Don't Clean the Sock Drawer when the House is on Fire

My mother was a woman of many talents and immense common sense.  She understood that a time of crisis required that we focus on what needed our attention the most. If she were alive today, she would be dismayed at what the GOP has decided to spend their time focusing upon.  There needs to be urgent work to continue the economic recovery, fast-track energy independence, overhaul schools, balance the budget by revamping decades-old entitlements---the list is endless.  So, when I see the legislation that is being discussed or proposed, I scratch my head (when not tearing out my hair) and say....huh?

Take contraception for example. Millions of women use it to for a variety of reasons- by far chief among them, the ability to decide when and if they want to become pregnant. Though still expensive even with a deductible, birth control can be obtained with a prescription and appears to be working fine (even Romney- in unscripted moments- agrees).  In fact, under the new Affordable Care Act, contraception will be available to even more women without a deductible.  Surely, this will cut down on unintended pregnancy and help struggling families in this down economy.  So, if it's not broken, the common sense approach would be.....don't fix it, right?  Focus instead on the litany of urgent problems our nation faces. GOP- what say you?  Though it's nearly 50 years after Griswold v. Conn., it's time to re-examine it.  Let's cloak it in the guise of "religious liberty" and let the Catholic bishops take one more shot at getting the masses- that's you women- back in line.  After all, if you can't decide when you are going to get pregnant, it's a bit harder to climb that corporate ladder, grab that advanced degree, drive one more dent in that glass ceiling.......

Let's move on to sex education.  Though our country still has a very high rate of teen pregnancy compared to other developed countries, teen birth rates are down.  Though sex-ed programs aren't perfect, hopefully some students are getting the straight facts on pregnancy and STD's.  So, let's look at expanding quality programs to every student.  GOP-what say you? Time to push abstinence-only sex education.  Say what?  It's time to push a "head in the sand approach" because it is more in line with party "values".  This despite recent studies that show that students taking "virginity pledges" in abstinence-only sex ed programs were just as likely to have sex as the students in a more comprehensive sex ed class, and also more likely to have unsafe sex and get pregnant. Seems education- and access to contraception- might be a key element in lowering the abortion rate among teens. (But that is far too logical---- let's move on.)

Which brings me around to abortion.  For many years, abortion rates have trended downward until a slight uptick in 2008.  Some experts point to the recession as the cause for the increase, stating that abortion rates decrease with a good economy and rise with a bad one.  Providers estimate that 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2008. Shouldn't our policymakers consider this urgent motivation to increase access to and reduce the cost for contraceptives so that unintended pregnancy can be prevented? Though ideally abortion is rare and safe, incidences are at some of the lowest levels in years.  So, if it's not broken, the common sense approach should be to ..... focus on making contraception available cheaply and easily and on quality sex education. Try to improve the economy to allow millions the financial security to have a child.  GOP- what say you?  Time to effectively outlaw abortion on the state level, criminalize both patient and doctor and stop telling teenagers what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it. Let's work to make access to contraception harder and more expensive to get, especially if we can allow anyone a "moral objection" to deny it.  Let's help the "confused" pregnant woman  be fully informed about her abortion decision by subjecting her to cruelty and violation that no man would ever allow- so that she can understand once and for all that "right to life" applies to everyone but women. 

The GOP objects to the phrase "war on women"?!  When a political party sets out to comprehensively deny a woman the right to control her reproductive destiny and her body---it can be called nothing else.

Please follow me on Twitter at soladyliberty

Wordsmithing the "War on Women"

It's hard to escape the latest political catch phrase "war on women". From channel to channel, tweet to tweet, discussion of the rash of proposed legislation to limit female reproductive rights heading through various statehouses is hard to miss.  Just this week, Arizona upped the ante with another attempt to hand employers- religiously affiliated or tiny storefronts- with a "moral objection" excuse to cut coverage for contraception and anything else that offends them.  From Rush Limbaugh's misogynist rantings to the Virginia attempt to require women seeking an abortion to have transvaginal ultrasounds, it would be hard for women not to feel under fire.  "Personhood" bills that put mothers' lives secondary, repeated attempts to water down sex education until it's worthless, and endless obstacles to abortion so that "confused" women can be "well informed" would lead most women to feel that we have become the enemy---or perhaps time travelled back 50 years.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck---isn't it a duck?

The puzzling question is why now?  Why attack women's reproductive rights, settled almost 50 years ago, when the nation is facing a myriad of difficult problems that demands the attention of both women and men to solve?  Why attack a breakthrough for women- contraception finally universally covered under the Affordable Care Act-when millions of families- that's men and women- will benefit economically from this in a down economy? Why not remember that contraception benefits both sexes in preventing unwanted pregnancy and not just the woman? (Last time I checked, it took two to tango.) And why would politicians greenlight an agenda sure to alienate the very group they need to court for the 2012 elections? Is it insanity, religious zealotry, or just plain insecurity?

Perhaps the answer lies in the changing demographics of America.  The past fifty years have seen huge advances for women.  Dedicated women are more likely than men to earn a college degree and continue to increase that gap, they are earning more than ever before (though still not paid equally), and breaking glass ceilings-in male-dominated areas- every day.  Throughout this economic downturn, women have fared better in the job market, and are successfully starting more small businesses that will create jobs in the future.  In the 2008 election, women cast 53% of the votes, sending President Obama--another trailblazer-into the White House. Yet the percentage of white men, once the ultimate power brokers of our society, keeps aging and shrinking. The Pew Research Center estimates that the Hispanic population of 42 million (2005) will grow to 128 million in 2050, tripling in size.  This leaves whites---for the first time in our history-- projected to become a minority at 47% in 2050. Could it be that the historical powerbrokers feel more than a little threatened and just wish for things to go back to the way they once were?

Ultimately, if the wording "war on women" offends the GOP--- the party that appears to be backing most of the attempts to roll back our reproductive rights- perhaps we ought to offer them the clearer alternative of saying that they are simply attempting a "rollback of women's reproductive rights". Not sure that would help rally the female voters they need in the 2012 election, but they are welcome to try it.

I'd love for you to follow me on Twitter at soladyliberty.