Emma Gray

Associate Editor, HuffPost Women

ABC's 'Revenge': Why Women Can't Get Enough Of This Melodrama

Posted: 04/18/2012 9:40 pm

When I first started watching "Revenge" back in September, I thought I was going to have to sweep my viewing habits under the rug and treat it as a very guilty pleasure (similar to how I feel about "The Bachelor"). I was certain that the soap-opera set-up and absurdly rich characters would ensure that the show was terrible; something that I'd watch on my laptop at a volume low enough that even my roommate couldn't hear. But seven months and 16 episodes later I'm an out-and-proud "Revenge" fan -- and so are a whole lot of other women.

For those of you that don't watch the show, the set-up is pretty basic. A rich girl named Emily Thorne comes to the Hamptons, rents a beautiful beach house and proceeds to integrate herself into the elaborate social scene. What the viewers know, but the majority of the characters do not, is that Ms. Thorne is in town to exact revenge on the people who wronged her father years before -- which turns out to be pretty much everyone. (If you want the details on all of the complicated relationships, check out HuffPost TV's infographic web of "Revenge" connections.)

I first realized that I wasn't alone in loving "that new show featuring the girl from 'Everwood,' the guy from 'Gossip Girl' and that other guy from 'Roswell'" (other confession: I was a big fan of the WB growing up), in line at Trader Joe's. I heard the woman in front of me mention her plans to go home and watch to the cashier. I couldn't help myself and I joined in the conversation, which turned into an epic "Revenge" love-fest. (I can only assume that the other grocery-buying patrons were less than pleased.) When Jezebel's Dodai Stewart penned an essay entitled "Of All The New Ladycentric Programming, 'Revenge' Is The Best" in January, my viewing habits were 100 percent affirmed.

So in celebration of the return of "Revenge" after a six-week long hiatus, here are three reasons that I can't get enough of this melodramatic gem of a television show:

1.It doesn't take itself too seriously.

"Revenge" is a nighttime soap opera. It features sultry, oh-so-serious voice overs from anti-hero Emily Thorne at the beginning and end of each episode, takes place in The Hamptons and is built around ... wait for it ... a REVENGE plot. But the show knows exactly what it is, and instead of trying to be hip and new and innovative, it embraces its melodrama genre -- and does a damn good job. Sometimes I watch TV to see myself represented on-screen (which is probably why I'm cheering so hard for the success of Lena Dunham's "Girls"), but sometimes I just want a little escapism. "Revenge" provides that in droves -- bring on the billionaires, giant beach houses, cocktail parties and townies, and add a dash of murder to boot.

2. NOLAN ROSS. 

Nolan is Emily's one semi-ally and most definitely the best character on the show. As a woman who once took a few Sociology of Gender courses in college, hearing Nolan explain that he's "about a three on the Kinsey Scale" won me over once and for all.

3. Women are the key power players of "Revenge."

There are a whole lot of men in the "Revenge" version of the Hamptons, but they consistently play second fiddle to the women, who really hold all of the cards. Emily's main love interest, Daniel Grayson, is head over heels in love with her and asks her to marry him -- all while she's waging a secret war against his family. Daniel is a good person and a character that the audience grows to care about, but while in other shows, the rich, successful business school grad would be in control of the storyline, young Grayson is more of a pawn.

Daniel's mother, Victoria Grayson, is the other woman to watch. She rules the social scene of the Hamptons with an iron fist, stopping at nothing to take down those who threaten her position. But to the "Revenge" writers' credit, Victoria is a (somewhat) complex antagonist. Even in her more awful moments, her character is compelling -- which is probably why Madeleine Stowe was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance. The women of "Revenge" might not be realistic or groundbreaking, but they're pretty badass.

Do you watch "Revenge"? What are your favorite no-longer-guilty-pleasure TV shows?

