In the Wake of Paul Ryan Rides Scott Garrett

Todd Akin is like his own weather system.  A tornado of one – if you will.  By now I’d be surprised if anyone even remotely paying attention is unaware of the Republican Senate nominee from Missouri’s comments about it being practically impossible for a woman to get pregnant as a result of “legitimate rape.”  Begging the question as to what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to rape.

In seeking further clarification, we can look to the third piece of legislation the Republicans introduced when they regained control of The House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections.  H.R. 3, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act was introduced by our neighbor from Central New Jersey, Congressman Christopher Smith (NJ-4).  Scott Garrett, Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are all original cosponsors of the legislation.  When it was introduced on January 20th, 2011 these three Congressman along with many other Republicans signed on in support of the language contained in the bill.  It’s worth mentioning that January 20th, 2011 was the first legislative day on the new Congressional Session.  Members took their oaths of office immediately before this legislation was introduced into the Record.

Only legislation considered important by Republican leadership in the House is introduced at the start of a session.  This legislation is thus in the same category and level of importance as Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  That legislation, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act was introduced as HR 2.  So setting up categories of rape was not quite important as “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” but it was more important than everything else on the Republican’s legislative menu. Incidentally, HR 1 is a an appropriation bill introduced to keep the government-funded.  I suppose Republicans believe you have to keep the lights on if you’re going to be busy with such important issues as repealing health insurance coverage and protection and redefining rape.

H.R. 3 as originally written and introduced contained language about what rights women who were victims of “forcible” rape possessed.  By introducing the term “forcible rape,” Congressman Smith and his cosponsors sought to set up different categories of rape and rape victims.   Now that Paul Ryan is running for Vice President the press is taking a deeper look into his political positions.  It may surprise you that once people starting paying attention to his legislative history, Paul Ryan has changed his public position on this issue.  When asked by a reporter at an event in Pittsburgh about what difference there was between rape and forcible rape, Congressman Ryan said “rape is rape.”  In other words, he either no longer believes or is no longer willing to admit that he believes rape can be set up into different categories as opposed to the current standard of “no means no.”  This is not a game of “political gotcha.”  Three years ago, Paul Ryan introduced an amendment to legislation as a member of The Ways and Means Committee that sought to separate “forcible rape” from other rapes:

Three years ago, the then-39-year-old congressman co-sponsored an abortion-related amendment called “Limitations on Abortion Mandates.”

That proposed amendment was blocked in what was a Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee. Ryan and only one co-sponsor, Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, proposed a change to health-care legislation that would have required health insurance cover abortion services.

The Ryan-Johnson failed amendment did specify limited exceptions, permitting abortion coverage including when the life of the mother is at stake and in line 16 of the proposed text “… unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest.”

If Mitt Romney wins in November will he support efforts to redefine rape?  Are we willing to take that risk?

I have a few questions for our Congressman and original cosponsor of H.R. 3, Mr. Garrett.

• What is “forcible rape” and how does it differ from any other form of rape?
• Does this mean there are some circumstances in which a woman who is the victim of rape can obtain an abortion and other circumstances in which she can’t?
•  If the answer to the second question is “yes” I’d like to know in which cases are victims of rape not entitled to avail themselves of abortion services should they so choose?
• Finally, I’d like to know how you can support such legislative efforts and still protest any time someone claims that Republicans are engaging in a war against women?

Scott Garrett has got to go.

Paul Ryan and Scott Garrett: Two Peas in a Pod

The media is now digging into Paul Ryan’s record as a Member of the House of Representatives.  They’re examining his statements and his positions along with the bills he’s sponsored and cosponsored. As advertised, Paul Ryan is a “Tea Party” conservative.  His voting record is nearly identical to that of our own Scott Garrett’s.  When a member of the media uncovers Ryan’s support for a far-right proposal Scott Garrett is typically right there with him in a metaphorical sense.  Such is the case with H.R. 212 – The Sanctity of Human Life Act.

The Sanctity of Human Life Act is the Federal version of a proposal that’s already been defeated twice in Colorado and most recently in Mississippi.

Here’s the entirety of the content of the proposal:

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Last October, in anticipation of the Mississippi ballot initiative on “personhood,” The New York Times published an Op-Ed by Glenn Cohen and Johnathan Will, assistant professors of law at Harvard and Mississippi College, respectively. What constitutes fertilization?  Cohen and Will weigh in:

…what does “fertilization” mean? As embryologists recognize, fertilization is a process, a continuum, rather than a fixed point. The term “fertilization” — which is sometimes considered synonymous with “conception” — could mean at least four different things: penetration of the egg by a sperm, assembly of the new embryonic genome, successful activation of that genome, and implantation of the embryo in the uterus. The first occurs immediately; the last occurs approximately two weeks after insemination (or, in the case of embryos created through in vitro fertilization that do not get implanted, never). Thus, on some reasonable readings of the amendment, certain forms of birth control, stem cell derivation and the destruction of embryos created through in vitro fertilization would seem impermissible, while on other equally reasonable readings they are not.

