MOMocrats™

Where are all the Republican Women?

2009-11-25T14:57:16-08:00

Personally I avoid Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh like the plague. If I’m in the mood for hypocrisies, conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric I can usually find a good Hollywood blockbuster that will not only deliver but be much more entertaining and much easier on the blood pressure. So when I heard about both hosts referring to United States Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) as a prostitute, as much as my blood pressure did rise, it wasn’t exactly a huge surprise. Being respectful and showing regard to common decency have never been strong suits for either man.

What gets me is the reaction from Republican women. I know you’re probably asking yourself, what reaction? Which is my point. There hasn’t been one. Not a thing. Conservative women, specifically Republican Women who actually serve in Congress have nothing to say about blatant sexism against one of the few female colleagues they have? How about Sarah Palin? She has been at the losing end of some of the worst sexists treatment from media in recent history, yet she has nothing to say about calling a Senator a Prostitute?

The reason Senator Landrieu is being called such offensive names is because she offered to vote in favor of moving ahead with health care debate on the Senate floor, (she did not promise to vote for the bill itself, just the vote to move it along) in return for $300 million in federal aid. Federal Aid for Louisiana. Is there really one person in this country who doesn’t think Louisiana needs federal aid more than we need to put off the debate on health care? I wonder how all the people in New Orleans who are still trying to rebuild, who are still without a home, who are still looking for help after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina feel about comparing Senator Landrieau's deal with a whore? I’m guessing not good.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, after all it was last month that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was told she needed to be “put in her place” by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Huffington Post tried in vain to contact fifteen female lawmakers (fourteen from the House or Representatives) as well as two Republican women's issues groups to get their response to the very sexists statement made about Speaker Pelosi. Not one was willing to provide a statement.

Yes, there were many Democratic women who refused to stand up for Sarah Palin during the media frenzy that occurred during the 2008 Presidential election and the year since because of her politics. But there were many who did. There were many women who put politics aside and made sure their voices were heard when sexism came into play.

But where are female voices from the right? Is sexism not an issue for all of us? Doesn’t Senator Landrieu deserve the respect and defense of her fellow female lawmakers regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on?

Don’t all women?

This is a cross-post from the WomenCount blog.

Meghan Harvey is the New Media Producer for WomenCount and can also be found blogging at Meg's Idle Chatter.

What’s a Woman To Do?

2009-11-24T08:38:43-08:00

MOMocrats welcomes guest author Linda Tarr-Whelan's comments on the health insurance reform bill and the promise it holds for women and children. Please support the MomsRising campaign at the post's end!

Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean? Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%. But more on that in future posts!

For today, I’m riveted by news stories that a “very prestigious independent medical panel” has recommended big changes in our health care routines. As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.

We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps: do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors’ visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary? Really?

First I went to the American Cancer Society, to see what they say at www.cancer.org. The chief medical officer is very clear. Even looking at the same studies as the independent group did, they came up with different conclusions. Their guidelines – the ones we know well and try to follow – stay in place.

Yes, there are risks that need careful discussions between a woman and her physician. Yes, we’d like better science so there won’t be false positives on mammography that can cause anxiety. But the bottom-line is clear: we still need to check ourselves and get the tests we need for early discovery and treatment.

Then what about that flap over the House-passed health care reform package that traded a necessary part of health care away for a cynical political deal around abortion politics? Most women don’t even want to think about ending pregnancies; we concentrate on having a safe pregnancy and a healthy baby. Private insurance policies have generally treated women’s reproductive health as part of health care, not a separate political football. That’s important because none of us can know what the future will bring.

Forty special interest members of Congress weren’t thinking about women’s needs. They pushed for and won a provision to effectively prevent women from getting private insurance coverage for the full range of reproductive health options. These Members of Congress knew tax dollars cannot be used for abortion services; for 30 years, by law, no federal money can pay for the procedure. Instead, like recalcitrant children, they held up agreement on the reforms millions of Americans including my family and maybe yours need for health care.

Think about it. Every family knows someone who’s at risk with our fragmented health system. Our daughter’s employer – like many across the country – dropped health insurance coverage in this economic downturn. Individual policies cost far too much for Montessori teachers like her. Our son in the computer field was 36 years old before he had a job where the employer offered group health insurance. My aunt is only able to take the medications covered by her Medicare prescription drug plan. Every family knows what is at stake.

