Showing posts with label planned parenthood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planned parenthood. Show all posts

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Update: Katie Couric vs. Conservatives: the Under the Gun controversy

Update: The controversy over the "Under the Gun" documentary centers on an inserted pause during a question about terrorists being easily able to access firearms.

In the face of the incident early Sunday morning in Orlando, Florida, that question could not be more timely.


Conservatives are not factual, and conservatives whine, claiming they are victims when they are not, in fact, victims at all.  And conservatives are massive hypocrites, holding others to a more rigorous standard than they hold themselves (or other conservatives).

I would argue that the hypocrisy alone would be sufficient to disqualify conservatives from criticizing others, but that the additional factual deficiency renders them the ones who merit harsh criticism.

The latest controversy over a gun violence documentary in which Katie Couric conducted an interview is simply the latest iteration.

Katie Couric was a news personality on ABC in 2008, when she exposed the lack of qualifications of Republican candidate Sarah Palin for the position of VP.  That still gripes the behinds of conservatives, who will look for pretty much any pretext to jump all over her, fair or foul.  That Couic continues to enjoy some measure of success, while Palin is at best a marginal figure, only adds to conservative irritation, especially by those less successful conservatives in the media (including the blogosphere).

What is she doing now?  From the Wrap:
Couric is the current Yahoo global news anchor and a legend in her field. The former “Today” show staple is an anti-cancer advocate, documentary film producer and New York Times best-selling author of “The Best Advice I Ever Got: Lessons From Extraordinary Lives.”
Let's start with the facts; Katie Couric did not insert the controversial 'dramatic pause' in the documentary in question, Under the Gun. and did not agree with the insertion, but was over-ruled.
Continuing from the Wrap:
Katie Couric said she “didn’t feel comfortable” with the controversial edit in her recent documentary on guns, but hopes it starts a broader conversation about the gun control in America. “I can understand the objection of people who did have an issue about it,” Couric said at TheWrap’s Power Women Breakfast in New York on Thursday morning.

...Couric did not edit the interview herself, and said last week that she questioned director Stephanie Soechtig and an editor about the pause when she screened the film, “and was told that a ‘beat’ was added for, as she [Soechtig] described it, ‘dramatic effect.'”
I would posit that the dramatic pause was not particularly significant, that the controversy is a tempest in the proverbial tea pot. But I would add to that criticism that the pause should not have been inserted in a documentary; dramatic license belongs in dramatic productions, not in non-fiction features.

But to return to the massive hypocrisy of the right, who are kvetching about a lack of factual content by Couric, and/or 'fake footage', let's recall here for a moment the appalling actions of convicted criminal James O'Keefe when HE inserted footage of himself as a pimp in undercover interviews with ACORN, while actually appearing in the real interviews as a normally dressed boy friend of a woman appearing to be an abuse victim.

Not a peep out of conservatives, about deceptive editing, or fake footage when it is 'one of theirs', not then, not in the past year, not ever.

Rather they defended O'Keefe, trying to justify false claims as 'B roll' and other flimsy excuses. Again, as another example out of many, the insertion of fake footage from other sources, representing it as from Planned Parenthood, was deliberately misleading and unethical. Like James O'Keefe,who was convicted of illegal activity in his filming, those faux documentarians are also now facing criminal indictment for fraud. Did anyone here much criticism of these far more egregious examples of bad faith documentary making? Heck NO! Far from it, the right tried to find pretexts and excuses to condone THAT conduct.

Unless they drop the double standard BS and their whining, I would argue that conservative critics should sit down and shut up.  If and when they are willing to do the right thing, not just the right wing thing, then and only then do they have a legitimate complaint about others; in the successful PROFESSIONAL and more ethical media.

Friday, August 14, 2015

It's Friday Fun Day!
GOP HYPOCRISY:
Carson's Cutting Remarks!

Image result for scalpelAnyone can occasionally contradict themselves, or alternatively change their views and opinions.  But there is something unique to the hypocrisy on the right, the emphatic and even coercive "do as I say, not as I do" foundation of their ideology.  I would posit this hypocrisy is so intrinsic to the right wing ideology that it invalidates it.

