Arizona bans government funding of Planned Parenthood.

May 6, 2012 3:53 PM

Arizona leads with another ground-breaking move after their immigration bill. A bill that prevents "abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving public funds" has passed into law, says CNN. (Planned Parenthood lists 14 health centers in Arizona.)

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court ruled that "Texas cannot ban Planned Parenthood from receiving state funds" for now, says the AP, so this latest move by Arizona may not go unchallenged.

posted by fragmede (72 comments total)

What war on women?
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:54 PM on May 6, 2012 [42 favorites]

[added the missing word per the linked article. Let me know if it wasn't the missing word you wanted and I can fix.]
posted by jessamyn at 4:02 PM on May 6, 2012

"Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies -- even if 'earmarked' for nonabortion activities -- free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions ... "

Remember this the next time a Republican tells you federal funding for faith based charity is acceptable!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:05 PM on May 6, 2012 [77 favorites]

^ Texas, not Arizona, and I cut out the worst part of the quote, but still!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:06 PM on May 6, 2012

North Carolina and I think Virginia have passed similar laws. Texas AG says that if they lose in court, they will shut the entire women's health program down. No assistance for stuff like milk for babies, no cancer screens or contraceptives for poor women. Because 3 million Texas women who use the program are worth sacrificing to the bloody maw of the Jesus idolatry as practiced by these so called Christians, just to make sure nobody can get an abortion.

Babies don't matter to these people. I think it is because babies come from vaginas, and vaginas are tools of evil.
posted by dejah420 at 4:07 PM on May 6, 2012 [52 favorites]

No, dejah420, empty vaginas are the tools of evil. When they are not empty, they have a morally superior being there to try to control the evil female.

(I suspect that this is an accurate description of some men's beliefs)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:11 PM on May 6, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, babies matter. But not the women who give birth to them.

Or rather, the women only matter if they happen to be already living the kind of life which can easily support a baby.

If you're the kind of woman who goes and gets pregnant and doesn't have the means to support your child, then obviously you're a Jezebel who deserves to tumble far down into the pits of hell for daring to make choices which your means cannot sustain.

If that tumble also takes your baby with you, well, they're blotless little bundles of angelic bliss, and it will only be upon your soul that you've harmed one of them with your wanton ways.

Truly lost is the meaning of "the least of these" which I seem to have read in red letters more than once in my Bible. But perhaps I'm reading the wrong version or something.
posted by hippybear at 4:11 PM on May 6, 2012 [9 favorites]

dejah420,

I'd love to see a quote about pulling all of the "women's health program down". Especially about the part concerning milk for babies. Texas has invested a bunch of money in one of the first electronic WIC programs; shutting it down seems unlikely.
posted by timfinnie at 4:15 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

This makes total sense,

Because, again, the obligately pro-life movement is not about saving unborn babies. If it were, the logical thing to do would be to throw tons of money at Planned Parenthood and similar organizations to provide a free and straightforward maternity care infrastructure that would save tens of millions fetuses in the US and billions globally in the next decade. They would also be shoving money into sex education that works, free contraception, and real options for pregnant mothers that include mandatory provision of maternity leave, financial assistance and free medical care. However, that is not even desired, because the movement is not about featuses. Its about shaming women for being women, and making a genuine freedom on conscience so dangerous that women would have no choice but to have a "Christian" morality imposed on them.

This move is about squashing our country's medical infrastructure to punish their neighbors for making moral choices they don't approve of.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:22 PM on May 6, 2012 [63 favorites]

timfinnie, here's one place where the solicitor general for Texas is quoted. The gist is that if funds for the program go to Planned Parenthood, then the program is illegal and has to be shut. At least, that's how it reads to me.
posted by Gorgik at 4:26 PM on May 6, 2012 [6 favorites]

Oh, babies matter. But not the women who give birth to them.