LOOK: Women Tweet About "Revenge"

Follow Emma Gray on Twitter: www.twitter.com/emmaladyrose

Republicans, Get In My Vagina: Kate Beckinsale Satirizes 'War On Women' With Funny Or Die 

Posted: 05/05/2012 3:58 pm Updated: 05/05/2012 3:58 pm

With the War On Women abreast, both sides of the aisle have accused the other of cynically bringing women's health issues to the forefront of political debate in an election year. But over the last few months, it seems clear that Republicans are choosing this moment to drastically overhaul existing reproductive and female health laws. And Funny Or Die is finally giving voice to the voiceless -- the millions of women who want Republicans to make decisions about their vaginas for them.

Kate Beckinsale, Judy Greer and Andrea Savage are just your typical Republican women who want nothing more than small government in every regard -- except when it comes to their private areas. "Way, way deep, up there in my vagina," Greer says.

While most women might find it distressing that legislation has popped up across various states that would restrict affordable birth control and enforce invasive ultrasounds before going through with an abortion, these women find them to be refreshing.

After all, who knows better about reproductive health than a bunch of old white men? "Don't you want someone like your dad in your vagina? I do," says Beckinsale.

Funny Or Die proves once again that no argument is more effective than a funny one, even if it includes Kate Beckinsale talking about her dad being in her vagina.

Wisconsin GOP Legislators Go After Single Mothers

Katha Pollitt on March 26, 2012 - 11:46 AM ET

If you had any doubt that Republicans have an even bigger anti-woman agenda than their love of compulsory vaginal probes might suggest, consider Wisconsin’s Senate Bill 507.

Co-sponsored by two GOP state legislators, Senator Glenn Grothman and Representative Don Pridemore, it directs the state to prepare educational materials that blame “nonmarital parenthood” for child abuse and neglect and “emphasize the role of fathers in the primary prevention” of same. Don’t be fooled by that gender-neutral abstraction “parenthood.” This bill is clearly aimed at shaming and blaming single mothers. “Fathers” after all prevent harm to children, so logically the only parents left to cause it are... yes, those unmentionable women who have the babies without a wedding ring to show for it. You might think that even in Wisconsin it takes two to tango down the aisle, but not according to Senator Grothman, who says, "There's been a huge change over the last 30 years, and a lot of that change has been the choice of the women."

Maybe, but a lot of it isn’t. It’s not as if men are eager for shotgun weddings either.

Pridemore goes farther. Women lucky enough to have landed a husband should stay with them, even if those men are violent. What should battered wives do? Love their husbands more! "If they can re-find those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help,” Pridemore advises. Because nothing says “prevention of child abuse and neglect” like wife beating. 

The best response I’ve seen to Pridemore’s marital counsel is this modest proposal, which was forwarded to a feminist list:

From: Caroline H.

Sent: Fri 3/23/2012 11:40 AM

To: Rep. Pridemore

Subject: In response to your comment about divorce in case of abuse

Mr. Pridemore -

I would like to make a deal with you. I propose we live together (I'll even relocate to Wisconsin!) for a year in an abusive relationship. I'll beat the shit out of you on a regular basis, verbally assault you, make you live in extreme fear, break down any shred of self-worth you might have, all that good stuff. After 12 months, we can both reevaluate our positions on the issue.

Granted, you don't know me well enough to "love me," thus giving you happy thoughts to call on when I'm beating you violently, but let's see what we can work out. What do you say? :)

Regards,

Caroline H.

Arlington, Virginia

Laura Bassett

lbassett@huffingtonpost.com

Texas Loses Entire Women's Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law

Posted: 03/15/2012 5:39 pm Updated: 03/16/2012 10:34 am

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry's (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program.

Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year.

"We very much regret the state's decision to implement this rule, which will prevent women enrolled in the program from receiving services from the trusted health care providers they have chosen and relied upon for their care," she wrote. "In light of Texas' actions, CMS is not in a position to extend or renew the current [Medicaid contract]."

The federal government pays for nearly 90 percent of Texas' $40 million Women's Health Program, and nearly half of the program's providers in Texas are Planned Parenthood clinics. But the new law that went into effect earlier this month disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the program because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though no state or federal money can be used to pay for those abortions.

According to Medicaid law, Mann said, a state cannot restrict women's ability to choose a provider simply because that provider offers separate services -- in this case, abortion -- that aren’t even paid for by the Medicaid program.