At the end of July, presidential candidate and right wing extremist theocrat Ben Carson ranted and railed for the defunding of Planned Parenthood over the possible expansion of fetal tissue donations.  Pretty much all of the right winger candidates did so; it's how they make their money.

From CNN:
My entire professional career as a pediatric neurosurgeon was dedicated to saving the lives of children and promoting their long-term welfare, as I took the Hippocratic Oath to "First, do no harm." Protecting innocent life is a duty consistent with that solemn oath. Destroying or butchering them is particularly offensive to someone like myself who has operated on babies while they were still in utero. All human life is precious and should be preserved and protected with the utmost respect and care.
When we reach a point where we are so callous that we kill innocent little babies, what else won't we do? Is there a limit to our barbarism? Human history is replete with examples of what happens when we devalue human life. Here in the United States of America, we have a history of compassion and kindness that characterizes a model citizen. It is time to reclaim our heritage and reject the purveyors of selfishness and callousness.
Congress should defund Planned Parenthood and consider having the IRS revoke its status as a 501(c)(3) organization. I believe deeply, as it is written in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. First and foremost among these unalienable rights is life, and we created a government in order to protect it -- not fund its destruction.
Even as he spewed these words, Carson knew damn well that he himself had been one of the 'buyers' of fetal tissue donations, or consumer of it, if you prefer.  He KNEW this, but did not happen to mention it, apparently hoping it would not come out and discourage donors to his campaign.

H/t to the Daily Kos for the link to the published paper that Carson produced from his research
  (that's ol' Dr. Ben there, third name in):

Colloid cysts of the third ventricle: immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuroepithelial differentiation.

Tsuchida T1, Hruban RH, Carson BS, Phillips PC.
As  the same Daily Kos piece noted:
Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who is seeking the GOP nomination for President, is opposed to foetal tissue research. He claims nothing can be learned from it that cannot be learned in another way. He has flogged this position on FOX News Channel and on Breitbart.
In point of FACT, there are forms of scientific research for which other tissue IS NOT suitable or as effective as the unique qualities of fetal tissue.  Asserting so is dishonest.

Regardless of facts to the contrary, regardless of science contrary to their beliefs, it is what the right wing nuts do to get money and votes from their anti-fact, anti-science, anti-truth base.

Planned Parenthood has approximately 4 clinics that currently provide that service to their clients.  No tissue is ever sold, nor has it ever been proposed for sale.  Dishonest conservatives tried to deceive people as to the fees involved in tissue collection, storage and transport, which in some respects resembles similar procedures for organs used in transplants.  It requires special equipment and procedures which entail additional costs over the disposal of medical waste.

No abortion is done for the purpose of providing medical specimens; rather this is a decision women have as an option to procedures they have already chosen.  The women donors receive no compensation or benefit.

Let's look at the contradiction in Carson's statements, courtesy of the Wa Po:
He told Fox New's Megyn Kelly that fetal tissue research was basically useless and that the same things could be accomplished without it.

"And if you go back over the years, and look at the research that has been done and all the things it was supposed to deliver, very little of that has been done, and there's nothing that can't be done without fetal tissue", Carson said.

and the big contradictions:
On Thursday, though, Carson told Weigel that the use of fetal tissue shouldn't be banned. He declined to say whether Planned Parenthood should stop providing fetal tissue for medical research. So one one hand, Carson said the use of fetal tissue doesn't produce results and is interchangeable with less morally fraught materials, and on the other he used it himself and now says it shouldn't be banned.