The babies only matter from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. After that, none of these so called defenders of life can be bothered to give a flying fuck.
posted by elizardbits at 4:37 PM on May 6, 2012 [34 favorites]

dejah420: "Texas AG says that if they lose in court, they will shut the entire women's health program down. No assistance for stuff like milk for babies, no cancer screens or contraceptives for poor women. Because 3 million Texas women who use the program are worth sacrificing to the bloody maw of the Jesus idolatry as practiced by these so called Christians, just to make sure nobody can get an abortion. "

Here's an honest question - why doesn't Texas AG stop providing abortions and continue providing all the other women's health services? What's to stop them? Is it the principle of the thing?
posted by falameufilho at 4:40 PM on May 6, 2012

dejah420: "Texas AG says that if they lose in court, they will shut the entire women's health program down. No assistance for stuff like milk for babies, no cancer screens or contraceptives for poor women. Because 3 million Texas women who use the program are worth sacrificing to the bloody maw of the Jesus idolatry as practiced by these so called Christians, just to make sure nobody can get an abortion. "

Here's an honest question - why doesn't Texas AG stop providing abortions and continue providing all the other women's health services? What's to stop them? Is it the principle of the thing?

I would assume because "Texas AG" stands for "Texas Attorney General", saying that if they can't shut down abortion specifically, they'll shut everything down to catch abortion in the net.
posted by kafziel at 4:48 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ironically, the Planned Parenthood where I live is no longer allowed to perform abortions. Only three Planned Parenthood locations in Arizona still offer them anymore, making Jan Brewer's excuse for cutting off funding rather weak.
posted by mollywas at 4:48 PM on May 6, 2012

Gorgik,

I tried Google for my answer, and all I get is a rehash of the same article with no way of finding the motion quoted.

In any case, feeding babies is pretty much down to the WIC program. And defunding it really isn't an option -- it's Federally subsidized. That's where I was going. The AZ side seems to have a different gist, so this is all a derail anyway, and I'm sorry.
posted by timfinnie at 4:55 PM on May 6, 2012

The actual bill, in case anyone wants to read it, is HB 2800. It contains some interesting qualifications, so I recommend reading the whole thing.
posted by decathecting at 4:59 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

And defunding it really isn't an option -- it's Federally subsidized.

So was the women's health program that Perry cut off to get rid of Planned Parenthood.
posted by immlass at 5:06 PM on May 6, 2012 [3 favorites]

Here's an honest question - why doesn't Texas AG stop providing abortions and continue providing all the other women's health services? What's to stop them? Is it the principle of the thing?

Going to assume: yes. They would much rather make an example of poor women who cannot afford contraceptives, pap smears, well-women tests, cancer tests, and STI treatment because some women want or need abortions, a procedure technically protected by law, and included as a part of female health care. I assume the same is in Arizona, and in the other states that have created such laws.
posted by jetlagaddict at 5:11 PM on May 6, 2012

The babies only matter from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. After that, none of these so called defenders of life can be bothered to give a flying fuck.

More specifically, they only matter while they're a painful handle that can be twisted on to punish sluts for having sex. The goal is to try to force them into marriage. Once the baby is actually born, fuck it, now it just costs money. If it can't be used to punish the slut, the Republicans don't particularly care if it dies in a gutter.

As far as I can tell, conservatives in this country think that Life As Seen On Television from the 1950s was real, that Leave it to Beaver was a documentary. They want us to go back to those halcyon days, and the best way to get women to be properly subservient again is to make sex as dangerous as possible.
posted by Malor at 5:12 PM on May 6, 2012 [6 favorites]

This is a battle, by the way, in a much deeper conflict: The War On Unauthorized Pleasure.
posted by Malor at 5:14 PM on May 6, 2012 [11 favorites]

immlass,

I get where you're coming from, but I happen to know that TX has not moved to cancel the WIC program. That program has nothing to do with abortion, and no politician will ever stand up and say "I support babies going hungry." This all had to do with the assertion that someone, somewhere (TX, AZ, wherever) actually wants to do away with the supplemental nutrition services that babies and children rely on nation-wide. No-one is going to take that position in an attempt to win the people over.
posted by timfinnie at 5:15 PM on May 6, 2012

Timfinnie, I'm on the phone, but the 90 million that the feds kick in has been stopped because of the Texas AG action. It's mentioned in the ap link above.
posted by dejah420 at 5:36 PM on May 6, 2012

Timfinnie, I'm on the phone, but the 90 million that the feds kick in has been stopped because of the Texas AG action. It's mentioned in the ap link above.