Perry wrote a letter to President Obama earlier this month accusing his administration of "mandating which health providers the state of Texas must use" in order to "continue to support abortion providers like Planned Parenthood." He vowed to continue the Women's Health Program in Texas without Planned Parenthood and without federal money, although he has yet to outline how his state will come up with money.

But an HHS spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that this was not Obama's decision and that the administration's hands are tied on the issue. “Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid. Patients, not state government officials, should be able to choose the doctors and other health care providers that are best for them and their families. In 2005, Texas requested this same authority to restrict patients’ choices, and the Bush Administration did not grant it to them either.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article said that Texas' Women's Health Program costs $40 billion. The correct number is $40 million. We regret the error.

Sandra Fluke

Public Interest Law Scholar, Georgetown University Law Center

Thank You, Affordable Care Act!

Posted: 03/22/2012 1:49 pm

Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with several media outlets in an effort to tell the stories of women who would be helped by comprehensive reproductive healthcare, particularly affordable access to contraception through insurance. While this experience has been emotionally and physically exhausting, I have been repeatedly moved by the hundreds of women and men who have contacted me to show support. Lest we forget where this conversation started, I would like to take this opportunity to take a step back to exactly two years ago and acknowledge the tremendous difference that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is making and will continue to make in women's lives everywhere.

This law, also known as health reform, will benefit over 45 million women in our country through increased access to preventive care services without copays and deductibles. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act's new requirements that private insurance and Medicare cover these services without cost-sharing, by the time the law is fully implemented in 2014, women will benefit from, among other services: mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, pre and post natal care, flu shots, regular well-baby, well-child and well-woman visits, domestic violence screening, and the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.

If this seems too good to be true, think again. This is the product of women in action - this is what happens when women stand up for what they and their families need to be healthy and are finally heard by people at the highest ranks of our government. This is what it looks like when government works for us and prioritizes our health.

And just as we will not be silenced when we are verbally attacked for speaking out, we will not go back to a society without this care. My colleagues and friends at my university who struggle with polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, unintended pregnancy, and even the terrible consequences of sexual assault understand what it's like for someone else to make their health care decisions for them. New moms who need to space their children, young women who are starting their careers, and low income women who struggle to afford basic necessities understand the need to control their reproduction. I have tried to represent them by talking about their experiences - but any influence I might have is only due to their courage in coming forward.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, that courage is reaping as yet untold benefits. I look forward to the day when students at my university finally have the comprehensive reproductive health coverage they need to stay healthy. I look forward to never again hearing about a friend who lost her ovary to a tennis ball-sized cyst because she couldn't afford to keep paying for contraception out of pocket. I look forward to the unintended pregnancy rate in our country, which is stuck at half of all pregnancies, finally declining. I look forward to more women surviving breast and cervical cancer because they were diagnosed early. I look forward to the end of gender rating in insurance, which can inflate premiums for young women by 150% compared to their male counterparts, and which costs women of all ages an extra $1 billion per year. And I look forward to knowing that when my friends choose to start their families, they will not be faced with the 87% of individual insurance plans that do not currently cover maternity care, and they will not be labeled as having a "preexisting condition" if it turns out they need a C-section.

I know that when women have the opportunity, they will take care of their health, which in the end benefits both our families and our country. On this second anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I express my gratitude and celebrate the new opportunity for healthy lives, before, during and after our reproductive years.

Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as President of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

Follow Sandra Fluke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SandraFluke

The High Cost of Being a Woman

Bryce Covert on March 21, 2012 - 10:49 AM ET

It turns out being a woman is an expensive undertaking. Despite laws on the books meant to prevent companies and firms from charging women more for the same products and services, we’re still shelling out more than men for a variety of things. And we do it on less pay.

A new report out this week from the National Women’s Law Center found that insurance companies have been charging women $1 billion more than men for the same coverage. In fact, in the states that haven’t banned the practice of jacking up prices for women – known as gender rating – women were charged more for 92 percent of the best-selling health plans. The difference can’t be explained by a higher cost of maternity care: even when that care is left out, almost a third of plans charged women at least 30 percent or more, and that care is usually not part of a standard benefits package. Why might insurers decide women are more expensive? Because they tend to use more services – like going to the doctor more often for regular checkups. Damn them being preventative.