Carson's views on abortion appear to have long been complicated. In 1992, he appeared in an ad encouraging Maryland voters to oppose a law that would effectively keep abortions legal in the state if the Supreme Court overturned or weakened Roe v. Wade. He later appeared at a pro-abortion-rights activist press conference disavowing the ad, saying he didn't realize he was making a political statement.
And the Huff Po gives us this additional information, quoting OB/GYN doctor and researcher Dr. Jen Gunter noting this research was on aborted fetuses, and giving the age of the fetuses:
"...published a study with three other colleagues in 1992 that described using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”

As a neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson knows full well that fetal tissue is essential for medical research. His discipline would have a hard time being [where] it is today without that kind of work. What is even more egregious than dismissing the multitude of researchers whose work allowed him to become a neurosurgeon is the hypocrisy of actually having done that research himself while spouting off about its supposed worthlessness.
and the Huff Po goes on to quote Carson -- this relates to the age of the aborted fetal tissue HE himself used, underlining his hypocrisy:
Last month, Carson railed against Planned Parenthood and pro-choice advocates by describing a fetus in the 17th week of gestation.
“At 17 weeks, you’ve got a nice little nose and little fingers and hands and the heart’s beating," he said on Fox News. "It can respond to environmental stimulus. How can you believe that that’s just an irrelevant mass of cells? That’s what they want you to believe, when in fact it is a human being.”
So, apparently Carson is all morally and ethically comfy with the ethics of fetal research on 17 week fetuses when HE is the one doing it, but it's all "no!-wrong!-BAD!" and "don't fund it" when anyone else does the research. 

Stick a fork in ol' Ben; I would bet his campaign as the token right wing negro candidate, the Uncle Tom du Jour, like Hermann Cain's in the preceding presidential campaign cycle, is concluded.

Friday, April 13, 2012

All Ann Romney has in common with most American women is a pair of X Chromosomes

I applaud the President for putting spouses off-limits in campaigns; that is more courtesy than his wife and family have received in the past.  Anyone remember some of the attacks by the right, including from members of Congress and especially the right wing talk radio thugs, against Michele Obama over her campaign against childhood obesity? 
I deplore that when Mitt Romney brought up his wife as his source for understanding the culture war on women, he simultaneously put her out of bounds for the kind of assessment that any other adviser would receive.  If he is relying on her on a specific topic, her advice is legitimate for consideration.
As a woman, I don't feel that examining his wife's experience regarding the lives of women who are not millionaires or billionaires is an attack. Rather it is a fair and reasonable thing to do, given Mittens himself brought this up as his source.  Pointing out Ann Romney's lack of experience is not wrong or bad.
Ann Romney has spoken a lot recently about choices -- and her choice to be a stay at home mom doing that oh-so-difficult job of raising five boys.  Yeah, boohoo.  She had the choice of NOT working, a choice not available to most working moms in less affluent circumstances.
I presume that like Mitt Romney, his five sons went to the same sort of prep schools he did - which were apparently boarding schools.  To qualify as a stay at home mom raising five sons, the sons need to be at home:
"It was an ethos that Mr. Romney tried to imbue in his five sons, even as they grew up with the trappings of wealth, like prep school tuitions, extended vacations, Jet Skis — and, in recent years, $100 million in trust funds and a paternal investment of at least $1 million in a financial company started by Tagg Romney. "
       
This is a far cry from the working mother who has to juggle her job with child care when her kids are home sick, or on vacation from school, or just to be sure someone is there to get them off to school in the morning and to be sure someone is there for them when they come home.  This is a far cry from someone who has to work extra jobs and scrape and save to try to help with the education of their kids after K-12, or even just to pay for some kind of supervision during summer vacation or maybe a summer camp experience.  I don't see it as being all that hard to raise five kids who aren't home most of the time, while the housework is taken care of by paid staff and where you yourself don't have to work. 
That puts Ann Romney as out of touch as a wife and mother as her husband is with mainstream American life.