Well fuck my hat dejah420, that is completely fucking mental. I don't really have anything smarter to say about it.
posted by jaduncan at 5:42 PM on May 6, 2012

It's only a matter of time before the Arizona state legislature passes a law standing up for fetuses' right to stand their ground with assault rifles against their mothers. And then to get deported.
posted by Flunkie at 5:44 PM on May 6, 2012

They're just chipping away at whatever soft spots where they might be able to lodge even one claw of one of their pickaxes. I don't think it's ever about the specifics, or a rational argument about the tiny amounts of state and federal budgets that go to women's healthcare. They have a base who they have convinced that fighting abortion, like fighting against gay marriage, is a way to contribute to the war against the unknown evil forces that they otherwise feel completely powerless to confront.

So now today I have another donation to Planned Parenthood to make. Thanks, Jan Brewer and Rick Perry, for the reminder.
posted by argonauta at 5:45 PM on May 6, 2012 [6 favorites]

Why should taxpayer funding go to a private "non-profit" at all?

(My question has nothing to do with abortion. I feel that is a personal/religious issue for government to STAY OUT OF.)
posted by caclwmr4 at 5:45 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

If Arizonans don't stop breaking so much ground, they are going to find themselves in a hole they can't get out of.
posted by jamjam at 5:46 PM on May 6, 2012 [3 favorites]

no politician will ever stand up and say "I support babies going hungry."

timfinnie, I understand your point, and as far as I know, nobody has made so much as a peep about cutting WIC for the 2013 session. Having said that, unless you're familiar with the history of CHIP here in Texas (legislative, executive, budgetary), you may wish to be careful about asserting what the Texas state government will or will not do with respect to children.

Why should taxpayer funding go to a private "non-profit" at all?

They're a contractor who provides services, just like a for-profit company. They get paid for cancer screenings, well-woman exams, etc.
posted by immlass at 5:47 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Why should taxpayer funding go to a private "non-profit" at all?

(My question has nothing to do with abortion. I feel that is a personal/religious issue for government to STAY OUT OF.)

Because many (many) things the government wants to do, it does not by doing them directly, but by paying other entities - for- and non-profit - to do. Sometimes that works out well and sometimes it doesn't, but that's how a tremendous amount of government spending works.
posted by Tomorrowful at 5:47 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Meanwhile, in Kansas...
posted by homunculus at 5:50 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

From the Kansas link: "The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death."

What. The. Fuck. What the fuck.
posted by jaduncan at 5:59 PM on May 6, 2012 [38 favorites]

So much for the idea that there's a right to privacy between a patient and a doctor.

If the government is saying that a doctor cannot tell a patient things pertinent to health matters, then the concept of privacy is gone.

I wonder how HIPPA would deal with such a violation of privacy.
posted by hippybear at 6:01 PM on May 6, 2012

I get the sense that there's a bit of misunderstanding, both in this thread and in the public policy debates about these laws, about what's actually happening. The Texas anti-abortion law implicates $90 million in federal Medicaid funding because it makes changes to the way that funding is allocated by the state's Women's Health Program, which is the Texas state program that receives the Medicaid funding to help low income women pay for healthcare. Basically, federal law requires that people receiving Medicaid be able to choose their own healthcare providers, which means that if a doctor agrees to charge them what Medicaid will reimburse, a patient is allowed to see any doctor she wants, at a for-profit or non-profit provider. Texas is saying that people taking those Medicaid funds (which are supplemented by state funds) can't choose a healthcare provider who also performs abortions on other women, so the state is in violation of federal Medicaid laws. The Arizona law is worded slightly differently, though I haven't read enough about how Arizona's low-income healthcare statutes are organized to see whether it makes a salient difference (referring to making grants and awarding contracts rather than to spending money, which is what the Texas statute refers to).

