Your uterus is not safe from the long-speculum of the GOP law
The New Hampshire GOP is all up in your lady business and they aren’t even going to give you a courtesy cuddle.
You see, in order to operate in New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood must have a state contract. And Republicans in New Hampshire have ensured that Planned Parenthood cannot get that contract, thus stripping Planned Parenthood of 1.8 million dollars in state and federal funds over the next two years.
One member of the Council who voted against awarding the contract stated that the contract should be awarded to an organization that doesn’t perform abortions. (All of the abortions performed at New Hampshire Planned Parenthood locations are funded by private donation.) Fantastic, eh?
The culture war continues on the front lines of women’s hoo-has, and a significant casualty of this war on women is that Planned Parenthood Centers in New Hampshire no longer distribute contraceptives:
The six Planned Parenthood centers in New Hampshire stopped dispensing contraception last week after the Executive Council rejected a new contract with the organization.
Planned Parenthood had operated under a limited retail pharmacy license that was contingent on having a state contract, said Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Two weeks ago, the all-Republican Executive Council voted 3-2 against a new contract that would have provided the organization $1.8 million in state and federal money for the two years starting this month.
Executive Councilor Dan St. Hilaire of Concord, who cast one of the three votes in opposition, said the contract should go to an organization that does not perform abortions. The councilors approved 10 other contracts for family planning services.
The Planned Parenthood contract, which accounts for about 20 percent of its annual New Hampshire budget, would have paid for education, distributing contraception, and the testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The organization’s abortion practice is paid for by private donations, Trombley said, with audits ensuring no public money is used.
Last year, Planned Parenthood provided contraception for 13,242 patients in New Hampshire, Trombley said. The organization also provided 6,112 breast exams, 5,548 screenings for cervical cancer and 18,858 tests for sexually transmitted infections. If the contract is not renewed, Planned Parenthood will drastically reduce its services, Trombley said. The organization employs 80 people in New Hampshire.
Planned Parenthood treats 52 percent of patients whose care is subsidized by the New Hampshire state family planning program, Trombley said. It provides its services on a sliding scale based on income, with 70 percent of patients paying nothing or near nothing for birth control pills because they earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty line. The federal poverty guidelines vary with the number of people in a household, with a single person qualifying at $10,890 per year and a family of four qualifying at $22,350 a year.
At the Planned Parenthood center in West Lebanon yesterday, Laura Caravella arrived to pick up her patient file to bring it to a physician. Caravella, a 25-year-old paraprofessional at an elementary school in Vermont, had tried to refill her birth control prescription last Friday and learned she could not.
She said she was concerned about the cost of her prescription without the sliding scale offered by Planned Parenthood.
“Financially it’s really stressful,” Caravella said. “I’m already living almost paycheck to paycheck as it is.”
Stephanie Hiltunen, a 26-year-old who lives in Hanover, said she picked up a monthlong supply of birth control last Thursday, the day before the center stopped dispensing it. But future refills will require an inconvenient trip to Enfield, she said. Hiltunen said she would like to have a child but cannot afford it, and she worries there will be a public cost if contraception is inaccessible to low-income women.
“If they can’t afford to have a baby, then we’ll be paying for them in the long run,” she said.
The center has turned away 20 to 30 patients a day who have arrived to refill their birth control prescriptions, said site manager Amanda Mehegan. She said some women have said they will stop taking birth control because they cannot afford the higher prices charged by pharmacies. Seventy percent of the center’s patients lack private health insurance, she said.
Mehegan said she also worries the denied contract will lead to women with breast and cervical cancer going longer without a diagnosis, both because of direct cuts in funding for examinations and because many women are drawn to the center to pick up their birth control and then receive checkups.
So there you have it. If you live in New Hampshire and you or your lady-partner relies on Planned Parenthood to obtain contraceptives, whether to prevent oopsiebabies or for health reasons (yes! there are women who take contraceptives for health reasons, to regulate hormones and whatnot), you’re SOL my friend.