Paying higher dollar amounts for similar care isn’t the only way health issues screw women. Nona Willis Aronowitz and Dylan C. Lathrop of GOOD added up the numbers on how much women spend on lady-specific care. The average woman will spend 30 years trying to prevent pregnancy, eventually having two children. With insurance, at the low end, their estimates show that she will end up spending $10,070 on her particular health needs. Those include costs for having a baby, such as gestational diabetes screening ($80), a lactation class ($80), and breast-feeding supplies ($670). It also includes preventative care, such as HPV tests every three years ($260), annual HIV counseling and screening ($1,500), annual pelvic exams ($2,080), and co-pays for hormonal birth control ($5,400).

But health care isn’t the only arena that gets women. As Jezebel reported yesterday, women also end up paying more just for everyday products and needs. Women pay more just to get their shirts dry cleaned (even though a “blouse” and a man’s dress shirt is basically the same thing) and haircuts (our hair’s made of the same stuff, right?). A study from the University of Central Florida found that women’s deodorant costs 30 cents more than men’s – and the only difference is scent. Bigger purchases also cost women more: on average women pay $200 more for a car than a man, and they were about 30 percent more likely to end up with subprime home loans before the crash.

All of this, of course, is paid for with lower income. The gender wage gap stood at 82 cents on the dollar for the same work men do. That gap ends up costing women $431,000 in pay over a 40-year career. In turn, they have a harder time building up assets and saving for retirement, even though they tend to live longer lives.

It seems being a man still gives you a big financial upper hand. With some people talking about women being the richer of the two sexes, we might want to stop and take a look at how much thinner our money has to spread.

Crisanta Duran

Colorado State Representative, District 5

Let's Not Play Political Football With Women's Health

Posted: 03/ 1/2012 11:30 am

As the youngest representative currently serving in the state House, I am deeply disappointed by the assault on women's access to quality health care.

I, like many Colorado women, support no-cost contraception which was achieved through the Affordable Care Act.

President Obama recently showed the true qualities of leadership when he adjusted the provisions of contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act. Acknowledging the good will of stakeholders on both sides of the debate, he engaged in a productive conversation and respected those views that differed from his own. The president announced a small change to the Department of Health and Human Services' contraception ruling that accommodates religiously based institutions while continuing to protect women's health.

Under the new policy, all women will have access to no-cost preventative care including contraception no matter where they work. Now, however, it will become incumbent upon insurers, not religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception directly. As before, under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance with no co-pay or deductible.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a measure that would allow any employer to refuse to insure birth control or any other health service for any moral reason. This legislation, from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), stipulates that employers and health plans don't have to provide coverage for any service that they object to.

Think about what that means for a second.

This legislation would allow any employer or insurance company to not only deny access to birth control, but also to any essential health care service, including maternity care, HIV/AIDS treatment, mammograms, and cancer screenings.

Indeed, it is unbelievable that this assault on women's health is taking place in the year 2012.

The effort to bolster preventative services for women isn't new. Colorado is one of 28 states that already require contraception coverage in health insurance plans similar to the new federal rule, thanks to House Bill 1021 signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter in 2010.

Birth control is basic health care. More fundamentally, it allows a woman to plan whether and when to start a family and how many children to have. It allows woman to participate in society equally, allowing her to pursue educational, professional, and economic goals.

Contraception gets prescribed for a variety of medical and health reasons, including reducing the risk of some cancers, serious infections and cysts. Requiring coverage also reduces costs -- many women pay between $30 and $50 a month for contraceptives; they'd save up to $600 a year, and the National Business Group on Health estimated that employers would save between 15 and 17 percent on health care costs if they provide contraception coverage.

Which is why in the real world, there is widespread support for the birth control benefit. A New York Times/CBS News poll found that 65 percent of American voters said they supported the benefit, and 59 percent said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control. The number of supporters is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the requirement, while 32 percent oppose it.