The state Women's Health Program is not the same as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which is a federal program administered, but not funded, by states, to provide food assistance to pregnant and nursing women and children under the age of 5. WIC has literally nothing to do with the provision of health care and family planning services. It's administered by the USDA because it is, above all else, a farm bill that helps to prop up the market for various staple food items that poor people might not otherwise buy. Unless I've missed something crucial (and I've read both of the bills in question, so I don't think I have), WIC is not implicated in any way by either the Texas law or the new Arizona law.
posted by decathecting at 6:02 PM on May 6, 2012 [5 favorites]

Obviously (or probably not obviously, not anymore) federal appeals will have to look at this because I can't understand how this doesn't put "unreasonable limits" on Roe v Wade. And while it's true that this kind of state-level challenge of federal law is exactly what the judicial branch is for, I am also certain that federal appeals and the Supreme Court efforts are not best spent playing whack-a-mole with this kind of misogynistic political self-interest.

Arizona (and Kansas), in particular, enrages me because its lawmakers, over the last two years, have clearly demonstrated abuse of process--first attempting to get rid of PP by placing undue burden on informed consent. When that was challenged, they went the other way, giving full reign to providers to withhold medical information like detection of fetal abnormalities in order to prevent abortion. Now, they're digging under the foundation in order to toss out the few coins PP manages to fund itself with. These lawmakers aren't protecting ANYTHING but barrel-scraping and ignorant votes; AND after such machinations on the legislative floor they try to bully the courts, like cowardly schoolyard toughs, to protect their hateful and (ultimately) underserved constituency.
posted by rumposinc at 6:18 PM on May 6, 2012 [4 favorites]

I always wondered what the sound of millions of thumping Bibles would sound like...
posted by Thorzdad at 6:21 PM on May 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

Health is a fundamental human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights. Every human being is entitled to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health conducive to living a life in dignity.... In addition, States should refrain from limiting access to contraceptives and other means of maintaining sexual and reproductive health, from censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting health-related information, including sexual education and information, as well as from preventing people's participation in health-related matters.

(Adopted on 11 May 2000 by the United Nations' Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)
posted by argonauta at 6:22 PM on May 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

I wonder how HIPPA would deal with such a violation of privacy.

HIPAA.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:25 PM on May 6, 2012

Every time I start to really hate FL and think I can't take any more, Arizona comes along and out crazies us. Thanks Arizona for being more fucked up than FL.

Unfortunately, I'm sure FL will try and up the ante by passing the same anti-Planned Parenthood bill but with a measure that requires tarring and feathering any woman who would benefit from their services.
posted by photoslob at 6:26 PM on May 6, 2012

This move is about squashing our country's medical infrastructure to punish their neighbors for making moral choices they don't approve of.

No shit. This stuff makes me see red, but I know so many people who genuinely believe that PP is a bunch of commie baby killers; there just doesn't seem to be space for rational dialogue.
posted by Forktine at 6:34 PM on May 6, 2012

I should say I'm not aware of any link between the WHP and WIC; I just think it's a little weird to say that the state of Texas won't shut down a program because it's federally funded when the whole WHP brouhaha involves them doing that.

(And I had missed that there was no contract/grant provision involved, so thanks for the clarification, decathecting.)
posted by immlass at 6:36 PM on May 6, 2012

Forktine: "No shit. This stuff makes me see red, but I know so many people who genuinely believe that PP is a bunch of commie baby killers; there just doesn't seem to be space for rational dialogue."

-Congressman Falls for The Onion's Planned Parenthood 'Abortionplex' Story

-Just as the goal of a drug dealer is to make drug addicts, Planned Parenthood's goal is to make sex addicts. And they follow the same business model. For instance, Planned Parenthood's gateway drug is masturbation. [...] This is what Planned Parenthood is all about. Get the kids addicted to sex so it can sell them birth control. When teens catch a sexually-transmitted disease, it sells them testing services. And when a young girl gets pregnant, it sells her an abortion. This isn't education; it's indoctrination intended to drum up Planned Parenthood's abortion business.