You know, I was watching Forgetting Sarah Marshall for, like, the umpteenth time, and cracking up at Russell Brand as I often do, and I found myself thinking, “You know, the GOP really does want to be inside me. I don’t know what they are hoping to find in my cave of hope and change, but there aren’t any jobs in there (that I’m aware of) so they need to get to steppin’ out of my lady parts.”
Are you having fun yet?
[via Little Green Footballs][cross-posted]
Well, it is New Hampster. Live Free Or Die!
c u n d gulag
Conservatives believe in “Forced Labor.”
Labor (arbeit) makes the women’s ‘free,’ don’t you know?
And there’s nothing more effective in making women gp through “Forced Labor,” than to cut off access to contraceptives.
If New Hampshire also had a ‘Force the Dick Who Caused the Fetus’ to pay and take care of the child 50% of the time, I might not be as offended.
And maybe contraceptive would rain down on us like the jobs that we’ve been promised after all of the fucking tax cuts.
If you’re in Hew Hampshire, good luck fuckin’!
Because the more you fuck, the more likely your good luck is to run out.
WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS!
Your eye’s are supposed to be on THAT prize – not on some vagina’s, ovaries, or fetuseseseseseses.
Coming soon – The Dominionist Christian Fascist States of America.
Villago Delenda Est
This will learn those vile strumpets to keep their legs firmly and tightly together!
Victory for chastity!
The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik
Yep. And just think, we’ll probably get to see more of this culture war, ‘pro-life’ crusading only escalate the closer we get to 2012….AND you’d be delusional to think that our current Supremes wouldn’t write off on it all in another 5-4 if any case were taken that high.
and remember children, this is the good and kind future for the womans, unlike that nasty Hawaiian Muslim oppression of womans.
Absolutely. Bristol Palin, for example, took birth control because of cramps, donchaknow.
But, they were elected to office
Leave free or die~unless you don’t want any babies.
Maybe I should start a carpool into Vermont; we like women.
Are we having fun yet? With news like this coming at us from every fuck direction, the answer is no.
Gromitt Gunn (formerly JMC_in_the_ATL)
And these assholes have the temerity to also claim to be fiscal conservatives. How much money does a child born and raised in poverty cost over his or her lifetime? A hell of a lot more than a pill.
Lady parts should be seen and not heard.
For years I told friends and work colleagues that at some point the godbotherers would go after contraception… most people told me I was crazy and that American women like reproductive control too much. It’s sad and scary. I’m glad to be beyond my reproductive years. (As to medical reasons to take the pill: I was originally prescribed the pill by a very religious Catholic doctor to regularize my cycle so I could use approved natural planning methods. Hah!)
Agrippa, this wasn’t the Lege; it was decided by something called the “Executive Council,” which doesn’t sound like an elected body to me.
On the other hand, Strength Through Joy! (specifically, the part highlighted in Shirer and featured in many period dramas where the youth were expected to return from their vacation preggers – not a feature I spotted in the Wikipedia article I linked).
Grommit Gunn @10: They aren’t doing this because of the cost of the pills. They are doing it solely for control over women’s lives.
I’m pretty sure that the moral scolds aren’t big fans of lady parts being seen, either, at least not in public. They’d happily vote for public modesty laws requiring women to be completely covered in public if they thought they could get away with it.
In San Fran, a friend told me the planned parenthood office shut down because of lack of funds.
Contraceptives are much more expensive through the doctor.
So – even in San fran, with a democratic mayor, a democratic representative, 2 democratic senators, and a democratic president – these guys are still managing to shut down planned parenthood, in one of the places it should be untouchable.
In addition, what’s the matter with Kansas?
It more complicated than that. There was a lot of mismanagement going on in SF:
They’ve since reorganized and reopened and expanded to other counties in the Bay Area:
Ummm. I believe the worldwide conservative movement is currently all behind laws to ban certain women being completely covered.
Maybe we should just start calling them Puritans.
It’s what they are still, because it’s where they came from. The only form of government they believe in has a preacher as it’s leader. Preferably one who collects large sums from the collection plates. And then steals it.
Wonder how many of the council members are men?
