 | jaren on Pregnant and a Teenager? Your … |
 | of viagra on Why “Slippery Slope… |
 | Dan on Guest Post: NAPW Staff Attorne… |
 | Karrine on Where I’m At |
 | Jenn on Where I’m At |
As you know, I’m blogging these days at Lawyers, Guns & Money. I’m still blogging as bean. I wasn’t cross posting this week but will try to from now on, or to at least post links to the posts at LGM.
Here’s what I wrote this week:
Here’s Why It’s a Mistake to Pin Dems’ Problems on Abortion
As I mentioned earlier this week, the times they are a’changin around here. As of tomorrow, I will be a permanent fixture on Lawyers, Guns and Money. It’s about time they had a woman over there. Anyway, I haven’t figured out yet what will happen with this site. I will probably cross-post for a while and see how that goes. Maybe when my job ends and school resumes i’ll be able to write for two separate blogs.
But for the time being, for your daily dose of bean-ness, head on over to LG&M. And update your blogrolls…
Whew. Things are flying at a breakneck pace ’round these parts.
And I’ve got some less than exciting news and some really exciting news.
The less stuff first: I will be traveling for business until Friday and am not sure whether or how much I will have access to the internets and blog-o-sphere. I am hoping to post at least once between now and Friday…but we all know how that goes.
The more exciting stuff is this: The dudes over at Lawyers, Guns & Money have very generously invited me aboard there. So I will be joining the ranks at LG&M, and am proud to be their first female full-time blogger. I am not yet sure what I will do with AB&B. I may keep it up and cross post. I may keep it up only for posterity. We shall see. But beginning Monday, look for me over at my new virtual home.
A quick aside on where I have been and why I have not been blogging as much much this last week or so: I am working, folks. Mid week last week, I started my summer job, which keeps me very busy and makes it hard to impossible to blog during the workday. So mostly, at least til early July if not later, I’ll be blogging at night or in the early AM hours. I’ll try to continue to post at least 1x/day but no promises there…Hope you’ll stick around and keep on reading and commenting…
Happy summer!
It’s ridiculous that this law was (and is) considered “controversial.”
Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell today signed a bill that will require all licensed health care facilities to provide emergency contraception (EC) to victims of rape and other sexual assaults. The law, which will go into effect on October 1st of this year, mandates that healthcare providers offer accurate and objective information about EC and that they provide the drug upon request to any woman who has been assaulted.
Sounds good, right? Women who have been raped or sexually assaulted should not have to carry the child of their attacker against their will. Seems like common sense. Or simple human decency. Especially in a state where up to 40% of sexual assault victims report that they were not offered the drug.
But of course it’s not that simple. The Ms. Feminist Wire explains why:
Out of the state’s 31 hospitals, only the four Catholic hospitals objected to the bill. In order to appease concerns by Catholics who oppose distribution of contraception, the bill allows a third-party provider, such as a rape crisis nurse, to dispense the medicine. Catholic officials, however, are not satisfied with the provision; Archbishop Henry J. Mansell still objects to the distribution of EC on hospital grounds, the Hartford Courant reports.
The reason the church objects? Because, though the law requires a totally superfluous pregnancy test (since EC will not affect an already existing pregnancy), it does not mandate an ovulation test, which Catholic hospitals in the state currently require before dispensing EC.
I really can’t believe we’re still fighting about this. I can’t believe that the science has been twisted so far and that women are hated so much that we would deny rape victims a pill that could — if offered promptly — help prevent an unwanted pregnancy. But I should expect this at this point…it’s just another example of the ironically pro-abortion “pro-life” agenda. Culture of life my ass.
(Also at Feministe)
Hey folks,
Just a heads up that I’ll be guest posting this week, starting Monday, over at Feministe. I’ll x-post here, but check me out there too.
Many thanks to Jill for the invitation!
