A Smattering of Random

You're awesome, Tagline!

Posts tagged Health Care

1 note

Why I perform abortions: A Christian obstetrician explains his choices

"A. It forces women to take into account the sensibility of people who don’t have firsthand information about what the circumstances are in that woman’s life. It creates a duty and obligation for a woman to make her decision in a time frame acceptable to people other than herself. That time frame may or may not be realistic, and it fails to take into account the complexity of decision-making when it comes to abortion.

As people sit around, and theorize and debate about what should be a reasonable or common ground, the voices of the people who are most affected by this decision are lost. They aren’t represented in these dialogues. Their specific realities don’t count.”

Go read this immediately.

Filed under abortion pro-choice choice health care reproductive rights access christianity religion anti-choice intersectionality oppressions intersect poverty race

462 notes

fuckyeahplannedparenthood:

stfusexists:

sinidentidades:

SIGNAL BOOST: 
Lazy media reports Komen Foundation decision as ‘reversal.’ It isn’t.
Earlier today, the news broke that the Komen Foundation had issued an apology for its decision to stop funding cancer screen and prevention at Planned Parenthood. The apology was nothing more than an attempt to control the damage done to the Komen brand, but the traditional media nonetheless did the work for the foundation by reporting it as a reversal of the Komen Foundation’s decision.
But it’s not.
Greg Sargent reports:
I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.
Right. So in other words, the foundation’s announcement isn’t reversing anything at all.
Further:
Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, [Komen board member John] Raffelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said.
Yes, it really is unclear. The Komen Foundation needs to state unequivocally that it will continue its long practice of working with Planned Parenthood; otherwise, this looks like nothing more than an attempt to try to change the narrative and the non-stop negative headlines about the foundation’s politicizing of breast cancer prevention.
Oh, and one more thing:
Asked if Brinker’s job was safe, Rafelli said: “Yes.” He added that the board “unequivocally” stood behind her.
That would be Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of the foundation, who has spent the last 24 hours chastising critics for criticizing Komen.
So, traditional media, are you still going to keep doing the bidding of the Komen Foundation by pretending it has changed its position? Or are you going to report the truth?
If you want to support an organization that really does care about women’s health, click to donate to Planned Parenthood.

Well, I am really impressed with Komen for one thing…it takes a finely tuned disaster to simultaneously piss of the pro-choicers and the anti-choicers simultaneously in the course of 24 hours. 

That’s the catch: they’re only funding existing grants. Planned Parenthood can- at this point- apply for future grants. 
Personally, I am not celebrating the fact that they “reversed” their decision. After all of the facts about the Komen Foundation have been brought to light (including that they are headed by GOP supporters, their Policy VP wants to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and they have various other shadypractices), I’m pretty repulsed that they would dare to jeopardize thousands of people’s ability to access the healthcare that they promote and then scramble to kinda-sorta fix the mess when they realized they weren’t going to get some kind of pat on the back. As much as I respect and admire Cecile Richards, I am not grateful for Komen’s decision. They have proved that they are working under an anti-choice, pro-GOP, pro-profit agenda at the expense of people’s health and this was nothing short of a media ploy.
I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this. Reblog with a comment or send us an ask, wouldya?
-Rachel

Signal boosting. 
See, the anti-choice side fights dirty.  They don’t care if they lie or harass or coerce people.  They don’t care if people die or get hurt.  Not as long as their actions impede or stop legal abortion—whatever the cost.  This is a zero sum game for them.  They use tactics that are dirty and underhanded and there is no place for compromise in their dogma.
Because pro-choice is the compromise.
SGK has proven that, beyond a doubt.  They are willing to watch people die in order to advance their anti-choice agenda.  That should not be overlooked, and it should not be downplayed.  
And it’s to PP’s detriment to let that go unacknowledged and unchallenged.  We aren’t in a fair fight here.  This is a dirty barroom brawl and the other side fights way dirtier than we do.  The least we should be able to expect is for those with the big microphones to call them out on it.
As Shelby Knox put it:

fuckyeahplannedparenthood:

stfusexists:

sinidentidades:

SIGNAL BOOST: 

Lazy media reports Komen Foundation decision as ‘reversal.’ It isn’t.

Earlier today, the news broke that the Komen Foundation had issued an apology for its decision to stop funding cancer screen and prevention at Planned Parenthood. The apology was nothing more than an attempt to control the damage done to the Komen brand, but the traditional media nonetheless did the work for the foundation by reporting it as a reversal of the Komen Foundation’s decision.