West of the Cascades
They think they can redistribute your lady parts to the rich. Also, re # 2, see “The Handmaid’s Tale”
Well possibly I may have mislabeled them. Does it make much difference? They’re still assholes. And I would prefer stoning or dunking or at least being placed in stocks for a couple of months, in winter, over outright killing. Some of them may not be un-redeemable assholes, but they would need to prove it by one of their accepted methods.
ETA OK I’ll admit I wasn’t sure of the term papist so I looked it up. You may be correct but I stand by my reply.
Not really. Their opposition to those laws is based on who is supporting them- evil scary Muslims(TM)- not on what the laws actually do. If some honest, God-fearing Christian(TM) proposed a law prohibiting women from showing anything more than their face and hands in public, it would get strong support from the godbotherers.
Jimperson Zibb (formerly Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
I’ll just quote my beloved late father:
I don’t know what’s wrong with Republicans. They’re for everything that’s bad and against everything that’s good.
I don’t think there’s any better way to put it than that.
Villago Delenda Est
If you relabeled “Sharia Law” to be “Jesus’ Law”, the Jeebofascists would have no problems with it.
Hey front pagers, can you park some of these LONG posts below the fold?
thanks for telling me this, ABL. this is one I had missed.
Oh, hell no. They love the Carrie Prejeans of the world and the big fake boobiez too much. It’s just when the annoying face part above the boobie part starts talking and saying things like, “Don’t fuck me” and “My life is my business” and “Sucking cock isn’t REALLY the funnest thing in the world” that they start wanting us to cover up and get out of sight.
The Spy Who Loved Me
The report says that the Council extended ten other contracts for family planning services. Can’t these other ten providers pick up the slack from Planned Parenthood not getting their contract extended?
Answering a couple of questions after looking at the Council’s website..
13: They’re elected. Why the state felt the need to create this body, I don’t know.
23: They’re all guys. They’re all white. Three of them are older, although if I read the reports correctly, it was one of the younger two who joined the majority.
I thank ABL for bringing this to attention as well. I have relatives in NH; they have a tendency not to pay enough attention to birth control as it is. They also tend not to expect much of anything from government in the first place. On the other hand, one of my cousins works in a spousal abuse support center.
Well, let’s face it, nothing says “libertarian free state” like taking away a woman’s birth control. Now every woman is free to get pregnant and make New Hampshire a true libertarian wonderland!
Davis X. Machina
Come on, people. It isn’t like those sluts are gonna shame themselves.
Somewhat serious question: do folks here have any acquaintance with Teh Libertarians?
Before you laugh yourselves into a fit: really. The blog I mostly frequent recently had an exchange with some of the Reason magazine people, and I came out of it just not knowing what to say. From what I can tell, they are principally fiscal conservatives (strong belief in the invisible hand of the market), but socially liberal (against, say, Michele Bachmann and the absurd Marriage Pledge) and strongly defensive of civil liberties, which they construe in a way that differs from my own way.
What I haven’t been able to figure out is how they would feel about some grey areas. How would they feel about this NH thing, or any of the other moves in a variety of states to curtail family planning services?
I realize, I would, if I really wanted to know, spend more time poking around libertarian sites to find out. I’m impatient, and I find them a bit annoying. I also really don’t mean or want this to be an invitation to libertarian-bashing. I just want to know what they think.
ETA: Sorry this was long. The final question was my point: how do libertarians feel about concerted Republican efforts to quash Planned Parenthood? I should just go look and see.
You may or may not be surprised to hear this, but there is a pretty strong pro-life streak among American libertarians. I’m assuming it’s because many of them come from conservative backgrounds, but a lot of libertarian heroes — like Ron Paul — think that abortion should be illegal.
So, yes, it seems to be yet another example of libertarians wanting “liberty for me but not for thee” since many of them think that the government should be closely monitoring women’s uteruses to make sure they’re used properly.
Mnemosyne: Okay. Thanks. I find it surprising that (some of) the people who think that government should stay out of our bedrooms, as it were, would think that abortion should be illegal.
I’m wondering if there’s a divide among libertarians on things like this. I might go poke around Reason (where else would I look? do you know?) after all.