More than that, she has multiple homes with multiple housekeepers, She doesn't do her own cleaning. UNLIKE the average American woman who is targeted by the right wing culture war:
"Despite health concerns, does a woman who owns three homes and employs four housekeepers count as fair representation of the average household mom? Based on a 2010 tax return provided by The Data Lounge, Romney reported an income of $21.7 million. The report revealed that $20,603 went to taxable wages for household help- an extremely low number to begin with, given that an average housekeeper earns up to $50,000 a year."
Mrs. Romney is a survivor of both multiple sclerosis and breast cancer.  How fortunate for her as a wealthy trophy wife that SHE had the opportunity for readily available health testing.
That is emphatically NOT the case for all the women who are now being adversely impacted, denied health care services including diagnostic procedures for breast cancer, by the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  But as I'm sure she has never relied on the services of non-profits like Planned Parenthood, I don't see how she can speak to the experience of being without health care for reproductive related needs.  I'm sure that every one of her many homes has the medical services she requires at an accessible distance -- unlike the ordinary women who rely on Planned Parenthood, which her husband promises to defund.
And I'm sure Ann Romney has NEVER in the course of her health care provider NEVER EVER had to deal with her five boys being a disqualifying pre-existing condition for insurance, or worry that her illnesses would receive treatment -- AGAIN, UNLIKE ordinary women who are less affluent.
This answer from a licensed insurance agent to a question about pre-existing conditions and pregnancy sums up what I'm sure Ann Romney doesn't know and has never experienced:
The laws that govern group and individual health plans are a little different when it comes to pre-existing conditions, and are enforced or regulated by the state department of insurance in the state where you live.
Individual plans, almost without exception, will not take on a pregnant applicant, or even a male who is looking for a health plan if he's fathered a child that hasn't been born yet.  Group plans are much more likely to accept a pregnant employee, or the spouse of a pregnant woman, on their plan after the employer's probation period is over. however, it's possible if the pregnancy is beyond the first trimester to encounter problems getting accepted. the fastest way to get the true answer in this situation is to find out what the employer's probation period is (90 days or whatever), and also ask the benefits administrator at the company to call the health insurance carrier and ask them directly. In Texas, by law, pregnancy is supposed to be covered like any other pre-existing condition on a group plan. However, if pre
Finally, every state has an individual health insurance plan that is sponsored by the state department, for persons with pre-existing that can't get covered or accepted anywhere. Do a Google search for "[your state] department of insurance" and the link for the site will come up. Contact them or review the website and look for the 'risk pool' plan. In Texas, blue cross blue shield is the provider. every state is difference. This individual policy provides coverage for persons with terminal illness, pregnancy, and anything else other insurance companies often decline or charge a fortune to cover. The premiums are about 1.25 - 1.5 times more than health insurance for the same applicant would be with a company that does not cover pre-existing conditions, but the coverage is guaranteed. in other words, you can't be declined.
This works perfectly if you already have health insurance that doesn't cover maternity. the risk pool plan will have at least a 12 month waiting period for pre-ex, like group health plans do. If you have had your old health insurance for any period of time - especially for twelve months already - you get credit for that coverage and your waiting period for pre-ex is eliminated on the new plan. If you had coverage for six months, the risk pool would give you six months of credit off the pre-ex waiting period. If your baby's due in 8 months, it will work because you only have to wait six months for the pre-ex part of the coverage to be effective.  If your baby's due in 2 months, your pre-ex period won't be over yet and it the pregnancy won't be covered.
So what do you do if the answers above don't work for you ...?
In a worse case scenario, you can approach your obstetrician and negotiate a price for a package deal of nine months of prenatal care and baby delivery. The cost would be at least $2,500-3,500; for c-sec, $5,000-7,000. Your cash offer should be 50% of whatever the doctor charges insurance companies for the same service. offer monthly payments with the last one due on the baby's due date. You can negotiate the hospital bill for a package deal for an overnight stay the same way.
Call each medical care provider (ob and the hospital) to get the charge they send to insurance companies for the services you need before you let on you need to negotiate your bill. If you can, pay the hospital installments over the nine months during the pregnancy and they'll be more likely to agree to the arrangement. Collecting money for medical services after the care has been rendered is really difficult, so many medical providers don't like to negotiate at all. don't be discouraged. Good ob docs and hospitals do this everyday, but it's not in the grapevine for the public to know. It's easy to panic if you're expecting and don't have maternity. Instill the idea in your mind that everything's negotiable, and trudge ahead with finding a doctor and hospital you like. Your determination will show and help you during negotiations. It's also a good persuasion tool to write your arrangement on paper when you present it to a medical care provider to show how serious you are.
So if Ann Romney was not staying at home, vacuuming, folding laundry and handing out milk and cookies to those five sons of hers.......where was she? She was ill for a period of time pre-90's.  Fortunately for her, unlike so many women in the mainstream of America, she could take as much time as she needed for her health.  She didn't have to work to keep her health insurance, no matter how exhausted she was from treatment.  She didn't have to handle those difficult five boys without paid help, and then only when they were home from boarding school.
So.......what was she doing after the latter-1990's when she was ill?  She was not home with the boys, she was off doing competitive horse events.  I have ridden beginning level dressage a very long time ago.  It is expensive, it is time consuming, it is extremely challenging.  To ride competitively at the level that Ann Romney does is not something one does in a spare few minutes here and there. That this is what Ann Romney chose to do with her time instead of entering the work force only underlines the vast chasm of the disconnect between her life experience and 99% of American women.  The monthly boarding costs described below are probably not only more than the value of most people's mortgage payment or rent, they almost certainly exceed the monthly median income of a family of four.
Does this sound like someone who can advise Mitt Romney, presidential candidate on the reality of most women?  I don't think so!  Ann Romney is no 'everywoman'.
From the 'behind the bit' blog:
Ann's dressage dream
If you don't already know, Mitt Romney's wife Anne is a dressage rider. She was diagnosed with a debilitating illness -- multiple sclerosis -- in the late 1990s. When the disease was under control, she decided to pursue her childhood dream to learn dressage. Ann threw her leg over her first dressage horse at age 50. Now, at age 58, she is now competing at the Grand Prix level, having achieved her silver and gold USDF medals. She rides with Jan Ebeling and she has taken on the role of sponsor, buying several horses from Europe for him to compete internationally. 

