There's not much to say about Gary Kamiya's thoughtful and spot-on assessment of Barack Obama's appeal in Salon today. It pretty much sums up not only why I support Obama, but also how I feel about the intersection of the personal and political in this election.
Quotes won't do it justice, just read.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Thursday, December 20, 2007
End-of-the-Year Setback
So it seems that the global gag rule (more formally known as the “Mexico City Policy”) shall remain, at least for the time being. On Monday the House voted, 253-154, in favor of an omnibus spending bill that contains no language that would repeal the harmful and ignorant restriction. The Senate, surely, will follow suit in the coming days.
The gag rule, first introduced by Reagan, lifted temporarily by Clinton, and then reinstated by Bush on his first day of office, prevents the U.S. from granting any foreign aid to family planning agencies or NGOs that provide, discuss or really even think about abortions. Called the "gag rule" because it stifles free speech and public debate on abortion-related issues, the policy forces a cruel choice on foreign NGOs: accept U.S. assistance to provide essential health services – but with restrictions that may jeopardize the health of many patients – or reject the policy and lose vital U.S. funds, contraceptive supplies and technical assistance.
Just to give you an example of the far-reaching limits of this policy, one of the consequences is that health centers that operate in developing nations were told that they would not be allowed to so much as hang a poster that mentions abortion without potentially being denied funds for a provision of health services that has nothing to do with abortion. In addition, if a reproductive health organization provides abortions anywhere in the world and also runs separate family planning clinics which do not provide abortions, their funding can be cut off. Sadly, these are not just hypothetical situations as they are happening right now is Nigeria and Kenya.
Hope was in the air earlier this year as the Senate voted to repeal the policy and a landmark hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs gave public health experts a much-needed opportunity to present the myriad consequences of the policy. Democrats pushed for adding language into the spending bill that would repeal or at least weaken the policy, but at the end of the day, the threat of a presidential veto was too great, and well, you know the rest...
On the very small but not insignificant upside, the spending bill does loosen the shackles of the mandate that at least one-third of U.S. global HIV prevention funds be used solely for programs that promote abstinence until marriage (which really seems like a no-brainer in light of the recent failure of abstinence-only education here in the U.S.)
This fight is not over, though. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pledged to the repeal the gag rule, if elected. On the first day of office, no less.
Hope prevails again.
The gag rule, first introduced by Reagan, lifted temporarily by Clinton, and then reinstated by Bush on his first day of office, prevents the U.S. from granting any foreign aid to family planning agencies or NGOs that provide, discuss or really even think about abortions. Called the "gag rule" because it stifles free speech and public debate on abortion-related issues, the policy forces a cruel choice on foreign NGOs: accept U.S. assistance to provide essential health services – but with restrictions that may jeopardize the health of many patients – or reject the policy and lose vital U.S. funds, contraceptive supplies and technical assistance.
Just to give you an example of the far-reaching limits of this policy, one of the consequences is that health centers that operate in developing nations were told that they would not be allowed to so much as hang a poster that mentions abortion without potentially being denied funds for a provision of health services that has nothing to do with abortion. In addition, if a reproductive health organization provides abortions anywhere in the world and also runs separate family planning clinics which do not provide abortions, their funding can be cut off. Sadly, these are not just hypothetical situations as they are happening right now is Nigeria and Kenya.
Hope was in the air earlier this year as the Senate voted to repeal the policy and a landmark hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs gave public health experts a much-needed opportunity to present the myriad consequences of the policy. Democrats pushed for adding language into the spending bill that would repeal or at least weaken the policy, but at the end of the day, the threat of a presidential veto was too great, and well, you know the rest...
On the very small but not insignificant upside, the spending bill does loosen the shackles of the mandate that at least one-third of U.S. global HIV prevention funds be used solely for programs that promote abstinence until marriage (which really seems like a no-brainer in light of the recent failure of abstinence-only education here in the U.S.)