Courtesy of very talented cartoonist (and new commenter(!)) Mikhaela Reid, have a laugh at the expense of abstinence only “education” programs (click the image to see it full size):
Constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein had a column in yesterday’s L.A. Times focusing on Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Gonzales. The dissent, unlike the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, focused on the riht to abortion as necessary for women’s equality. As Sunstein notes, Ginsburg has argued for an equality approach to abortion rights since at least the 1980s (the Court continues to push its privacy/Due Process rationale).
Sunstein highlights the clear advantages of an equal protection claim:
For supporters of the right to choose, the sex equality argument has considerable advantages over the privacy argument. Much more than the right to privacy, the ban on sex discrimination is firmly entrenched in constitutional doctrines.
It defies social reality to approach the abortion issue as a mere matter of privacy, as if it could really be divorced from questions of sex equality. Some proposed restrictions on abortion, such as requiring the consent of the father of the fetus, are plainly an effort to revive discredited notions about women’s proper place, and they violate equality principles for that reason.
I agree with Justice Ginsburg (and Professor Sunstein) that there are significant advantages to an equality approach, not the least of which is that equality is explicit in the Constitution whereas privacy is not. But, as I have noted before, the Court’s pregnancy jurisprudence stands between us and an equality rationale for protecting abortion rights. The Court, in a now-infamous 1970s case, Geduldig v. Aiello, held that pregnancy discrimination is not sex discrimination because the comparison is not between men and women but between pregnant people and non pregnant people (a group that includes men and women). It’s a legal fiction and a farce of logic, but it stands. And stands in the way of forward movement on equality jurisprudence.
Still, Sunstein is optimistic:
But Ginsburg has now offered the most powerful understanding of the foundations of the right to choose — and it is important to remember that today’s dissenting opinion often becomes tomorrow’s majority. The equality argument has the support of four members of the court (Ginsburg and justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer). We should not be terribly surprised if, in the fullness of time, Ginsburg’s view attracts a decisive fifth.
Right now, facing decades more of a Roberts court, we can only hope that Sunstein’s crystal ball is as good as Reva Siegel’s.
I was a little worried when I saw the headline in today’s NY Times article: Revolving Door for Addicts Adds to Medicaid Cost. Often when I write about my opposition to the drug war, I encourage more widespread use of state-funded treatment programs (though NY is somewhat generous, most states are not). Was this article going to make that argument even less popular than it currently is?
Well, yes and no, and for the most part, the no’s win.
The Times article details the great expense of treating the 500 people in the state who most use and abuse the revolving door of Medicaid-funded treatment in the state. According to the article, those 500 alone cost the system $50 million annually. And that’s certainly a problem, particularly when that money could be spread out to help more people receive badly needed treatment. Those 500 are a drain on resources because they use drug treatment not as a way toward actually kicking their addictions, but rather as a break — a time to lower their resistance so they can get high on a lesser amount of expensive opiates and narcotics, a getaway even. As one former user puts it to the Times:
“I would tell myself I was just a brother who needed a rest, not somebody who had a problem,” he said. “I could mimic what they said with such grace and conviction, they would swear I was cured.”
But while this attitude is part of the reason for the system’s high cost, it’s neither the most central nor the most under state control to change. The real problem, it turns out, is the lack of homeless services which could treat the many needs that drive these 500 - and thousands of others - to seek expensive, inpatient addiction treatment:
The system suits the most frequent patients — most of them homeless, mentally ill, or both — who see the programs as a source of shelter and food. And the most expensive treatment, which usually involves some sedation, can reduce the discomfort of withdrawal better than other methods. [...]
But at its core, experts say, the overuse of costly inpatient programs is connected to the lack of housing for homeless people. People are less likely to admit themselves to hospitals, and more likely to adhere to treatment programs, when they are not living on the streets. For more than a decade, the city and state have invested in such housing, including some that accept residents who are not yet drug-free, but demand for housing still far exceeds supply.
Sure, the programs are expensive, but their cost can be controlled not through cutting badly needed treatment services, but through increasing funding for services that meet lower level needs, including temporary housing and food.