Dressage on the campaign trail
George W. Bush was able to use Texas cowboy imagery to appeal to the average American. As for dressage, I'm not sure that it will play in Peoria. The word "dressage" elicits a narrow range of responses in my non-horsey social circles: a) blank stares, b) references to watching paint dry/grass grow, or most often, c) "Isn't that very expensive????" The New York Times Dec 16, 2007 article on Romney made a few pointed observations on Ann's riding:

"Dressage is a sport of seven-figure horses and four-figure saddles. The monthly boarding costs are more than most people’s rent. Asked how many dressage horses she owns, Mrs. Romney laughed. 'Mitt doesn’t even know the answer to that,' she said. 'I’m not going to tell you!'"
It would have been easier if she hadn't picked a sport that was so--well, European. The Dallas Morning News described Ann Romney's dressage demonstration ride at a Salt Lake City rodeo.
[Mitt Romney's] wife, Ann, is a competitor in dressage, the equestrian event that features a variety of often-indistinguishable trots, canters and walks. She and two others demonstrated the sport, dressed in traditional dressage breeches and riding horses with names like Gucci. It's more Rodeo Drive than rodeo. The audience applauded politely. 'I guess the fancy horses get to be in the Olympics, but the working horses don't," said Tom Corrin of Salt Lake City.'"

I keep seeing news articles about how the baby boomers are still paying off their college debt - both men and women.  Ann Romney is of an age to be considered a boomer; she went to Brigham Young and Harvard.  I'm fairly confident that unlike the many boomers, and the many women who are younger than the boomers, she is NOT still paying off HER college debt.  Just one more way in which Ann Romney is out of touch with mainstream American women targeted by the culture wars.

So........how do we DARE criticize Ann Romney (gasp!) for her advice to Mitt on women and economics? How do we NOT dare? There is NOTHING about Ann Romney that has anything in common with the life experiences of mainstream American women. In taking a FAIR and objective look at Republican culture wars, we cannot afford to ignore this disconnect.  There is far too much at stake.   Ann Romney can afford to talk about choices; she has many.  If Mitt Romney is elected, if right wing politicians are elected, we will have far fewer choices than we have now.

Monday, November 7, 2011


Who Was It That REALLY Targeted Black Women and babies ?
Contrary to Herman Cain, who wrongly blames Planned Parenthood, it was a governmental Eugenics program.