This fight is not over, though. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pledged to the repeal the gag rule, if elected. On the first day of office, no less.
Hope prevails again.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Sweet Potato Biscuits
My original idea was to make sweet potato muffins, but I had a bit of buttermilk left over from last week, so I thought this would be a good way to use it up. I also forgot to soften the butter before I headed to work in the morning, so it worked out pretty well. They turned out great, although next time I might use pastry flour for a hopefully lighter effect. These could go sweet or savory, I think, though we embraced their sweetness with black locust honey and a little zesty orange butter (clementine butter, actually.) We had this with braised mustard greens and sausage. Awesome weeknight dinner.
½ lb. sweet potatoes
2 tbs. light brown sugar
½ cup cold unsalted butter
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 tbs. baking powder
1 tsp. salt
½ tsp. baking soda
¾ cup buttermilk
Peel and chop sweet potatoes. Steam until soft, about 15 minutes, and mash with a fork or whatever you have around. You could also probably roast them whole and scoop out the flesh, but I think that would take too long. Pre-heat oven to 425 degrees. Combine flour, baking powder & salt in a large bowl. In another bowl, mix the sweet potato, brown sugar and butter. Beat at a low speed until fluffy. Dissolve baking soda in buttermilk. Stir buttermilk & sweet potato mixture alternately into dry ingredients. Roll dough 1" thick. Cut with floured 2" round cutter. Bake on a cookie sheet or cake pan for 15-20 minutes.
½ lb. sweet potatoes
2 tbs. light brown sugar
½ cup cold unsalted butter
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 tbs. baking powder
1 tsp. salt
½ tsp. baking soda
¾ cup buttermilk
Peel and chop sweet potatoes. Steam until soft, about 15 minutes, and mash with a fork or whatever you have around. You could also probably roast them whole and scoop out the flesh, but I think that would take too long. Pre-heat oven to 425 degrees. Combine flour, baking powder & salt in a large bowl. In another bowl, mix the sweet potato, brown sugar and butter. Beat at a low speed until fluffy. Dissolve baking soda in buttermilk. Stir buttermilk & sweet potato mixture alternately into dry ingredients. Roll dough 1" thick. Cut with floured 2" round cutter. Bake on a cookie sheet or cake pan for 15-20 minutes.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Self-Defense and the Law
From the Louisville Courier-Journal (via Broadsheet):
"Gov. Ernie Fletcher granted clemency, pardons or early parole reviews yesterday to 21 Kentucky women convicted of killing or trying to kill men they say abused them.
Fletcher also said additional pardons will be made today. The women said the legal system failed to take the abuse into account in killings they viewed as self-defense. Some argued they took ill-advised pleas, faced unjust verdicts or had done enough time in prison."
This brings up the question of whether the (undoubtedly awfully-named) “battered woman's syndrome” exists and if so, what its parameters are. “Battered woman’s syndrome” is included in DSM-IV under the Post-Traumatic Stress sub-category. It’s most often used to support criminal defense lawyers as they defend survivors of domestic violence who have killed or attempted to kill their abusive partners. The condition argues that long-time sufferers of physical, mental, sexual and economic abuse endure such severe emotional trauma that they lose the ability to comprehend consequences.*
I’m not a member of the medical community and don’t know how much standing this argument holds within it. I do know that without its classification as a “condition” the history of abuse that precipitates the crime often cannot be introduced at trial. If a history of abuse can be established and brought to a jury’s attention, though, I’m sure that in most cases, it would become apparent that these women are not planning murders or debating consequences, but acting out of desperation and a lack of options. One of the women who received clemency in Kentucky had moved six times to escape a man who for 20 years had hit her in the face with a baseball bat, stabbed her with a knife, beat her kids and choked her until she passed out. Less than a week before she shot him, he had raped her.
