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Florida State Rep. Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples), in her arguments to pass a bill prohibiting “saggy pants,” said she'd recently read a horrible story out of Texas about the rape of a young girl. Said Passidomo, "There was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gangraped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute. And her parents let her attend school like that. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to create some areas where students can be safe in school and show up in proper attire so what happened in Texas doesn’t happen to our students."
Nobody in committee disputed her theory, which is appalling to me. First off, she did not investigate the case other than to quote the newspaper. Second, I'm all for no sagging pants - believe me, I have teenage boys - but to create a law because you're blaming the gang-rape by eighteen men of an 11 year old girl on her and her parents because of her clothes? Umm, how about you blame the rapists? Or if you want to blame the parents, how about the parents of the rapists, who obviously failed in any attempts to teach right from wrong or self-control.
Mike Huckabee recently attacked actress Natalie Portman for having a child "out of wedlock." Well, if we are to remove access to contraception, force women to give birth at all costs, and then chastise them for having children out of wedlock, what is a woman to do? You can’t legislate common sense. You can’t legislate kindness. You can’t legislate tolerance. You can’t legislate moral values. And once again, Huckabee puts the onus directly on the woman for her immorality and poor judgment. Unless his children were immaculately conceived, I assume that he is aware that it takes two to tango, so to speak.
I can’t even begin to list the numbers of budgets that have either defunded or drastically cut the funding or supplemental funding of health clinics that primarily support women.
I firmly believe that the decision in Roe v Wade indicates many if not all of these state initiatives are in violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, which states, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws," (Amendment 14 Section 1).
How do these state and federal legislatures propose to support all these women and children financially (especially those that will require millions of dollars over their lifetime in medical expenses) once they’ve been forced to have them? So many of the proposed and passed legislation at the state level and in Congress take away and/or limit access to public financial assistance. How can this not lead to an increase in the homeless, indigent, ill population with no access to housing, food, or healthcare – especially women with young children or newborns (that they were forced to birth). How do they propose to support the men and children left behind when their wives or significant others die attempting to carry a baby that may result in their death?
It is the ultimate hypocrisy and irony that we are forcing women to have children that will push them onto the road to public financial assistance, and yet at the same time we are trying to change and alter the laws that make it desirable to have additional children to enroll in and receive additional federal or state assistance. Limiting resources to those who are less fortunate - whatever the circumstances – reeks of classism. Not only that, it goes against everything that this country has traditionally stood for - it is flat-out un-American.
The House leadership is all about a smaller federal government, letting people have their personal freedoms (including allowing a man to have Medicare pay for his ED drugs, but not letting it pay for life-saving pregnancy termination), and for forbidding the government to tell me what I can and can't do, ie, protecting privacy, until they want to crawl inside my uterus. Personally, I want nobody up inside my uterus except for my physician. And please note that only women have uteri, making these legislative efforts not only classist, but sexist.
As the father of two young girls and the husband of a lovely, capable, intelligent, accomplished woman, how can you sit back and not address any of these issues publicly and loudly? With the legislation introduced on both the healthcare and welfare fronts, the party that claims “We are a culture that values life” (Eric Cantor, in the arguments re HR3) proves that they only value life inside the womb, not lives outside of it. And please, when (not if) you say something publicly, do NOT give these people the satisfaction of calling them “pro-life”, when, in fact they are not; what they are is “anti-choice.”
You have managed a lot of successes during your first term, most accomplished quietly and behind the scenes, but it’s time for you to step out from behind your curtain and publicly tout your accomplishments and publicly denounce those things of which you disapprove. Like putting your wife and children (and half the US population) into a box from which there is no escape. Must we wait until someone like Ralph Lang is successful in his mission “to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies,” and who wishes he “could line them [doctors and nurses] up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down”? I imagine we’ll hear you speak then. But as a citizen of the United States of America, I would like to hear something from our president before such a disastrous tragedy occurs. And it will, because our government is fostering an atmosphere of hate, distrust, and intolerance.
I know that I should likely stick to one subject, but this topic is heavily related, and shows the short-sightedness of passing any or all of the laws noted previously. The lack of compassion for the poor and underserved should be addressed as well:
Michigan State Senator Bruce Casswell (R) proposed in the state budget that foster children only be allowed to own clothing that was purchased in second-hand stores. Said Caswell, “I never had anything new. I got all the hand-me-downs. And my dad, he did a lot of shopping at the Salvation Army, and his comment was — and quite frankly it’s true — once you’re out of the store and you walk down the street, nobody knows where you bought your clothes.” Many of these foster children are the ones that the government is forcing to be born, by taking away their birth mother’s right to appropriate healthcare. By stating that they should be denied new underwear because their circumstances forced them into a situation beyond their control (in fact, forced upon them by their state and federal governments) demeans their very existence.
Michigan again… A Detroit public high school for pregnant teens, with a 90% graduation rate and 100% college acceptance rate of its graduates was closed completely at the discretion and dictation of a single untouchable manager appointed by the governor. Hmm… wonder why?
Montana State Rep Hansen states in HB 516 that local governments (ie, cities, towns) can't protect any 'class' of people via anti-discrimination ordinances that aren't already protected at the state level. The Montana state Assembly has passed the bill, and it has already passed a Senate committee. The local:state to state:federal government analogy here is obvious, and only serves to illuminate the hypocrisy of those in positions of power.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has proposed cutting Medicaid eligibility to intolerably low levels: from the current maximum income of $24,645 to $5,317 a year for a family of three. Some news for Gov. Christie: a family of three living on $5,300 has already starved to death; to worry about Medicaid is too little too late.
Minnesota Republicans, led by Rep. Kurt Daudt (R-Crown), introduced H.F. No. 171, which would make it illegal for anyone on public assistance to carry more than $20 cash. His rationale is that they will probably go spend it on alcohol or drugs if they have cash. What a glorious way to help the unemployed, unfortunate, and underserved. It is perhaps the most un-Christian thing I've ever heard from people who embrace good Christian values as their mantra. Hardly. I'm disappointed at the mean-spiritedness I see in our elected officials, and disappointed in you for not calling them on it.
Those who claim these are states’ rights issues are wrong. These are human rights issues. Those who claim that government should get out of our lives (except when it suits them to shove it inside my uterus and my pocketbook) are wrong. Civil rights legislation was passed on a national level for a reason. And those civil rights are being corrosively attacked on several legislative fronts by the very people who cry out for less government regulation. I understand that you have pressing matters to worry about – several wars, a tanking economy, etc, but the fundamental decency on which our country was founded is in jeopardy. The fundamental right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is being trampled upon.
In the interest of time and space, I am not addressing other human rights violations such as attacks on the LGBT community. There is only so much one can accomplish in a single letter to the most powerful man on earth.
Mr. President, I urge you to speak out on these issues. Women are also your constituents, as are the poor. It seems that the “jobs, jobs, jobs” mantra of the 2010 election season has turned into “kill women’s rights” or even “kill the rights of anyone who isn’t a rich, white, male landowner.” Although, I suppose that does go directly back to strict interpretation, doesn’t it? Makes perfect sense.
With the sincere hope that I hear you speaking about these issues soon,
Your non-rich, non-male, married-to-a-teacher-who-obviously-only-works-part-time, deep-in-mortgage-so-not-really-a-landowner, uterus-containing constituent,
Lori
(originally posted 6/8/2011 at my personal blog, deliberately unlinked)