Just like President Obama, my values are informed by my faith, and that's why I stand in good conscience for affordable access to contraceptives for Colorado's women

Kay Bailey Hutchison Claims Republicans Don't Want to Restrict Access to Contraception After Voting for Blunt Amendment

If you're a Republican and you would like to come on the air and repeat one talking point after another virtually unchallenged, this Thursday, Chuck Todd once again showed us he's happy to oblige you. Todd allowed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to get away with a series of lies right off the bat, like pretending increasing domestic oil drilling will have any major impact in lowering the price of gasoline (it won't), or that Republicans have some sort of "principled" stance on energy production, unless you consider always doing the bidding of the oil companies "principled."

Todd then asked Hutchison about the Republicans "war on women" and he allows her to get away with claiming that Republicans don't want to restrict women's access to contraception after she just voted for the Blunt amendment. Heaven forbid he might have reminded her of that during the interview.

She finished up with giving a half hearted defense of Planned Parenthood, saying she disagreed with Gov. Rick Perry's decision to turn down the state's Medicaid funding. It would have been nice if she'd bothered to say something when the House Republicans were seeking to defund it last year.

Think Progress has more on Hutchison's defense of Planned Parenthood which I don't think was particularly brave given that it was mainly prodded on by Chuck Todd.

Kay Bailey Hutchison Defends Planned Parenthood, Says Organization Provides Critical Preventive Care:

During an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voiced rare support for Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization provides much-needed preventive care to low-income women. The outgoing Texas senator also condemned a recently-enacted Texas law that prohibits Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program and providing health care services to some 130,000 women. The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women’s Health Program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) insists that the state will fill the funding gap using state funds.

Hutchison criticized Perry’s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars, which she argued, provide critical care to lower-income women.

Indra Adnan

Director of The Soft Power Network

Gender Equality: Give Women The Right Not To Choose

Posted: 03/ 8/2012 11:50 am

Another year, another International Women's Day. As long as I have been watching, alongside the undoubted ongoing struggles, each IWD has recorded significant advancements for women. Interestingly, this is more noticeable in the developing world - where women have been acknowledged for their special skills - than in the gender neutral world of the West where real equality continues to elude us.

However a number of recent events have lead me to believe that we may be in line for a quantum leap, a paradigm change, a SHIFT. After a century or more of activism, feminism has given birth to the Men's Movement. In the past year alone we have celebrated the first International Men's Day, Men Only Fashion Week as well as a Men's Hour on Radio 5, established after it was discovered that 40 percent of listeners to Woman's Hour are male? Each one has been welcomed with derision and fear from the majority of commentators, then met in turn with a solid response from the organizers: Men too, they say, have a right to some special attention. Or is it a need?

For some years now we have been aware of the vulnerabilities of the 'stronger' sex. Lower academic achievements; loss of a clear role in relationships; shorter lives augmented by much higher suicide rates than women. The stress -- arising from expectations of social dominance, inadequately resourced by low self-esteem -- takes its toll.

Add to that the evidence emerging from brain science, such as that described in the Human Givens Project, that men are more emotional -- that is, they are more prone to decontexualised emotional reactions to events -- than women and the stage is set for a full scale rewriting of gender in adult developmental needs.

Does this, in some way, mark a coming of age for women in Western society? I'm not pointing here to a swing of the pendulum: although some women, having fought long and hard against gender inequalities their whole life, would like nothing better than to see women rise above men, particularly in the workplace.

My interest is rather in whether the coming leveling of the playing field will allow more women to acknowledge difference and distinction. Will women feel less bound by the work place norms which are, de facto, masculine? Will they feel free to develop a feminine equivalent, now that equality is established de jure and men are beginning to show signs of strain? Will they allow men a new role in the home -- traditionally the woman's domain?

Here is a possible scenario -- one I have been nurturing since leaving school, and in which I know I'm not alone. Girls emerging from full-time education have two things to consider: their vocational potential and their family ambitions. (For family, please read not only children but any person an individual chooses to look after). Only a small minority think, from the outset, that they are going to choose one above the other. The majority, for economic reasons, have little choice but to do both. In the current culture that means juggling, stressing, doubting, resenting -- a lifetime of compromises broken up with occasional highs and lows.