It’s recognition of the complete breakdown of any societal structure that should have helped these women before they got to this point that should guide these trials
Yes, there are domestic violence programs out there, and shelters, and yes, for some these are options. But the sad reality is that federal funding for DV-related (as well as other) social service programs has been so severely cut in the last five years, that DV shelters turn away more women than they help. (I work closely with the only DV shelter in Philadelphia and one of my colleagues keeps a running tally of the number of families that are turned away monthly).
But forget for a moment that there are a third more animal shelters in the U.S. than there are DV shelters. Other structural barriers can include language, immigration status, child welfare agencies, unsympathetic police officers or judges, institutions' reluctance to interfere in "domestic issues," general patriarchy….I see I’m tending toward soap-box status, so I’ll stop. My point is that even in best-case scenarios, we’re talking about women who are in constant fear for their lives. Add that the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is just after she leaves, and it’s no wonder that many women feel they have no other options. I hope that in the future they do, and I hope that legislators realize the dangers of what happens when they don’t.
In the meantime, I’m grateful for the outgoing governor of Kentucky and what appears to be a good and just call.
*For more info about DV-related self-defense, contact my friends at the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women.
"Gov. Ernie Fletcher granted clemency, pardons or early parole reviews yesterday to 21 Kentucky women convicted of killing or trying to kill men they say abused them.
Fletcher also said additional pardons will be made today. The women said the legal system failed to take the abuse into account in killings they viewed as self-defense. Some argued they took ill-advised pleas, faced unjust verdicts or had done enough time in prison."
This brings up the question of whether the (undoubtedly awfully-named) “battered woman's syndrome” exists and if so, what its parameters are. “Battered woman’s syndrome” is included in DSM-IV under the Post-Traumatic Stress sub-category. It’s most often used to support criminal defense lawyers as they defend survivors of domestic violence who have killed or attempted to kill their abusive partners. The condition argues that long-time sufferers of physical, mental, sexual and economic abuse endure such severe emotional trauma that they lose the ability to comprehend consequences.*
I’m not a member of the medical community and don’t know how much standing this argument holds within it. I do know that without its classification as a “condition” the history of abuse that precipitates the crime often cannot be introduced at trial. If a history of abuse can be established and brought to a jury’s attention, though, I’m sure that in most cases, it would become apparent that these women are not planning murders or debating consequences, but acting out of desperation and a lack of options. One of the women who received clemency in Kentucky had moved six times to escape a man who for 20 years had hit her in the face with a baseball bat, stabbed her with a knife, beat her kids and choked her until she passed out. Less than a week before she shot him, he had raped her.
It’s recognition of the complete breakdown of any societal structure that should have helped these women before they got to this point that should guide these trials
Yes, there are domestic violence programs out there, and shelters, and yes, for some these are options. But the sad reality is that federal funding for DV-related (as well as other) social service programs has been so severely cut in the last five years, that DV shelters turn away more women than they help. (I work closely with the only DV shelter in Philadelphia and one of my colleagues keeps a running tally of the number of families that are turned away monthly).
But forget for a moment that there are a third more animal shelters in the U.S. than there are DV shelters. Other structural barriers can include language, immigration status, child welfare agencies, unsympathetic police officers or judges, institutions' reluctance to interfere in "domestic issues," general patriarchy….I see I’m tending toward soap-box status, so I’ll stop. My point is that even in best-case scenarios, we’re talking about women who are in constant fear for their lives. Add that the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is just after she leaves, and it’s no wonder that many women feel they have no other options. I hope that in the future they do, and I hope that legislators realize the dangers of what happens when they don’t.
In the meantime, I’m grateful for the outgoing governor of Kentucky and what appears to be a good and just call.
*For more info about DV-related self-defense, contact my friends at the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women.
Monday, December 3, 2007
One more note about federal spending...
As many MSM outlets have been reporting, a technical “glitch” in the Federal Deficit Reduction Act recently disqualified many university health centers and family planning clinics (that treat the working poor) from receiving “charitable” discounts on contraceptives from pharmaceutical companies. The result is that the price of birth control pills went from about $3/month to about $50/month, which of course meant that most clinics stopped offering them for free.