You can easily find out by looking at the guiding Libertardian principle, IGMFY. Most of them don’t use Planned Parenthood services and they will scream it is a waste of taxpayers money. Some of the rest will use PP services and they will scream it is a waste of taxpayers money. And a few will use PP services and think it migth actually be worth taxpayers money, but ignore those, they are not real Libertarians.
sounds like you’re looking for the short course in libertarianism. I’ll give you the shortest course I can think of: don’t waste your time. Their belief in market forces is more akin to a cargo cult or intelligent design than anything recognizable as economics.
Yeah, I know. I’m really not sure why I keep worrying this.
It’s mostly Balko’s recent heroic endeavors regarding Cory Maye: I thought, hey, maybe it’s overkill to consider these people completely demented. But then I read this, that and the other, and no, they’re completely demented. I guess that upsets me, or something.
I hope those guys who made this decision are on-board with adopting some babies. Only makes sense.
Maybe someone should ask them about their planning for helping to take care of all of these ex-fetuses since the major outcome of restricting access to contraception is an increase in unplanned pregnancies. Was that their goal?
Next up, maybe a nice hefty tax on that little blue pill? A great way to cut down on that naughty sexual activity. Ooops, wrong sex.
Really, this is sheer insanity. And this is really the stuff that should be shouted from rooftops as an example of Republican “rule” . The “pro-lifers” who also want to restrict contraceptive use are the true lunatic fringe, and I think most folks don’t realize that this is their real goal. Should freak the independents and younger demographics out but good. Time for someone to ask the Repub candidates if they support contraception.
Villago Delenda Est
If they’ve read Adam Smith, they didn’t comprehend him. They have this bizarre notion that “the market” is a force of nature, when it is a social construct. Which means it’s subject to manipulation, and Smith isn’t one bit deluded about that aspect of it, he warns of it repeatedly.
But they’re quite deluded about it…or they think they’ll be the manipulators.
@Davis X. Machina:
LOL, oh shit, I’m done.
@Jc: Isn’t that interesting, if not actually true. Perhaps you should look at their website.
Reply to #40 parsimon:
I am a regular at many libertarian blogs (like Reason, or Balko’s blog) and a lurker at some liberal/progressive blogs (like this one). You can take my observations below in whatever way you wish.
There is most certainly a strong divide in the libertarian camp on the pro-life/pro-choice question. A majority (but not huge majority) of libertarians are pro-choice, but the pro-life faction have some influential members from the political class(like Ron Paul).
Some people here might be confused about how it is possible to be pro-life and libertarian (I was at first; I am strongly pro-choice). But I kinda understand it now. You see, pro-life libertarians really believe that not just life but also human rights begin at conception. You could disagree with this view, but that’s where they are coming from. So for them it is a matter of balancing the rights of the unborn to live versus the rights of the living to kill, so its not very strange which side they come out at. Personally I think it is strange and foolish of them to give foetuses rights. But, still, I can grudgingly concede that it is possible to be libertarian and pro-life.
Whether there should be funding for groups such as planned parenthood that perform abortions is another matter. Here, too, there is a divide, but now the faction that believes that there should be no such funding is definitely the significant majority. Even many libertarians who are pro-choice support defunding planned parenthood because they think it is morally wrong to use taxpayer money from pro-lifers to support an organization that performs abortions.
Personally I believe planned parenthood should be funded. Like all libertarians, I am a fiscal conservative, but if there are things to be cut, I’d first cut defence, and stop the war on drugs, and even cut several existing entitlements. The funding to planed parenthood is negligible in comparison, and in my view is a net gain because in the real world that we live in, making it harder to have abortions or contraceptives would mean that there would be more unwanted children, who would use up welfare, and thus thwart in a much worse way the goals of libertarians. But as I said, mine is a minority view among libertarians.
So, that’s that. Lastly, the reason I frequent sites like this is to get the point of view of libertarians out to people like you (who seem to be liberal, but open-minded). That said, even you make statements like ” But then I read this, that and the other, and no, they’re completely demented,” which unfortunately makes finding any common ground harder. It is possible to attack another ideology without resorting to name calling.
I certainly apologize that my distaste for libertarianism comes across as a distaste for libertarians as people. I occasionally do the same thing when expressing my distaste for religion – I’ll say things that are slurs on religious people. Such is not my intent.