Birth control pills prevent fertilized eggs from attaching within the uterus; using The Pill would become equivalent to murder. Norplant, a birth control implant, works much like The Pill and would become illegal. Women with IUDs (intrauterine devices), implants which have as part of their action an anti-attaching effect, would have to leave the country or have the devices removed.

What about women trying to have children? Fertility clinics create many embryos from a couple’s eggs and sperm, and only implant a few. Such clinics would be forced to close, as it would be impossible to find a willing womb for every frozen embryo and destroying them would be murder.

The amendment’s supporters in Mississippi and Colorado acknowledge that it would have banned not just abortions, but anything that could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.  Make no mistake about it, the passage of this type of legislation effectively ends birth control pills, IUDs, Norplant, the morning-after pill and will likely bring an end to infertility clinics.

Debate has taken place as to whether or not such legislation would ban standard birth control pills, which contain both estrogen and progestin. “The pill” work mainly by preventing ovulation — a mechanism that is acceptable, supporters of such legislation say. However, the standard pills may also alter the uterine lining so that, in rare cases in which a woman on the pill ovulates and the egg is fertilized, it will not implant.

None of this tackles the issue of miscarriages.  25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.  Does this mean that every miscarriage must result in an autopsy to determine whether or not a crime was committed?

Next consider that rape, incest or the health of the mother are irrelevant to the supporters of this legislation.  How about ectopic pregnancies?

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, ectopic pregnancies (also known as tubal pregnancies) occur when the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity.  With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Further, they are dangerous for the mother, since internal haemorrhage is a life-threatening complication. Implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to the death of the mother.

Its staggering to consider that people in this country are willing to vote for candidates who want to eliminate the rights to birth control that our mothers and grandmothers fought so hard to secure.

Paul Ryan will be taken to task by millions of men and women across the country for holding such positions.  Will the people of New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District do the same to Scott Garrett?

What Women Want

There are more women than men on this planet. There are more women than men in this country.  In the United States, more women cast votes than men do. Women decide elections in this country. So one might think that supporting the issues women care most about would be critical to getting elected to office in the United States.

The Affordable Care Act was structured to phase in over a four-year period from 2010 through 2014. This was done for several reasons – most of them political.  As a result, August 1, 2012 was a day in which certain treatments, tests and medications became available to women at no cost as preventative care. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

So beginning yesterday, women with health insurance will have access to the following tests for free (that’s right FREE, no co-payment and no deductible):

• Pap Smear Tests
•  STD Tests
• Gestational Diabetes Tests
• Mammography Tests

In addition, women who have just given birth will receive free breast-feeding supplies. Women will also receive free birth control pills – if they want it, absolutely free.

As everyone knows by now, not a single Republican voted for The Affordable Care Act. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, Republicans have voted 33 separate times to either repeal all or roll back parts of this landmark legislation.

The day before women would be eligible for these expanded health care services, House Republicans decided it was the perfect moment to vote on H.R. 3803, The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Background: House Republicans claim that 20-week-old fetuses feel pain and thus abortions after 20 weeks should be made illegal. According to a review of applicable research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a fetus does not feel pain prior to the third trimester. Included in this measure was language that denied rape and incest victims in the District of Columbia the right to an abortion.  

Not only did Congressman Garrett vote in support of the measure, he was a cosponsor  of it. This election can be decided by women choosing between two parties with vastly different positions on women’s health issues.

Republicans scream that Democrats are making up a Republican “war on women.” This isn’t a difference of opinion, or a twisting of facts to make them coincide with a political point of view.  In just the first session, House Republicans voted for the following measures:

1. Family-Planning Services. FY’11 Continuing Resolution, H.R.1. Pence (R-IN) amendment to disqualify Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving funds appropriated by the bill. The proposal would deny basic, preventive health-care services, including birth control and cancer screenings, to millions of Americans. Passed 240-185. A pro-choice vote (+) was against the amendment (2/18/11).
2.  Appropriations. FY’11 Continuing Resolution, H.R.1. Final Passage. The bill reinstated the D.C. abortion ban, eliminated the Title X family-planning program, defunded Planned Parenthood, reinstated the global gag rule, and eliminated funding for the United Nations Population Fund. Passed 235-189. A pro-choice vote (+) was against final passage (2/19/11).
3.  Family-Planning Services. Enrollment Resolution to FY’11 Continuing Resolution, H.Con.Res.36. Proposal to disqualify Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving funds appropriated by the bill. The proposal would deny family-planning and basic health-care services to millions of Americans. Passed 241-185. A pro-choice vote (+) was against the enrollment resolution (4/14/11).
4.  No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. H.R.3. Final Passage. Smith (R-NJ) bill to ban effectively abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges, penalize small businesses and many individuals who purchase private health plans that include abortion coverage, and permanently codify the Hyde amendment, D.C. abortion ban, and other current-law bans. The bill also could spur the Internal Revenue Service to audit sexual-assault survivors who seek abortion care. Passed 251-175. A pro-choice vote (+) was against the bill (5/4/11).
5.  Abortion-Training Restriction. H.R.1216. Foxx (R-NC) amendment to prohibit federal funds from being used by teaching health centers for training in abortion care. Passed 234-182. A pro-choice vote (+) was against the amendment (5/25/11).
6.  Medical-Abortion Funding Ban. FY’12 Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R.2112. King (R-IA) amendment to bar the use of federal funds for prescription or discussion of medical abortion (RU 486). Telemedicine, a small but growing system of phone, teleconferencing, and Internet networks, helps patients link remotely to health-care providers. Passed 240-176. A pro-choice vote (+) was against the amendment (6/16/11).
7.  Refusals for Emergency Abortion Care. Protect Life Act, H.R.358. Capps (D-CA) motion to send the bill back to committee to fix a provision that allows hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even when a woman’s life is in danger. Rejected 173-249. A pro-choice vote (+) was in support of the motion to recommit (10/13/11).
8.  Protect Life Act. H.R.358. Final Passage. Pitts (R-PA) bill to ban effectively abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges. The bill also would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even when a woman’s life is in danger, and gives states the ability to undermine coverage of many health-related services, such as contraception. Passed 251-172. A pro-choice vote (+) was against the bill (10/13/11).