Another part of the problem is the structure of federal Medicaid, which in its infinite wisdom, will pay for in-hospital detox (the most expensive) but not inpatient treatment programs, which cost about the same as outpatient medically managed detox (which is explained in the article), and which are more effective long term. It’s a backwards policy that is having a disastrous impact not only on the state’s budget but also on the lives of the many people who could benefit from inpatient, community-based treatment. It seems like a common thread in American social policy, no? Plug a hole with your thumb but don’t figure out what caused the hole or how it might permanently be closed.
Also at LG&M.
Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum is at it again. Yes, that Warren Chisum. The one who wanted to pass a law banning the teaching of evolution in Texas schools. The one lambasted by the late great Molly Ivins in her Dildo Diaries video.
This time, the man who wants to fight for a Christian Texas is doing it pretty overtly. The LA Times reported yesterday that he has proposed a bill that would require all public high schools to offer an elective course on the Bible. The course would teach the “history and literature of the Old and New Testaments eras.”
There’s so much wrong with this bill it’s hard to figure out where to start. Here’s the obvious. In many many (many) places in Texas, a class that teaches the Bible will not be teaching it as literature, but rather as a holy document and the word of God. Though Chisum says that won’t be so (he said the course would not treat the Bible as a “worship document” but would promote religious and cultural literacy by “educating our students academically and not devotionally.”), I’m not quite so sure.
Think about it. Especially given the funding structure of the bill. Who would be the teachers?
The bill, which says the class is to be taught in “an objective and nondevotional manner,” does not provide funding or training for school districts and teachers. [...]
“The fear is that teachers with limited training and no guidance will be called upon to teach a course for which their experience draws largely from Sunday school,” Miller said. “It would be difficult for them to keep their own religious perspective out of the classroom. You can almost hear the lawyers lining up.”
That fear is well-founded. There are already studies proving that religion has a tendency to creep in in situations like the one this bill would create:
A study conducted for her group by Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University, found that of Texas’ 25 public school districts with a Bible course, 22 districts’ offerings had a Christian slant.
“When teachers don’t have solid training in biblical studies and 1st Amendment issues, then they fall back on what they know from prior knowledge,” Chancey told state legislators last week. “Courses end up being sectarian, often despite their best intentions.”
He said one teacher showed students a PowerPoint presentation titled “God’s Road Map for Your Life.” Included was a slide called “Jesus Christ Is the One and Only Way.” Another teacher taught students that NASA had found a missing day and time that corresponded to a biblical story of the sun standing still. One school showed “VeggieTales” videos, which feature computer-animated Christian vegetables that talk.
That’s right, folks. Talking Christian vegetables. Of course, the bill also raises serious First Amendment concerns. While Chisum promises that it will not teach religious doctrine (and I am all for teaching the Bible as Literature), it’s hard to see how the bill would not require state funding for religious (as opposed to literary) education. Especially given the empirical studies quoted above.
And it’s not hard to see that that’s exactly the situation Chisum wants:
Chisum’s legislation says the Bible would be the primary textbook for the class. It allows but doesn’t require the classes to include secular books or those from other religions.
Seems to me that teaching the Bible as history and literature, you might want to bring in, oh, i don’t know, a history text. Or perhaps novels or memoirs that illustrate how authors have used or criticized the bible in their writing.
There are other problems with the bill, including the fact that in many Texas schools there isn’t even funding for music education or gym. Is Bible studies the thing that should get the precious few education dollars?
Warren Chisum would say yes. Because to him, religious ideology trumps all. As I said in my post the other day about states turning down abstinence-only funding, to guys like Chisum, school is for preaching, not for teaching.
(also at LG&M)
From Jamie Spencer, Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer:
“Judges Can’t Sentence “Drugs” to Prison. Instead, they sentence people to prison. So let’s just be honest about it, and start calling it the ‘War on Drug Users’, OK?”