Children are raised through child-care schemes, relationships are constantly at breaking point as parents have little time for each other, communities die for lack of family participation and democracy is reduced to a vote every four years -- if you manage to get to the polling station on the day. Work-life balance, as we know it, is work with a bit of life (mostly consuming stuff and media) at the edges.

Quite early in life, most have to choose a strong emphasis either way. Mothers who put raising children first have to sacrifice a career. Mothers who put their careers first have to sacrifice their families. I have yet to meet one of the first group who don't angst about social status or wasted talents: I've yet to meet one of the second who don't experience guilt for their children or themselves about the lack of attention they can give each other.

The sum total is a dysfunctional society with most parents feeling torn and too many children lost in a world of adult craving that does not understand their needs. Many find themselves alienated to the point of despair but most submit to the trance of technology and are none the wiser. We count the social cost of all this every day.

All in the name of work (in order to consume) and economic growth.

Imagine now a world in which women -- and men -- had a right NOT to choose. Not to give up expecting a fulfilling life of work AND all the time you need to bring up your children and care for your dependents. At the moment the reason this can't work is because of our standards around  working hours, with the resulting pay and career structure, all of which have been designed around 20th-century men -- the kind who had little or no interest in participating in care. Till now, women have had to become like men to succeed in the world of work.

How could women play it differently if they began to believe that they had the psycho-social advantage: the better insight into what we all need to become happier? That having seen the toll that too much work and chasing status takes on a man's life, they were prepared to shape the culture along more feminine needs, which means having both family and career on their own terms?

Separating work and life is a damaging disconnect. Work, like leisure, is part of life. Life cannot be forced onto a platform for the occasional performance. It is a constant. When women leave their children at home, they do not park them, they continue as part of their lives. When there are problems, they carry them from meeting to meeting, drawing on their mental and emotional energy despite not appearing on the agenda.

How can they begin to signal a change -- one that aims for a whole-life balance, where work, care and leisure can play appropriate parts?

We can see signs of it already. It started with the discovery by Susan Pinker that women themselves are largely the architects of the glass ceiling, saying no to the top jobs in order to preserve some semblance of family life. Now, increasing number of women are dropping out of large companies altogether in order to set up their own smaller businesses where they make the rules.

Mumpreneurs mirror their dependents' habits, working along school hours and holidays while still using their creative intelligence, making money and having influence. It's not easy, but acceptance for this choice and support to make it happen is beginning to sprout. Men are already beginning to follow this trend, with more fathers asking for flexible working arrangements today than women (many of whom give up their jobs after maternity leave).

Wind forward and we could be talking about job sharing, shorter working weeks, longer weekends, and more distributed careers that may only come to fruition in the 50+ post-children years. With more time and space to be civic would not this lead to much happier families and children, richer communities and a more active democracy?

In this time of globalised financial crisis, many of our shibboleths are being challenged, often because we simply have run out of resources. Consumerism is being defrocked, work is losing its appeal as more years are expected of us for less reward. And even growth for growth's sake is sometimes being challenged with the logic of a steady state economy, wherein quality of life is being offered as a substitute for quantity of goods owned.

On this International Women's Day, is it inconceivable that women's need to be more than one thing in this lifetime, to live a life of relationships both in the family and in work, might become the 21C model for a successful human life? No longer homo economic us, but homo - indeed femina - affinitas?

John Celock

john.celock@huffingtonpost.com

Kansas Abortion Bill To Ban Procedure By State Workers Passes House

Posted: 03/17/2012 11:46 am

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has said that he will sign a sweeping 69-page anti-abortion bill.

The day after a Kansas legislative committee adopted an amendment to protect accreditation of the OBGYN residency program at the University of Kansas Medical Center, the full state House adopted an amendment which could put the program back in jeopardy.

The full House of Representatives adopted an amendment to the state budget Friday evening that would prohibit state money from being used on abortions and would ban state workers from performing abortions during the workday. Opponents say the amendment will jeopardize the accreditation of KU's OBGYN residency program, where residents receive training to provide abortions.