Many people are arguing that these college students and low-income women should wear condoms or get birth control at the pharmacy or not have sex at all if it means that we hard-working tax-payers have to subsidize their contraceptives. What’s important, though, is that this “discount” did not come from increased taxes. In fact, it cost NOTHING to tax payers as it was essentially mandated that pharmaceutical companies offer discounted rates to clinics, which in turn trickled down (did I really just say that?) to health care consumers.
So, if you think that’s fucked up, you should support the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act that Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) introduced in early November. It would basically reverse the technical glitch and restore the low-cost for contraceptives. Simple, bi-partisan, pro-prevention and at no cost to tax-payers? There’s really no reason not to support this bill. If you live in Pennsylvania, click here to contact your legislators.
Many people are arguing that these college students and low-income women should wear condoms or get birth control at the pharmacy or not have sex at all if it means that we hard-working tax-payers have to subsidize their contraceptives. What’s important, though, is that this “discount” did not come from increased taxes. In fact, it cost NOTHING to tax payers as it was essentially mandated that pharmaceutical companies offer discounted rates to clinics, which in turn trickled down (did I really just say that?) to health care consumers.
So, if you think that’s fucked up, you should support the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act that Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) introduced in early November. It would basically reverse the technical glitch and restore the low-cost for contraceptives. Simple, bi-partisan, pro-prevention and at no cost to tax-payers? There’s really no reason not to support this bill. If you live in Pennsylvania, click here to contact your legislators.
Abortions & Erections
With the recent death of former Congressman Henry Hyde, I am again reminded of the supreme awesomeness of federal spending.
Hyde, best known for his role in the impeachment crusade of the late 90’s, left behind a significantly more destructive legacy by introducing one of the biggest blows to the pro-choice movement as a freshman member of congress in 1976. The Hyde Amendment, which was conveniently slipped onto an annual appropriations bill, banned any federal spending on abortions. (While the original amendment contained no exceptions, it now makes exceptions for rape, incest and life endangerment. Whoop-dee-doo.) As can be expected, those most impacted by this devastating restriction are poor (and overwhelmingly non-white) women enrolled in the Medicaid program. About 7.4 million women are of reproductive age and on Medicaid, for those who are counting.
Meanwhile, the NY Times reports that last year the Medicare program spent over $21 million on penis pumps to help older gentlemen maintain erections. That’s 47,000 pumps at $450/pump for those who are counting. Because it’s totally a public health necessity that our grandpas are walkin’ around rock-hard!
Bottom line: if you’re poor and pregnant, you’re shit out of luck. If you’re old and flaccid, the government just might be able to help you out…
Hyde, best known for his role in the impeachment crusade of the late 90’s, left behind a significantly more destructive legacy by introducing one of the biggest blows to the pro-choice movement as a freshman member of congress in 1976. The Hyde Amendment, which was conveniently slipped onto an annual appropriations bill, banned any federal spending on abortions. (While the original amendment contained no exceptions, it now makes exceptions for rape, incest and life endangerment. Whoop-dee-doo.) As can be expected, those most impacted by this devastating restriction are poor (and overwhelmingly non-white) women enrolled in the Medicaid program. About 7.4 million women are of reproductive age and on Medicaid, for those who are counting.
Meanwhile, the NY Times reports that last year the Medicare program spent over $21 million on penis pumps to help older gentlemen maintain erections. That’s 47,000 pumps at $450/pump for those who are counting. Because it’s totally a public health necessity that our grandpas are walkin’ around rock-hard!
Bottom line: if you’re poor and pregnant, you’re shit out of luck. If you’re old and flaccid, the government just might be able to help you out…
Friday, November 30, 2007
Seems Like a No-Brainer...