-Congressman Jon Kyl reports that abortion is 90% of what Planned parenthood does in what turns out to not be intended as a factual statement, also "Fox & Friends" explains why there's no need for Planned Parenthood: pap smears at Walgreens
posted by Blasdelb at 7:00 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

(Adopted on 11 May 2000 by the United Nations' Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

Signed, but not ratifed by the U.S., not surprisingly.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:03 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

From the Kansas link: "The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death."

No. You have got to be fucking kidding me. This is something I can't even comprehend and I don't want to believe it.

How can this happen? I know this is just Arizona right now, but so often I feel like this country is just fucked.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 7:10 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

The babies only matter from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. After that, none of these so called defenders of life can be bothered to give a flying fuck.

Actually, they don't matter then either, in terms of providing prenatal care which would allow them to develop healthily. It's not like you can deny treatment to a pregnant woman without affecting her fetus, but they do that too, and go after any healthcare program that might help a woman at any time for any reason. Which is why they're mostly ok with banning late term abortions despite the fact that those are overwhelmingly performed to save the mother's life or protect her health, and usually involve fetuses that are already doomed. Or in the case of multiples, endangering the healthier fetus(es) by refusing to allow selective abortion of unhealthy ones. There is no overarching principle here except "women deserve punishment."

Women as a class (along with all nonwhites and nonheterosexuals) are still hated enough by the voters Republicans seek that we are the low-hanging fruit of policymaking; any move to punish us will likely meet with approval. Any resistance to punishing us will meet with consequences and accusations of weakness.

The Republicans' problem is that the blowback on this is only going to grow, because that demographic is dying off and shrinking (not fast enough), but the well's already been so poisoned that for the Republicans to do an about face would require massive upheaval in the party and no one has the will or ability to do that. And in the meantime, far too many of them are going to work as hard as they can to please their current, bloodthirsty, hate-filled masters.

We're in the frenzied stage of the witch hunt still. There will be a crash eventually, but it won't help the ones who get chucked on the fire in the meantime.
posted by emjaybee at 7:32 PM on May 6, 2012 [10 favorites]

thought experiment: if planned parenthood says it will not perform any abortions ever again, would republicans be in favor of funding it's other activities?
posted by cupcake1337 at 8:48 PM on May 6, 2012

No, because if it were really about ending abortions, they would want to help an organization that spends most of its time preventing pregnancy in the first place.
posted by sopwath at 8:53 PM on May 6, 2012 [5 favorites]

In the states banning abortions presumably abortions will continue albeit illegally. For the poor it means a return to the wire coat hanger - but what about the rich? Will they have to go overseas? Out of State? Or will an elite in-State abortion industry spring up to fill the niche?
Seriously how do these things work in practice?
posted by speug at 9:10 PM on May 6, 2012

None of the Planned Parenthoods involved in the Texas mess perform abortions. It's merely the fact that some Planned Parenthoods elsewhere (as in anywhere else on the planet) do provide abortions that has lead to the Texas Republicans deciding that no PP's can be a part of the Women's Health Program.

'Cause, you know, they are guilty of abortion providing by association with the Planned Parenthood mothership, and they might recommend going to a clinic that does provide abortions should a woman ask where to find one.

So no, even if said Planned Parenthoods promised to not provide the abortions they are already not providing, they would still be in the mess they find themselves in now.
posted by Orb at 9:19 PM on May 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

In the states banning abortions presumably abortions will continue albeit illegally. For the poor it means a return to the wire coat hanger - but what about the rich? Will they have to go overseas? Out of State? Or will an elite in-State abortion industry spring up to fill the niche? Seriously how do these things work in practice?

First class tickets to private clinics in Mexico, Europe or India. Or in-home visits from a concierge doctor under the radar of state regulation, have you seen Royal Pains on TNT? Anything is available for a price, doctors, police, judges, politicians, priests.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:59 PM on May 6, 2012 [3 favorites]

In the states banning abortions presumably abortions will continue albeit illegally. For the poor it means a return to the wire coat hanger - but what about the rich? Will they have to go overseas? Out of State? Or will an elite in-State abortion industry spring up to fill the niche? Seriously how do these things work in practice?