On Thursday, a House committee meanwhile passed an amendment to the state's sweeping anti-abortion bill meant to allow for the abortion training to continue at KU. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires OBGYN programs to provide abortion training. "Kansas citizens do not want (abortions)," state Rep. Joe Patton (R-Topeka) told HuffPost about why he sponsored the amendment.

Patton said that he does not know if the ban would actually threaten the accreditation of the residency program, noting that KU officials have declined two invitations to testify before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, which is considering the anti-abortion bill. In 1998, Kansas lawmakers prohibited abortions from being performed on state property. A KU Medical Center spokeswoman told HuffPost earlier this month that no abortions are performed at KU, which is considered state property. Under state law, the medical center's doctors and nurses are employed by private foundations, but the residents are considered state employees. Patton said he believes the medical center has been skirting state law to provide abortion services.

"The public policy should be that a state agency should not be involved in this practice. Since 1998, they have thumbed their noses at public policy in Kansas," he said Saturday morning. Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Rep. Sean Gatewood (D-Topeka), who is leading opposition to the anti-abortion bill, said that legislators have been meeting with KU officials privately to craft a procedure to protect the residency program. He said the amendment adopted by the committee Thursday would exempt KU residents from the worker ban and allow the training to continue. He said the amendment did include a one-year sunset clause, which would give legislators the opportunity to review the residency program annually. The amendment and full bill were passed by the committee on Thursday.

"I don't get it; it seems reckless to me," Gatewood told HuffPost about the budget amendment.

The anti-abortion bill includes a provision that permits doctors to withhold from a mother any information that could possibly cause her to seek an abortion; it also prevents a medical malpractice suit from being filed should the woman and child subsequently have health issues, but does allow a wrongful death suit to be filed in the event of the mother's death. The bill also includes the end of a series of tax deductions relating to abortion. Opponents have said that bill will also impose a sales tax on abortions in the state, including those sought by rape victims. The committee on Thursday removed language that required a woman to listen to the fetal heartbeat, but have kept language that requires doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer.

Earlier this week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives also adopted a bill that would instruct doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer. The theory that abortion causes breast cancer has been rebuked by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who have all said the research is faulty.

Gatewood said state Senate leaders have signaled they will likely not consider the anti-abortion bill, saying that it is too late in the legislative session to take up such a complex bill. The House had used a parliamentary maneuver when adopting the bill in committee to attempt to expedite Senate consideration. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has told HuffPost that he will sign the bill. The Kansas Senate is controlled by a more moderate Republican faction, which has been at odds with the more conservative governor and House. Patton is currently challenging moderate Republican Sen. Vicki Schmidt in the August primary.

The full budget is likely to be adopted by the House on Monday, where legislative rules would prohibit an attempt to remove the abortion language, according to Gatewood. The budget is subject to legislative negotiations before being sent to Brownback. It has not been determined if the abortion amendment will remain in the final bill.

Patton said he remains committed to seeing the adoption of the abortion ban, saying that if the medical center leaders will not speak publicly on the bill, they are trying to promote abortion.

"This should not be discussed in the closet, but out in the open," Patton said.

For Women's Rights, Another Round of Defensive Victories

Emily Douglas on March 15, 2012 - 6:06 PM ET

In recent months, a bubbling stew of Republican extremism, tone-deafness and rank misogyny aimed at a series of poorly chosen targets (Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke, breast cancer activists who also use birth control) have turned pro-choice women into a potent and wide-awake political force. A DCCC appeal decrying the “war on women” raised over $1 million. In last week’s cover story, Elizabeth Mitchell reported that Planned Parenthood drew 1.3 million new supporters in 2011 and raised $3 million in the wake of the Komen controversy alone. Viewed one way, what should be happening is happening: women are waking up(E.J. Graff), making their displeasure known, and wielding political capital accordingly (Irin Carmon). The attacks on birth control are turning off independent and moderate women, who are now taking a second look at the once-beleaguered president. And Obama will be ready for them: he is staking his re-election in large part on women voters.