Health care tops the list for moms to take care of their families. Join the Moms Rising campaign. Click here, because our kids need both health care and healthy moms!

Linda Tarr-Whelan is the author of Women Lead the Way: Your Guide to Stepping Up to Leadership and Changing the World. Check out her website at www.lindatarrwhelan.com.

Oh RNC, honestly (or not!)? How the RNC asks people to work the system against health care reform

2009-11-20T16:29:43-08:00

This afternoon, I received the following message from the RNC:

Subject: Your Call Can Make the Difference

** URGENT CALL TO ACTION **

After months working in secret behind closed doors, Harry Reid this week finally unveiled his 2,074-page government-run health care plan. His plan would increase health care premiums, increase taxes on families and small businesses by half a trillion dollars, cut Medicare by another half trillion dollars, and allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Click here for 10 things you should know about the bill.

Harry Reid has scheduled a critical vote this Saturday night that will allow the Senate to take-up his bill. If that vote succeeds, Harry Reid will be dangerously close to finally imposing President Obama's government-run health care scheme on America.

Two Democrat Senators - Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) - are critically important to defeating Saturday's vote. The RNC urges every concerned citizen to call Sens. Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln TODAY and tell them to vote against Harry Reid's liberal bill when it comes up for a vote on Saturday.

This is the best opportunity there will be to stop President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from imposing their government-run health care plan on America. Again, please call Sens. Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln TODAY and tell them to vote against Harry Reid's health care bill when it comes up for a vote on Saturday.

Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003
p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: info@gop.com

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
310 First Street, SE - Washington, D.C. 20003 - (202) 863-8500
www.gop.com
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Unsubscribe

Copyright 2009 Republican National Committee

The MOMocrats want you to Vote Sarah!

2009-11-20T14:57:00-08:00

Yeah, we know what you're thinking... but really, do you think we would ban all Sarahs from getting our votes? That would be like assuming all Husseins are somehow bad.

A vote for Sarah is a vote for a friend, a colleague, a fellow MOMocrat!

We want to send Sarah to the Winter Olympics! Sarah Granger is one of five semi-finalists in a contest for women bloggers to win an awesome set of trips to blog the Computers & Electronics Show in January and the Olympics in February. (How amazing is that! And how amazing would that be! You can bet she'd share her experiences with us through blogging, too!)

Sarah blogs about figure skating at BlogHer and she needs votes every day through November 29th to win. The top three vote-getters over the thirteen day period go to the final round where the judges then choose the winner, who will be headed to Vancouver! It's easy to remember: VOTE SARAH! (just scroll down and click on her to vote!)

Many thanks!

Et tu, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

2009-11-20T06:51:02-08:00

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued new guidelines for pap smears, which screen for cervical cancer. Previously, they suggested beginning testing after becoming sexually active and testing annually starting in your twenties. Now, they say women in their 20s only need to be checked every two years and testing should begin after 21. Women in their thirties should only be tested every three years after three clear test results, according to the new guidelines. The new guidelines are based on the newer science, which also shows that unlike other cancers, cervical cancer tends to be slow growing and the doctors say that less frequent testing will lead to less frequent procedures, which, they claim, could lead to disrupted fertility.

Cervical cancer rates have dropped by 50% due to regular pap testing.

The ACOG is quick to add that this should not disrupt women's annual exam schedule.

In the last month, women's health care has taken a heavy and hard hit. Women's reproductive care hit the metaphorical equivalent of the Great Wall of China with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which just received endorsement from the US Conference on Catholic Bishops. Prominent women, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner have publicaly criticized and opposed this amendment, saying it is an insult to women's health care and an assault on privacy and access to legal care.

Next, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced that it is changing its guidelines for mammography and no longer recommends routine screening for women between the ages of 40 and 49. The American Cancer Society, however, continues to "recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40."

Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer, American Cancer Society said, “The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40.

"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions."

Dr. Brawley said, “In 2003, an expert panel convened by the American Cancer Society conducted an extensive review of the data available at the time, which was not substantially different from the data included in the current USPSTF review.