I was in a similar spot once, having to source abortion methods for someone in a Pacific jurisdiction. As the state concerned was really extremely religious it was very illegal indeed and would have resulted in years and years in a third world prison if detected. It was a choice between delivered pills or a flight to New Zealand for a sane legal jurisdiction with access to abortion services.

If rich/middle class and the parents know so you can be overtly missing: flights to a jurisdiction where it's available, provision and return.
If you're relatively poor or well off but can't tell the parents: a couple of hundred bucks online to get an RU-486 pill delivered and best hope that you don't suffer complications or hold onto the dead fetus or you're apparently kind of screwed when seeking health care.
If you're really poor: either the coat hangeresque solutions, contributions from charity/stealing to pay for RU-486, or really messed up crap like having it beaten out of you.

It was frankly really strange to have such constrained options compared to at home with the NHS, and I was well aware that having the money to provide a pill or a flight to the woman concerned meant it was a whole different experience to when the locals on $5 a day are in the same situation as I got to pick the rich option.
posted by jaduncan at 11:00 PM on May 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

timfinnie: no politician will ever stand up and say "I support babies going hungry."

immlass: timfinnie, I understand your point, and as far as I know, nobody has made so much as a peep about cutting WIC for the 2013 session. Having said that, unless you're familiar with the history of CHIP here in Texas (legislative, executive, budgetary), you may wish to be careful about asserting what the Texas state government will or will not do with respect to children.

To expand on immlass's point: WIC is not immediately in danger, but the Republican politicans who are in favor of cutting funding for Planned Parenthood (which is not all Republican politicians, bless Kay Bailey Hutchison's heart) have managed to place the blame on Planned Parenthood. It works like this:

Step 1: Assert that the people of Texas don't want their money going to pay for abortions, and that the federal government can't force the Women's Health Program to give money to Planned Parenthood (because that would be supporting abortions and the people of Texas don't want that).
Step 2: Remove Planned Parenthood from the authorized providers for the Women's Health Program. (More accurately, required providers to certify that they do not "provide or promote" elective abortions and they are not affiliated with providers who do so.)
Step 3: Planned Parenthood gets injunction to prevent new rules from going into effect.
Step 4: Blame PP and federal government for backing them into corner and forcing them to cut funding to WHP to prevent funding for abortions.

So, in 4 easy steps, they go from cutting funding for women's mammograms, pap smears, and other basic health needs to being the valiant defenders of women's health against the vile abortion-mongers of PP and the federal government. No politician will ever stand up and say, "I support women going without needed mammograms." But they will do their nifty judo trick and then stand up and say, "Planned Parenthood's insistence on suing has forced us to decline federal funding and has killed the WHP."

(An article from the San Antonio Express-News addressing this -- calling it a "Lose-Lose" for PP)
posted by katemonster at 11:11 PM on May 6, 2012 [4 favorites]

Pop quiz! Who said the following: "No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."
posted by Talez at 11:53 PM on May 6, 2012

Nixon said that
posted by DreamerFi at 12:10 AM on May 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't mean for this to be a derail, but I'd never really witnessed the war on women thing personally until this past weekend. I went to the National Restaurant Association show with my 32 yo girlfriend.

She's in a position to make purchasing decisions for the large healthcare facility she works for, and on the committee to make even larger purchases for their nationwide chain of facilities. Swinging a lot of potential cash toward these vendors. So we go to speak to the reps from a large range and oven vendor from America, call them V#%^ng, and the 60+ gentlemen blow her off. Barely talk to her, shove her aside for male show goers, mostly older than her. This happened at more than one booth, but always with older men. They can see her title, it's right ther on her show pass which is right across her boobs. It's not like they didn't notice it.

I've been to lots of trade shows with less potential to swing around, and always been talked to, asked to have my badge scanned, etc. I'd never been with a woman this closely before though, and seen how dismissive they can be outright to a youngish lady before.