But it’s not.

Greg Sargent reports:

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

Right. So in other words, the foundation’s announcement isn’t reversing anything at all.

Further:

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, [Komen board member John] Raffelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said.

Yes, it really is unclear. The Komen Foundation needs to state unequivocally that it will continue its long practice of working with Planned Parenthood; otherwise, this looks like nothing more than an attempt to try to change the narrative and the non-stop negative headlines about the foundation’s politicizing of breast cancer prevention.

Oh, and one more thing:

Asked if Brinker’s job was safe, Rafelli said: “Yes.” He added that the board “unequivocally” stood behind her.

That would be Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of the foundation, who has spent the last 24 hours chastising critics for criticizing Komen.

So, traditional media, are you still going to keep doing the bidding of the Komen Foundation by pretending it has changed its position? Or are you going to report the truth?

If you want to support an organization that really does care about women’s health, click to donate to Planned Parenthood.

Well, I am really impressed with Komen for one thing…it takes a finely tuned disaster to simultaneously piss of the pro-choicers and the anti-choicers simultaneously in the course of 24 hours. 

That’s the catch: they’re only funding existing grants. Planned Parenthood can- at this point- apply for future grants. 

Personally, I am not celebrating the fact that they “reversed” their decision. After all of the facts about the Komen Foundation have been brought to light (including that they are headed by GOP supporters, their Policy VP wants to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and they have various other shadypractices), I’m pretty repulsed that they would dare to jeopardize thousands of people’s ability to access the healthcare that they promote and then scramble to kinda-sorta fix the mess when they realized they weren’t going to get some kind of pat on the back. As much as I respect and admire Cecile Richards, I am not grateful for Komen’s decision. They have proved that they are working under an anti-choice, pro-GOP, pro-profit agenda at the expense of people’s health and this was nothing short of a media ploy.

I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this. Reblog with a comment or send us an ask, wouldya?

-Rachel

Signal boosting. 

See, the anti-choice side fights dirty.  They don’t care if they lie or harass or coerce people.  They don’t care if people die or get hurt.  Not as long as their actions impede or stop legal abortion—whatever the cost.  This is a zero sum game for them.  They use tactics that are dirty and underhanded and there is no place for compromise in their dogma.

Because pro-choice is the compromise.

SGK has proven that, beyond a doubt.  They are willing to watch people die in order to advance their anti-choice agenda.  That should not be overlooked, and it should not be downplayed.  

And it’s to PP’s detriment to let that go unacknowledged and unchallenged.  We aren’t in a fair fight here.  This is a dirty barroom brawl and the other side fights way dirtier than we do.  The least we should be able to expect is for those with the big microphones to call them out on it.

As Shelby Knox put it:

Filed under Health Care access cancer planned parenthood poverty anti-choice pro-life pregnancy

21 notes

Pregnancy with a physical disability: One psychologist's journey

Great article, well worth reading.  Being pro-choice isn’t just about abortion.

Perhaps what I have found the most helpful during my pregnancy has been the advice and input from other women with disabilities who have “been there, done that.” I am fortunate to call many women with disabilities my colleagues and friends, and pregnancy has been a special time for me to reach out to those who are also mothers. Speaking with mothers with disabilities has helped me gain perspective on the experience of pregnancy. Even though physically our experiences are different, other women with disabilities have faced the same societal and attitudinal barriers that I am currently dealing with.

I recently read an article online about an increase in the number of pregnancies among women with disabilities. Most striking were the comments submitted by readers. Most commenters described women with disabilities are “selfish” for having children, and assumed women with disabilities were receiving financial assistance from the government. Women with disabilities and their children were judged to be a burden on society. Several readers expressed the view that women with disabilities could not properly care for children, and should not reproduce due to the risk of passing on disabilities with a genetic component. These attitudes are pervasive in our society, although less often so brazenly expressed without the perceived anonymity of the Internet. In my daily life, such attitudes have played out more subtly. No one has asked me directly how I’m going to take care of my baby, but that question has been asked to my friends and family. Recently an acquaintance made a comment implying that I will have difficulty keeping up with my child from my wheelchair as he grows into a toddler.

Filed under pro-choice pregnancy medical health care disability discimination abelism