Since I really don’t want to get into a flame war (and I can’t anyway, since I’m at work and have to get back to it in a couple minutes), I’d like to confine my question to you to pro-life libertarianism. Do you believe this is a defensible(whether strange or not) view? It seems rather peculiar that the same moral philosophy condemns the right of a pregnant woman to an abortion, yet fully supports her right to OD on krokodil. This is, as us moral philosophers are wont to say, some really fucked-up shit.
“Do you believe this is a defensible(whether strange or not) view?”
It’s a difficult question. I think being pro-life (especially if you are libertarian) is a moral error. But on the class of moral errors there are many worse ones, and I typically reserve the word “indefensible” for those. It seems to me that the error in being a pro-life libertarian is of a more subtle, and yes “defensible” variety than is often assumed by pro-choice people. So my short answer would be “yes”.
Nozick begins Anarchy, State and Utopia thus:
I think of (deontological) libertarianism as laying down what rights are and what constraints such rights put upon the actions of people and governments. However, it is much less clear who enjoys these rights. It is universally accepted that all adult humans who have a minimum level of mental competence enjoy them. Beyond that things get tricky. I, and most libertarians, consider children to have a much smaller set of rights than adults, and furthermore there is a certain issue that comes up with parents’ rights. All these issues can be taken care of in a sensible manner, but still its not all black and white.
Finally comes the question of the foetus. Should the foetus have any rights at all? If you think not, then there is no question that the only defensible position is pro-choice. However the question of whether to give the foetus any rights is not a trivial one. Let’s make a thought experiment and suppose that foetuses have the mental and emotional aptitude of ten year olds. Then surely it is a horrible thing to be pro-choice. (One argument often given by pro-choice libertarians is that it is the woman’s body to do as she wish. But assuming that the woman got impregnated freely — i.e., she wasn’t raped — and now has a dependent human being inside her who has the feelings and mind of a ten year old, it is hard to use the justification “its her body” to support abortion in this scenario.
Now foetuses of course, are not ten year olds, or even one year olds. In fact, as far as I am aware, till several months they do not even feel any pain. It is these facts, coupled with the autonomy of body argument presented above, as well as the many other costs of having anti-abortion laws, that convince me that foetuses should have no rights, and that any other position is a moral error. However, as I hope I have made clear, this conclusion depends upon several variables, and when someone like Ron Paul, who actually delivered many babies as an obstetrician, and is in most other respects a very principled libertarian, comes out on the other side of “do foetuses have rights” question (actually his position is that this question is best left to the states), I cannot really call it indefensible.
To summarize, the question of “what are rights” is a very different one from the question “who has these rights”, and including foetuses in the latter group is strange and erroneous, but probably not “really fucked-up shit”.
Two disclaimers: I think any libertarian who is so strongly pro-life that he makes no exception for rape, or the life of the mother, has slipped into the indefensible position. Furthermore libertarians can be of the deontological or consequentialist varieties (and some, like me are a combination). Based on my knowledge of the real world and the consequences of strict anti-abortion laws, I can safely say that being a purely consequentialist pro-life libertarian is indefensible.
Here is the website with the contact information for the Executive Council members. Call, but be polite:
abhisaha at 50:
Thanks for replying (here! which I didn’t expect). Your explanations are really helpful.
What you say on this is sensible, and I’d call you a, what, moderate (not demented) libertarian. I’m sorry for what you registered as name-calling on my part, but I really do despair of being able to bridge any divide with (some) libertarians.
parsimon at 55: I am glad you found my explanations helpful.
About me being here, I found this site via certain posts by Radley Balko (who is actually my favourite blogger). Let’s say that the posts weren’t exactly complimentary, so I figured I’d stop by…
ArguingWithSignposts wondered how many of the Executive Council are men. Answer: All of them.
Oh no.. Not you too NH.
Common Sense New Englanders unite
Why is the first thing they go after when the budget needs tightening end up being women’s health care??
I really think this is white mens fear rearing it’s ugly head. A black man is president and women are graduating from college in higher number than men. They must stop them!!