If you believe as I do that a vote for women is supporting a women’s right to control her body, then Scott Garrett voted against women on every one of these measures. Women, like men are not single-issue voters. Health care and treatment options may not be the top priority for women. However, since 97 percent of women avail themselves of some form of birth control during their lives, and every woman benefits from no-cost screenings, I would think it’s an issue of great concern to them.

Scott Garrett has got to go.

Yes Virginia, There is a War on Women

Telemedicine is the use of telecommunication and information technologies  to provide clinical health care at a distance.  It helps eliminate distance barriers and can improve access to medical services that would often not be consistently available in distant rural communities.   Imagine being able to respond to a stroke and start treatment within fifteen minutes, instead of having to transport patients to another facility while the window of treatment is closing.  That’s telemedicine.  Telemedicine is also necessary in any area of the country where abortion providers have been scared out-of-town or even killed; Wichita for example.

On May 10th, Scott Garrett signed on as a cosponsor to H.R. 5731, The Telemedicine Safety Act.  This legislation would make it illegal for a health care provider to “prescribe, dispense, procure, administer, or otherwise provide any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or method to terminate the pregnancy of a woman who is pregnant, without such health professional conducting an in-person medical examination of such woman during her current pregnancy…”  The penalty to the doctor for violating this law is a fine and/or prison for up to a year.

Scott Garrett would carve out and criminalize providing abortion-related services via telemedicine from every other form of legal health care.  Under this proposed legislation if a woman gets raped or is the victim of incest, she cannot be prescribed the morning after pill unless she is physically in the same room as her doctor.  On the other hand, if she were beaten and raped by an assailant, a doctor could use  telemedicine to prescribe pain medication and issue orders on how to sucher the patient, but couldn’t prescribe medication to prevent a pregnancy that has yet to occur unless that physician was physically in the same room as the victim.

A proposal such as this would actually lead to more abortions.  If a woman can’t get the morning after pill because her community has no physician willing to provide such services, and she can’t get medical help through telemedicine, there’s a good chance she’s going to become pregnant.  Let me say that again for emphasis.  She’s not pregnant now, but she might be forced into an unwanted pregnancy because this legislation makes it more difficult for her to prevent a pregnancy by using the morning after pill.  What does Scott Garrett think is going to happen once a woman becomes pregnant against her will?  Chances are she’s going to have an abortion.

Some areas of this country have limited access to any kind of health care provider.  Some hospitals have to fly in physicians from out-of-state to staff emergency rooms.  Some clinics only have a doctor on site during certain days of the week.  Health care is not equally available in all parts of the United States.  Should a women seeking medical help be penalized because she lives in an area in which no gynecologist has a practice?  Is it the patient’s fault that a community may not be able to provide an adequate base of patients for a doctor to survive, let alone pay off expensive medical school loans?  Telemedicine  – or telehealth as it’s also know, is a life saving tool being praised all around the country.   States are expanding the use of telemedicine as a critical tool in providing timely medical care to patients at the same time Congressmen like Scott Garrett are seeking to carve out an exception to preclude women from getting legal health care services.

This is not about preventing unwanted pregnancies.  This is about controlling women’s bodies.  This is about using any means necessary  – legal or otherwise to deny women the right to control what happens to their bodies. If this were really about preventing  unwanted pregnancies, these conservatives would introduce legislation to require all men at a certain time in their life to get a vasectomy.  They would seek to criminalize engaging in intercourse unless expressly for the purpose of procreation, but they’re not.   Instead, conservatives like Scott Garrett who set the Republican agenda have made it clear they intend to deny women hormonal birth control by passing “personhood amendments,” and then prevent any practical means for a woman to obtain an abortion.

This is about denying women access to legal health care services.  This is about disproportionately impacting poor women who can’t afford to travel to places where a full range of health care services are readily available.  This is about preventing scared young women from getting the health care they need.  This is – despite the denial by Scott Garrett and others like him, a War on Women.  Say it with me… Scott Garrett has got to go.