Moments like this are clarifying, and can act as a teaching tool. Americans, who strongly support access to birth control and the birth control coverage mandate in specific, are catching on to Republican hostility to a key tenet of contemporary American culture. The attacks on birth control are demonstrable proof that the religious right, including the Republican presidential candidates, intends, at root, to re-impose archaic sexual mores and roll back the clock on women’s equality. It is about women, not about unborn babies. Irin credits the amped-up outrage to the “growing realization that these aren’t isolated incidents, but rather systematic attacks based on a worldview that is actively hostile to female self-determination.”

But we can’t forget the conversation we’re having is about defending what we have, not demanding what we don’t. The Affordable Care Act will increase the number of women who, directly or indirectly, access birth control with government support, but the federal government’s family planning program, Title X, already exists and enjoys broad public support. By contrast, the using of healthcare reform as a moment to reopen the debate over public funding for abortion in the debate over healthcare reform was a non-starter. The compromise we ended up with will require women receiving government assistance to obtain insurance through the exchanges to sign up for a separate rider that covers abortion—paid for with their own money. Reconsidering the Hyde Amendment was not up for discussion.

I’m reminded of a superb Nation editorial that ran just after Komen reversed its decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood: “But the Komen reversal, like the defeat of Mississippi’s Fetal Personhood Amendment this past fall, while sweet, was ultimately a defensive victory. The campaign succeeded not in advancing reproductive healthcare but in preventing a loss of such services. It was fueled not by an ambitious vision but by outrage…”

Obama’s #1 pitch to women voters—that the first bill he signed helps ensure equal pay for equal work—exemplifies this problem. Yes, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act corrects a great injustice—the requirement that employees file a pay discrimination claim within an impossibly short window of time since the first discriminatory paycheck. But the reality is that this only corrected a harmful Supreme Court decision from a year before—and doesn’t address the other factors that drive pay discrimination.

The news today that 31 percent more women are living in states with abortion restrictions than did in 2000 is a timely reminder that we’re living in a world not of our own making. The politics of the moment may be baffling—as Cecile Richards said recently, Mitt Romney’s “attacks [on birth control] make no sense given where the American voter is.” But the underlying reality—that, on a national level, those of us who supports women’s rights aren’t setting the agenda—is crystal clear.

Related Topics: Reproductive Rights | Conservatives and the American Right

Even GOP Women Defend (Sort of) MoveOn Ad Against Bill O’Reilly

Leslie Savan on March 16, 2012 - 6:19 PM ET

Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover and Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson dared to tell Bill O’Reilly on his show last night that they think the new MoveOn ad, “GOP War on Women,” will be effective. In the spot, various women read recent Republican comments on birth control and abortion, and conclude that “the GOP must have a serious problem with women, and until the Republicans get over their issues, we women have got a serious problem with the Republican Party.” 

After O’Reilly ran the latter part of the ad, Hoover said, “As a Republican, while I don’t like it, I actually think it is a hard-hitting and will be highly effective ad.” 

O’Reilly: But what sort of person would associate an entire political party with a few people’s opinions?

Hoover: …It’s not just a few people....

O’Reilly: I can’t believe you guys think it will be effective. What kind of moron would think that?

Hoover: Because we’re women, Bill.

O’Reilly: It has nothing to do with women.

Hoover: What?!

And so it went, until Bill came back to say, “I have to scold Hoover now.”

Even Carlson (who doesn’t seem to dumb herself down on the Factor as she does on her own Fox & Friends) looked like she wanted to scold Bill right back as she reminded him that Republicans are losing the war for women.

By Peanutman

Here’s the O'Reilly segment (and the even better, extended version of the MoveOn ad below):  

Billshit O'Reilly is just the avatar of FOX news and its listening audience. That is, simply put, a bunch of old white guys who are losing their place in American society and cannot handle the loss.
Plus they are the prototypical examples of what is wrong with the US. We have allowed a minority of BULLIES to seize the controls. Stand up to an O'Reilly, a Christie and see how they will react.
Can you believe that the New Jersey WALRUS had the nerve to call a US Navy Seal a moron?