"Like the USPSTF, the Society’s panel found convincing evidence that screening with mammography reduces breast cancer mortality in women ages 40-74, with age-specific benefits varying depending on the results of individual trials and which trials were combined in meta-analyses. And like the USPSTF, the American Cancer Society panel also found that mammography has limitations – some women who are screened will have false alarms; some cancers will be missed; and some women will undergo unnecessary treatment. These limitations are somewhat greater in women in their forties compared with women in their fifties, and somewhat greater in women in their fifties compared with women in their sixties.

"We specifically noted that the overall effectiveness of mammography increases with increasing age. But the limitations do not change the fact that breast cancer screening using mammography starting at age 40 saves lives.

“As someone who has long been a critic of those overstating the benefits of screening, I use these words advisedly: this is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over, be she a patient, a stranger, or a family member."

And now pap smears.

I'm concerned about this trend to decrease and block women's access to preventive care. I'm concerned it will persuade women to decrease their annual exams and let health -- especially preventive care -- slide, possibly to dangerous levels.

These organizations are all extremely influential on policy and women -- even those who want to maintain their safe and healthy annual health care -- may find it increasingly challenging to be able to watch over their health responsibly.

Women need to maintain their annual exams, and if the guidelines are confusing and make it hard to track when you should be screened (and they are confusing, enough so to be a major deterrent for busy women who already have to track too many calendar and schedule items) the American Cancer Society offers an easy to use health reminder prompt for free.

As much as these organizations argue that this is about science and necessity, deconstruction of the logic reveals a more financially based reasoning.

Dr. Brawley said, "With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them. The task force says screening women in their 40s would reduce their risk of death from breast cancer by 15 percent, just as it does for women in their 50s. But because women in their 40s are at lower risk of the disease than women 50 and above, the USPSTF says the actual number of lives saved is not enough to recommend widespread screening."

ACOG has allegedly been working towards these new guidelines for the past decade. It's curious timing to me to release these new guidelines right now, as the health care reform debate rages and a major debate point is providing better equality in health care affordability and access for women.

What do you think of this assault on preventive women's health care, especially centering around female-specific bodies and cancer? What do you think of the rapid release back-to-back new guidelines for health care for women happening right now?

UPDATE: Here are the guidelines from the American Cancer Society to clarify and eliminate confusion:

Cervical cancer

* All women should begin cervical cancer screening about 3 years after they begin having vaginal intercourse, but no later than when they are 21 years old. Screening should be done every year with the regular Pap test or every 2 years using the newer liquid-based Pap test.

* Beginning at age 30, women who have had 3 normal Pap test results in a row may get screened every 2 to 3 years. Another reasonable option for women over 30 is to get screened every 3 years (but not more frequently) with either the conventional or liquid-based Pap test, plus the HPV DNA test. Women who have certain risk factors such as diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure before birth, HIV infection, or a weakened immune system due to organ transplant, chemotherapy, or chronic steroid use should continue to be screened annually.

* Women 70 years of age or older who have had 3 or more normal Pap tests in a row and no abnormal Pap test results in the last 10 years may choose to stop having cervical cancer screening. Women with a history of cervical cancer, DES exposure before birth, HIV infection or a weakened immune system should continue to have screening as long as they are in good health.

* Women who have had a total hysterectomy (removal of the uterus and cervix) may also choose to stop having cervical cancer screening, unless the surgery was done as a treatment for cervical cancer or pre-cancer. Women who have had a hysterectomy without removal of the cervix should continue to follow the guidelines above.

And remember the American Cancer Society offers an easy to use health reminder prompt for free.

You can read more about this at the New York Times.

Go Read: US-China Tussles Over Currency Exchange

2009-11-13T19:39:00-08:00

You may have heard that next week President Obama will be visiting Asia, and significantly, the People's Republic of China. One big bone of contention is the way China pegs its Yuan (or RenMinBi) to the US Dollar. For a long time, it was at 8Y : $1USD. Currently it seems to be running 7:1. The US has been trying to get China to change the practice, and this post from Campaign for America's Future explains why.

Would prices go up at Walmart if China changed its currency to reflect the dollar's relative weakening worldwide? Probably. But maybe, as even Treasury Secretary Geithner has said, American workers would have a fighting chance if the RMB were to stop being manipulated to China's unilateral self-interest.