Planned Parenthood is under attack, nationally and here in Minnesota.  The right-wingers like to malign it with factually inaccurate accusations.  One example would be Michel Bachmann's fear-mongering that there was a danger of children being taken by school authorities to Planned Parenthood for abortions, and then getting on the school bus at the end of the day to go home as if nothing had occurred.


That Planned Parenthood lie by Bachmann was debunked pretty effectively. And we posted the debunking of the lie about Planned Parenthood told by Herman Cain repeatedly as well, here, citing the research into his statements by the excellent factcheck.org.

But in the face of the Eugenics / Involuntary sterilization controversy currently taking place in North Carolina, which you can read about, here, there has been a problem in the past, mostly from the 1920s through the 1970s that is currently center stage.  There HAS been targeting of certain groups, which in North Carolina included a disproportionate number of blacks, for sterilization, not abortion. But clearly, sterilization DID disproportionately limit the number of black children being born.

So, what are the facts about black women and babies being targeted?  You certainly will never hear the truth about it from any of the 2012 GOP Presidential contenders.  In fact, there is seldom an accurate statement from any of them on the topic of sex, reproduction, gender orientation, or human sexuality.

But the North Carolina controversy DID make me curious about Eugenics programs in the state of Minnesota.  Being fact-oriented and not factually challenged when it comes to facts relating to sex, gender, or sexuality, I did a little digging, as I am known to do from time to time.

What I found was this fascinating brief history of Eugenics in Minnesota at the Minnesota Historical Society's web site, where you can read more, here:

HISTORY TOPICS

Minnesota Eugenics Society & Founder Charles Fremont Dight

Charles F. DightEugenics was a movement to improve the human species by controlling hereditary factors in mating. The eugenics movement began in the late 1800s in Britain. Francis Galton, an English scientist, coined the term in 1883 and founded the Eugenics Society of Great Britain in 1908. Galton’s philosophy was that humanity could be improved by encouraging the ablest and healthiest people to have more children. Galton’s vision of eugenics is usually termed “positive eugenics.” The eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored “negative eugenics,” which advocated preventing the least able from breeding. The American Eugenics Society was organized in 1926.
In the early 1920s, Charles Fremont Dight, a physician in Minneapolis, launched a crusade to bring the eugenics movement to Minnesota. He combined the moral philosophy of eugenics with socialism and espoused the idea that the state should administer reproduction of mentally handicapped individuals. His main lines of approach included eugenics education, changes in marriage laws, and the segregation and sterilization of what he called “defective” individuals.
Dight organized the Minnesota Eugenics Society in 1923 and began campaigning for a sterilization law. In 1925 the Minnesota legislature passed a law allowing the sterilization of the “feeble–minded” and insane who were resident in the state's institutions. For the next several legislative sessions Dight fought unsuccessfully for expansion of the law to include sterilization of the “unfit” who lived outside of institutions.
Dight continued his legislative efforts as late as 1935. He spoke and wrote on the subject of eugenics, including over 300 letters to Minneapolis daily newspapers, a 1935 pamphlet on the History and Early Stages of the Organized Eugenics Movement for Human Betterment in Minnesota, and a 1936 book entitled Call for a New Social Order. In 1933 he sent a letter to Adolph Hitler and included with it one of his letters to the editor in which he commended Hitler's work in Germany.
The Minnesota Eugenics Society became moribund by the early 1930s. Dight died on June 20, 1938, in Minneapolis. He left his estate to the University of Minnesota to found what became the Dight Institute for the promotion of Human Genetics.

That made me even more curious; a doctoral dissertation Neal Ross Holtan, from earlier this year on the history of eugenics and the U of MN put the end of the Dight institute at 1988 when it became the Institute for Human Genetics, not the 1960s, as stated in an MPR article from August 2011.  That places our eugenics history a couple of decades more recent, if relatively inactive for sterilization during those later years. 