So we walk down the row and talk to their German competitors, who are more than happy to talk to her about induction steam tables for 30 facilities. It's not abortion, and I don't know if it's ageist or sexist, but I got an eyeful of a certain group of men disregarding a potential customer seemingly because she was a woman. Maybe it was the cowboy boots.
posted by MarvinTheCat at 1:11 AM on May 7, 2012 [11 favorites]

Every so often I consider moving out of California, and then I change my mind again.

Please don't post anything bad about California.
posted by salvia at 1:24 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

It was frankly really strange to have such constrained options compared to at home with the NHS

Worth pointing out that abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland, and provision is tricky in some parts of the country (Yorkshire, notably) because of the "two doctor" rule - you only need one doctor for a heart transplant, but two doctors to "allow" you an abortion. I don't know what will happen with abortion provision if Scotland goes independent. So it's not simply a case of "public health provision = abortion services." After all, Tesco could sell you RU386 for a quid pretty easily...

The Tory government has also been cracking down on abortion providers - unannounced inspections, that sort of thing. I'm a "single issue voter" on this - I suspect I'm naturally a Tory, but their loathing for women keeps me out of the party.
posted by alasdair at 3:38 AM on May 7, 2012

Jesus H Christ America wtf? And these people claim to be christian?

"Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest.”

Luke 9:47
posted by marienbad at 4:23 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Jesus H Christ America wtf? And these people claim to be christian?

The Taliban claims to be muslim.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:47 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

And these people claim to be christian?
The Taliban claims to be muslim.
Since spades have been played we might as well go all the way.

There's another thread floating around here on the blue where the discussion wandered into talking about neo-nazis from greece who weren't terribly against light-skinned minorities, only the darker skinned ones. Basically, they had formed their own version of xenophobia that was different than that of the people who carried the same flag generations earlier.

To me, that pretty much sums up the extreme right-wingers in the US. They use words that were the same as words as little as 10 years ago, but they have a completely different meaning, and a completely different stance today. But essentially, they're full of what my grandmother called vim and vinegar, they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore.

Unfortunately, they're just not really aware of what they're mad at, and they don't really understand the different layers of the thing. They just know that X is bad, and they're just gonna torpedo everything in the area until X is gone. Whether it's Socialism, or immigration, or gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, or whatever.

The thing that scares me the most is that even if this thing gets to the courts, they're not guaranteed to be "fixed". I mean, since it's been ruled on by the SCOTUS (multiple times) then either abortion is an approved medical procedure in the entire US or it's not. Sadly, right now the courts seem to be at least considering that it's not, for whatever reason, and that's just rewarding these right-wing nutjobs that seem hell-bent on taking peoples rights away.
posted by Blue_Villain at 5:19 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Taliban claims to be muslim.

And don't get me started about those Scotsmen!
posted by DreamerFi at 5:23 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

caclwmr4 writes "Why should taxpayer funding go to a private 'non-profit' at all? "

Simple sub contracting; the government does it for everything from building maintenance to through assorted services through procurement of billion dollar fighter aircraft. Or is it the non-profit status you object to?
posted by Mitheral at 5:29 AM on May 7, 2012

Why should taxpayer funding go to a private 'non-profit' at all?

Also, just a reminder that most if not all non-profit hospitals, (you know, the ones that run the ER/EDs that serve as primary care for the millions of people that don't have insurance) all receive federal and/or state money to do so.

From my own experience in NC, the non-profit hospitals here pay their taxes like any other business but receive that money back with the expectation that it goes towards services for members of the underserved communities. And yes, that also includes pre/post-natal care and/or abortions.

So just because somebody pulls the plug on PP doesn't mean that state/federal money isn't going towards those things.
posted by Blue_Villain at 5:45 AM on May 7, 2012

Worth pointing out that abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland, and provision is tricky in some parts of the country (Yorkshire, notably) because of the "two doctor" rule.

Oh, I know. I have a nurse as a friend in an English health care facility who carefully believes the really-definitely-England-resident-for-legal-reasons NI and Irish girls (and women) before they get back on the Ryanair to Dublin/Belfast to come back for the next appointment for the provision of the pill. Like I said, past a certain level of income the determinant seems to be if you can explain the absence to possibly disapproving parents/partner.