In the next week, it'll be interesting to see if the initial softening of China's Central Bank to the more flexible policy Geithner called for will continue after President Obama and President Hu Jintao meet.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k. Her retired parents, like many in the Chinese diaspora, spend part of the year living in Shanghai and maintain a connection to the country of their birth. It was her dad, a lifelong basketball fan, who told her Le Bron James' nickname in China is "Lao3 Bei2 Jing4" or "Old Beijing."

Go Read It: US Catholic Conference of Bishops' Hypocrisy on Federal Tax Dollars & the Stupak-Pitts Amendment

2009-11-13T16:38:41-08:00

Not all Catholics believe the exact same thing. There are Catholics for Choice, Catholics who use contraception, and then...there's the US Conference on Catholic Bishops, which was an active, energetic force lobbying politicians to pass Stu-Pitts prior to the recent House vote on the Affordable Health Care for All Act. Strongly opposed to a woman's right to decide when and if to terminate a pregnancy, the USCCB receives 67% of its budget in federal tax dollars to help fund hospitals and other good works with secular impact operated by the Catholic church, and is itself charged with separating federal funding from religious practices.

Go read this op-ed that calls out hypocrisy in how the USCCB separates taxpayer dollars from church funds in their operations. It spells out why they, if anyone, should realize that the never-voted on Capps Amendment ensuring compliance with 1977's Hyde Amendment already adequately addressed the separation of taxpayer funds from abortion services. A short excerpt:

Catholic Charities, the domestic direct service arm of the bishops, also depends on state and federal dollars. Sixty-seven percent of Catholic Charities’ income comes from government funding. That represents over $2.6 billion in 2008 — an amount that is more than three times as large as the next largest charitable recipient of federal funds, the YMCA. Just as Catholic hospitals do, Catholic Charities receives enormous quantities of government dollars while abiding by existing constitutional and statutory requirements that prevent government sponsorship of religion.

Yet the USCCB wants to potentially sink health care reform--which they've previously supported--with a culture-war grenade. They want to effectively prevent any private insurer from providing a legal medical procedure by pushing falsehoods about the Affordable Health Care for All Act.

Call your senators and congressperson and demand that Stupak-Pitts be prevented from being inserted into the Senate bill and that the final bill reflect the Capps Amendment's compromise.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

Dear Members of the House Who Voted for Stupak-Pitts,

2009-11-12T11:14:10-08:00

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and accept the enclosed package. In it you will find my uterus. I believe you’ll see that the tag on the bottom says, “Please return to original owner, the United States House of Representatives, when not in use.” Per those instructions, here it is.

I already have one son and one daughter and though in the past I have entertained the idea of a third, I recently decided against it. Mainly due to the passing of the Stupak-Pitts amendment last weekend. I figure if my uterus is not really mine you should go ahead and have it back. Frankly, I’d rather not deal with it anymore.

You see, after suffering a number of miscarriages almost eight years ago I was diagnosed with a chromosome disorder. This disorder was causing my miscarriages and once I was blessed with a viable pregnancy I found out there was a chance that a very extreme form of the disorder I carried could be passed on to my unborn child.

I had to have an amniocentesis at 17 weeks and knew that if the results didn’t come back in our favor we faced the possibility of what you like to call a “late-term abortion” (you know that procedure you keep trying to say I can't have). Luckily both my son and later my daughter turned out to be healthy.

But now I’m in my thirties. My risk is even greater and my insurance is non-existent. So, while I’m happy that you passed legislation that may help me regain healthcare, you made sure to omit one of the most important things I need to make sure is included. And since I no longer feel I can count on being covered for the possible risks involved with me having another baby, thanks to you, I'll just go ahead and pass. Besides, if I were to have another baby, it could very well turn out to be a girl. And I'm sure you're already swamped and another girl would just mean one more uterus for you to worry about.

So thanks for passing healthcare. I do appreciate it. But I'll be turning in my uterus anyway. Please use it well.

Love & Kisses,

Former uterus owner, Meghan Harvey 10CD-California

When Meghan Harvey is not fully immersed in angry sarcasm she is blogging on her personal blog, Meg's Idle Chatter.