How right he is. Punishing drug addiction is unconstitutional since addiction is an illness, so we punish behaviors ancillary to drug addiction. But really, the war on drugs is a war on people who use drugs.
And, because of the sentencing disparities, mostly on poor people or people of color who use drugs. But to admit that might — gasp! — garner some sympathy for users and antipathy to the government’s approach to them. And we can’t have that.
Apparently, not only is our War on Drugs devastating poor neighborhoods in communities of color in the U.S., it’s also hurting the poor in South America.
According to Benjamin Dangl’s new book, excerpted on AlterNet, the War on Drugs is hitting coca farmers, who are legal and unionized in Bolivia, particularly hard.
Admittedly, I haven’t read the whole book yet, only this excerpt, but I have to say that the thesis that the drug war is having that impact surprises me. I would think that by driving up the price of cocaine in the U.S., the drug war would help those farming it in South America. But I suppose that’s naive — it’s probably putting more money in the pockets of the importers but helping keep the farmers powerless to lobby for better protection and pay.
It’s an interesting - and unexpected - effect of disastrous domestic policy, and it’s worth checking out.
Oh, and check out my most recent post at LG&M.
For the second time in recent months, a young woman is being charged with the crime of self-induced abortion, or attempt thereof.
Via Shakesville, here’s the most recent story:
West Monroe woman is accused of trying to kill her fetus, Oswego County sheriff’s reports said.
The 24-year-old woman, who lives on county Route 11, took several over-the-counter and prescription medications last week in an attempt to abort her 13-week-old fetus, Sheriff Reuel Todd said Tuesday.
“We don’t know exactly why she did it, other than that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy,” Todd said.
Police records show that the woman, Katrina L. Pierce, reported that she was a victim of domestic violence as recently as last month.A week and a half after that incident, on April 4, someone called the Oswego County 911 Center after Pierce took the drugs, officials said.
West Monroe volunteer firefighters helped the woman before an ambulance took her to a Syracuse hospital, Todd said.
News like this is both sad an enraging. It’s also a clear example of the failure of current abortion policy in most states, which is to just make it as tough as possible for women to get abortions and hope that the procedure just goes away. It won’t. But between 24- or 48-hour waiting periods (so-called “informed consent” laws), restrictions on who may perform abortions and where, and the general lack of access to abortion providers (87% of U.S. counties do not have an abortion provider), it’s getting tougher and tougher for women to obtain abortions legally and early in their pregnancies. The Hyde Amendment, of course, makes all of this worse by banning the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions. Some states, including New York, have chosen to provide public funding for abortion out of state coffers, but these states are few and far between.
It’s easy to wonder why this woman didn’t seek out NY’s public funding, or why she waited until the 13th week in her pregnancy (making it even more difficult to find a provider, since many places only perform abortions up to 12 weeks). Yet instead of helping figure out what roadblocks might have existed in her path to procuring an abortion, and particularly the influence of domestic violence in this situation, the state throws her in jail and tells her is a criminal.
Sure, abortion is not a crime anymore in the U.S., but it’s legality is strictly limited to very specific circumstances. Circumstances that make legal abortion unattainable for many women.
Lest we think that illegal abortions have gone by the wayside; they haven’t. Between the advent of the internet and information about the side effects of various drugs and the ever-growing obstacles in the way of legal abortion, back alley abortions haven’t disappeared, they just evolved into procedures performed on one’s self. They’ve gone from the proverbial alley to the bedroom. They’ve taken on a more private and medicalized form.
(cross-posted at Lawyers, Guns & Money)
Here’s the link to my Lawyers Guns & Money post for today: The Empty Promise of Parole.
Enjoy!
Thanks to the generosity of Scott Lemieux, I’ll be guest posting this Wednesday through Saturday and next Tuesday through Friday over at Lawyers, Guns & Money.
Come on over and check me out.
(I’ll also provide links to my LG&M posts here).