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has once again stalled the passage of the House Bill 288, which would require all Pennsylvania hospitals to provide information about and access to emergency contraception to survivors of rape. You might ask why such an obviously necessary piece of legislation would be delayed. Well, even though scientists believe that while most often Plan B works by preventing fertilization of an egg by sperm, once in a while, Plan B works by preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. That, for some Catholic theologians is tantamount to abortion. But, even so, only the most radical opponent of abortion would deny survivors of rape the right to an abortion. And, hello, All-Powerful Catholic Church Lobby!
In an attempt to appease the APCCL, some reps have introduced ludicrous amendments that unequivocally compromise the integrity of the bill. Once such amendment proposed by Rep. Grucel (D-138) would have the survivor call an immediate family member, who would then be expected to bring emergency contraception to the hospital, rather than have it provided by the medical professionals in charge of her care. Another amendment proposed by Rep. Ross (R-158) would exempt medical professionals and hospital management from providing information and access to Plan B, as along an “independent contractor” was brought in to do so. Who is an independent contractor? Why should a rape survivor have to recount her assault to yet another person? Let’s remember that this is a humiliating experience for most women, even when they receive the best and most sensitive medical care. The whole experience of going to the hospital, giving a step-by-step account of the assault, undergoing a rape kit…it’s all very intrusive and there’re no reason for an “independent contractor” or family member to do the work of providing medical care. That is, ostensibly, why doctors and hospitals exist.
Not to mention that women who become pregnant as a result of rape are the most likely to have abortions. Emergency contraception is very time sensitive and the longer a woman has to wait to access to it, the more likely the treatment will prevent implantation of the already fertilized egg (rather than prevent fertilization from occurring altogether.) In this respect, the proposed amendments would actually make “abortion” (as defined by the APCCL) more likely. Of course, if the bill isn’t passed at all, the likelihood of actual surgical abortion significantly increases. I hesitate to even mention this argument, since I support a woman’s right to choose at any step of the way, but that is sort of another argument entirely…
Other states with powerful lobbyists for the Catholic Church have had similar bills passed with little or no opposition. This bill was first brought up in June. It’s now the last day of November and it’s supposedly going before the house again next week. Here’s hoping for a reclaiming of sanity this December.
In an attempt to appease the APCCL, some reps have introduced ludicrous amendments that unequivocally compromise the integrity of the bill. Once such amendment proposed by Rep. Grucel (D-138) would have the survivor call an immediate family member, who would then be expected to bring emergency contraception to the hospital, rather than have it provided by the medical professionals in charge of her care. Another amendment proposed by Rep. Ross (R-158) would exempt medical professionals and hospital management from providing information and access to Plan B, as along an “independent contractor” was brought in to do so. Who is an independent contractor? Why should a rape survivor have to recount her assault to yet another person? Let’s remember that this is a humiliating experience for most women, even when they receive the best and most sensitive medical care. The whole experience of going to the hospital, giving a step-by-step account of the assault, undergoing a rape kit…it’s all very intrusive and there’re no reason for an “independent contractor” or family member to do the work of providing medical care. That is, ostensibly, why doctors and hospitals exist.
Not to mention that women who become pregnant as a result of rape are the most likely to have abortions. Emergency contraception is very time sensitive and the longer a woman has to wait to access to it, the more likely the treatment will prevent implantation of the already fertilized egg (rather than prevent fertilization from occurring altogether.) In this respect, the proposed amendments would actually make “abortion” (as defined by the APCCL) more likely. Of course, if the bill isn’t passed at all, the likelihood of actual surgical abortion significantly increases. I hesitate to even mention this argument, since I support a woman’s right to choose at any step of the way, but that is sort of another argument entirely…
Other states with powerful lobbyists for the Catholic Church have had similar bills passed with little or no opposition. This bill was first brought up in June. It’s now the last day of November and it’s supposedly going before the house again next week. Here’s hoping for a reclaiming of sanity this December.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)