BRUNNER SAYS U.S. HOUSE ACTION MOVES WOMEN'S RIGHTS BACKWARD

2009-11-10T14:00:00-08:00

MOMocrats are happy to welcome back guest poster Ohio Secretary of State and Senate Candidate Jennifer Brunner as she comments about the Stu-Pitts action in the House and the untenable effect it has on women's right to access legal health care. She sent this official statement, which we are running in its entirety:

Ohio Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner today called the House passage of a last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an insult to Ohio women and an assault on the right to privacy -- and strongly urged the Senate to protect a woman's right to choose. Brunner said that while passage of the health care reform bill is on balance a positive step, it is critically important that America not allow the anti-choice forces to achieve through Congressional statute what the courts have repeatedly refused - the elimination of a woman's right to choose.

The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), was adopted late Saturday by a vote of 240-194. The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women - even if they pay for it with their own funds. The Stupak-Pitts amendment would leave Ohio women worse off than they are today by denying them the right to use their own money to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a policy far more far-reaching than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortions since 1977. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"By voting yesterday to block women from essential reproductive health care services, the anti-choice obstructionists in Congress have abandoned Ohio women and would legislate a woman's constitutional right to choose ineffective at best," Brunner said. "The final health care bill must not only guarantee each Ohioan's right to the health care they need when they need it, it also must also provide access to reproductive health services for all, regardless of income level and regardless of whether or not they receive government subsidized care," Brunner added. "Universal health care is based on the principle that health care should be equally accessible to all citizens. Universal health care does not allow income to determine who gets care and services, and who does not. The Stupak-Pitts amendment violates this basic tenet."

Brunner added that the beneficial impact of the overall bill for Ohio was undeniable. "This bill provides employer-based coverage for more Ohio families, provides coverage to hundreds of thousands of Ohioans who are currently without any coverage, eliminates pre-existing conditions and caps imposed on families by insurance companies, reduces the cost of uncompensated care for thousands of Ohio doctors and hospitals, closes the prescription donut hole for tens of thousands of Ohio seniors, and, most importantly, reduces premiums for millions of hard working Ohioans. It is a good bill, but its passage hinged on denying women services for health care that only women may choose. This is unconscionable. The Senate must remedy the untenable and inequitable sacrifice that this bill would require of women and children in the United States," said Brunner.

Jennifer Brunner was elected twice as a judge, and won an open seat for Ohio Secretary of State with a 15-point lead over 3 other candidates in the general election. As Secretary of State, she was awarded the JFK Library Foundation's Profile in Courage award for fighting for needed election reforms related to voting machine reliability and security. The Profile in Courage Award is considered the nation's most prestigious honor for elected public servants.

It's a Mad World in the US House of Representatives when it comes to Health Care Reform

2009-11-10T10:10:04-08:00

The US House of Representatives just asked women to take a sucker punch in the ovaries, "Sacrifice your fair access to LEGAL health care for the GREATER GOOD."

I think women have been sacrificing too much for too long for the greater good. Elected officials -- put in office, by the way, most likely largely by women -- have no right to not ask but IMPOSE such a sacrifice on women.

I don't think it's time to suck it up and take another one for the team, with all due respect, Madame Speaker Pelosi, and I'm flabbergasted you think that's the right thing to do.

Let's get one thing crystal clear: I am personally opposed to abortion. That's right, I am. My husband and I rejected prenatal testing and even had a specialist threaten to drop us from care because we would not sign a paper agreeing to selective reduction or abortion.That was our choice for us, and we don't extend our personal choices or morals to anyone else.

What we do extend to others is a trust and respect in their ability to choose what is best for them and their family and their own life situation.That's because we inherently believe in the individual's right to free will and choice.

Sort of, you know, like the founding principles of the great nation of the USA.

That's also my guiding principle behind believing utterly in a woman's right to choose for her reproduction, a legal right, by the way.

Welcome to the new generation of political women: we won't sit down, shut up or take one for the team.

Quit selling out women's rights. Women, quit letting them do it.

Members of Congress, it's dead wrong to deny access to legal health care. Period. In fact, it perpetuates the very inequities in care that you purport to be reforming. It's clear discrimination of women and public health care should NOT be allowed to prevent access to legal health care. It's an invasion of privacy (there, I said it out loud).

In the incredibly insightful words of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), "Proposing that women … purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous.” She went on to note that in five states that do require such riders, it’s nearly impossible to find coverage for abortions.

Respect the right to different opinions, different choices, and most of all, the legal right to both.

I'm speaking up and will be contacting my own senators (as much as that is shouting down a black hole) because I do not want this madness to infect the Senate.