There was this information on forced sterilization from this University of Minnesota web site:
Number of victims
In total, there were 2,350 victims of sterilization in Minnesota.  Of the 2,350, 519 were male, and 1,831 (approx. 78%) were female. About 18% were deemed mentally ill and 82% mentally deficient. The sterilizations in Minnesota accounted for 4 percent of all the sterilizations in the nation (Lombardo, p. 118).
Period during which sterilizations occurred
The sterilizations took place predominantly between 1928 and the late 1950s.  Sterilizations were relatively high in the 1930s and early 1940s (Paul, p. 393).  During the war, there was a shortage of staff, which may be the reason why there were fewer sterilizations from 1942 to 1946 (Paul, p. 396).
And there were several sources which identify Minnesota as having been one of, if not the most, eugenics conscious states in the U.S.  What I haven't found yet is if the law passed in the first part of the 20th century has been repealed, or if court decisions have simply made it no longer applicable.......or if its provisions have been replaced by other legislation.

Bachmann is that the claims about Planned Parenthood appear to play on the abuses of eugenics sterilization as part of their fear mongering repressive and regressive policies towards sex and reproduction, and especially wrong and bad in the policies they advocate for the terrible failure, abstinence only sex education.

I knew that in some other states, right wing sex paranoia took forms like banning sex toys including vibrators, and that Minnesota had at one time enforced draconian sodomy laws until they were overturned by our State Supreme Court.  What I did not know though turned up in this article, from of all places, that right wing bastion of propaganda, Fox News (you can read the whole article, here):
"Outdated, unthinkable, erotophobic and downright ridiculous, we should thank our lucky stars that enforcing them is another matter.
Sex toys are banned in some states, such as Alabama. Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia. Flirting is banned in San Antonio, Texas. Oral sex is banned in Indiana. Anal intercourse is banned in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sexual positions beyond missionary are illegal in Washington, D.C. Sleeping naked is illegal in Minnesota."
When I hear Herman Cain, or Michele Bachmann whinging on trying to propagandize culture war issues relating to sex, it seems to me that at least as regards abortion, they are playing on our real history, as a state, and as a nation, of eugenics abuses.  In Minnesota, we turned Eugenics into a study of Genetics, something which empowers people.  If we listen to Cain or Bachmann, and follow their recommendations, we might as well return to that inglorious, backwards and fearful era of another century.  I for one have no desire to return to a right wing dark ages of human sexuality.  Part of pushing back against that right wing fear mongering about abortion targeting blacks and Planned Parenthood being racist is to know our factual history, to recognize the false conflating of abortion and sterilization in the face of right wing fraud.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Is This Right Wing Racism?

Herman Cain has been promoting lies, including the most convincing kind of lies, the ones that have some grain, some detail, of truth in them.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

August 2011

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]
• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]

Cain’s False Attack on Planned Parenthood

Bookmark and Share
Herman Cain has offered an alternate version of history in claiming that Planned Parenthood’s founder wanted to prevent “black babies from being born.” We find no support for that old claim. Cain also states that the organization built 75 percent of its clinics in black communities, but there’s no evidence that was true then. And today, only 9 percent of U.S. abortion clinics are in neighborhoods where half or more of residents are black, according to the most recent statistics.
The GOP presidential candidate made these comments back in March, telling an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation that “[w]hen Margaret Sanger — check my history — started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world.” He called it “planned genocide.”
In an interview on “Face the Nation” on Oct. 30, Cain did not back down from those allegations. Here’s his exchange with host Bob Schieffer:
Schieffer: … you said that it was not Planned Parenthood, it was really planned genocide because you said Planned Parenthood was trying to put all these centers into the black communities because they wanted to kill black babies –
Herman Cain: Yes.
Scheiffer: — before they were born. Do you still stand by that?
Cain: I still stand by that.
Schieffer: Do you have any proof that that was the objective of Planned Parenthood?
Cain: If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from. Look up the history. So if you go back and look up the history — secondly, look at where most of them were built; 75 percent of those facilities were built in the black community — and Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word “genocide,” but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.
Cain isn’t the first to believe that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) wanted to stop the birth of black babies. Just do an Internet search and see what happens. Sanger made more than her share of controversial comments. But the quote many point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” of African Americans has been turned on its head.
Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:
Sanger, 1939: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”
It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”