PS: I am aware NI is terrible in various respects. Take it from me, most of the British Army dislike NI quite heavily; it's like having a small land of various varieties of religious nutnut in. One of our major issues is that the Irish certainly aren't stupid enough to want to take responsibility for policing any of that back.
posted by jaduncan at 5:56 AM on May 7, 2012

Sadly, right now the courts seem to be at least considering that it's not, for whatever reason, and that's just rewarding these right-wing nutjobs that seem hell-bent on taking peoples rights away.

It's the court packing by the Bush the Greater and Lesser administrations with right wing teabangelicals. And to a lesser extent, Clinton caving on "moderate" compromise appointments, and Obama inexplicably ignoring numerous vacancies. They're an election and 1 untimely SCOTUS death away from totalitarian control from the bench the likes of which this country has never seen.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:06 AM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Why should taxpayer funding go to a private "non-profit" at all?

Because governments commit to providing things for people in society, but not necessarily being the provider of those things. These can include things that are very physical and concrete - like roads or buildings or sewers or jails. They can also include "softer" services, such as income support, or group homes for foster children, or health services, or mental health outreach, or a bunch of other things. The construction, operation, and maintenance of these can be done by the government creating a department responsible for that work and those functions, or by providing taxpayer dollars to private entities, some of which may be for-profit, some of which may be non-profit to do some or all of the work.
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:30 AM on May 7, 2012

Obama inexplicably ignoring numerous vacancies

It's not inexplicable, the Republicans are filibustering nearly all of his proposed appointments. His government has been seriously damaged by the inability to staff positions correctly.
posted by Malor at 11:13 AM on May 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

For the poor it means a return to the wire coat hanger - but what about the rich? Will they have to go overseas? Out of State? Or will an elite in-State abortion industry spring up to fill the niche?

Before Roe v. Wade was passed, one of my relatives got pregnant in college. Her boyfriend assured her that it was no problem; his fraternity maintained a list of doctors who were brothers who would do abortions for the girlfriends of fraternity members. (She chose to give birth instead, because her experience of abortion was that it left you unable to have children, and that's not what she wanted.)

But yeah. Rich women have had access to safe abortion since sterile technique was invented. That's not going to change any time soon, no matter what.
posted by KathrynT at 11:37 AM on May 7, 2012

Obama inexplicably ignoring numerous vacancies

It's not inexplicable, the Republicans are filibustering nearly all of his proposed appointments. His government has been seriously damaged by the inability to staff positions correctly.

David Vitter Is Trying To Crush The Economy
posted by homunculus at 11:42 AM on May 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's not inexplicable, the Republicans are filibustering nearly all of his proposed appointments. His government has been seriously damaged by the inability to staff positions correctly.

Yes, I get that, but there are something like 45 vacancies on the Federal bench which the administration hasn't even proposed a nominee for, and 2 or 3 seats on the Federal Reserve board. At some point the filibuster excuse runs a little thin, we don't know if they're still filibustering, they've given up on trying.

It doesnt help that the tacit fillibuster has become passe, have some balls, make them actually take up the floor time reading the phone book and James Joyce.

This has all been rehashed here before. But if Obama loses, the failure to rebut the influx of teahadist appointments on the bench with at least a few liberal counterweights will end up being one of his most enduring failures haunting us with 2-1 and 5-4 conservative activist rulings in perpetuity.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:10 PM on May 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pop quiz! Who said the following: "No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."
posted by Talez at 11:53 PM on May 6 [+] [!]


Nixon said that
posted by DreamerFi at 12:10 AM on May 7 [2 favorites +] [!]

The same anti-American, job-killing commie who created the EPA?!
posted by MikeKD at 3:25 PM on May 7, 2012

The same anti-American, job-killing commie who created the EPA?!

There's a joke about him being the best democratic president since FDR in there somewhere.
posted by Talez at 4:12 PM on May 7, 2012

Lawmakers Won’t Let the ‘Abortions Cause Breast Cancer’ Myth Die
posted by homunculus at 1:26 PM on May 23, 2012