292 This is so fucking retarded

[evile]

 

 

• Feb. 5, 2002

   

  I am horrified and appalled that people are taking this seriously,
  and taking at face value the professed desire to help poor women. Bla
  bla. Whatever. If you wanted to help poor women carry healthy babies
  to term, why not change the rules to allow them to claim prenatal
  care as soon as they find out they are pregnant? Seems a lot more
  straightforward than this "fetuses are actually 'unborn infants'"
  crap. But, hey, I am not fooled, and I don't think these assholes
  think they're fooling anyone. They are flaunting the power they have
  and saying "yeah, you hate it, but what can you do? You don't have
  the power of an Enron or a Microsoft, you can't buy a state or an
  election, so fuck you"
  
  ===============================================================
  From: "cyber jean" 
  Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:12 am
  Subject: Sneak Attack on abortion rights
  
  
  
  From this morning's New York Times: February 4, 2002
  
  Sneak Attack By BOB HERBERT
  
  They tried to camouflage the action. Bush administration officials
  presented
  it as an altruistic attempt to bring badly needed health care
  benefits to
  low-income pregnant women. It was actually a guerrilla attack on
  abortion
  rights.
  
  Alarm bells automatically go off when this administration claims to
  be
  helping the financially disadvantaged. So you knew something had
  to be up when the Department of Health and Human Services announced
  last
  week that it had figured out a way to provide prenatal care to low-
  income
  women who might not otherwise be eligible.
  
  This would be done, officials said, by broadening the definition of
  a "child" eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance
  Program.
  The meaning of "child" would be clarified, the officials said. Under
  the new
  rules, childhood would begin not at birth, but at conception.
  
  Adorned with the new definition of "child," the fetuses would become
  eligible for the health coverage.
  
  The health and human services secretary, Tommy G. Thompson, said this
  would
  be a boon for poor women. He said it "would help poor mothers be able
  to
  take care of their unborn children and get the medical care they
  absolutely,
  vitally need."
  
  He chose his words carefully. "Unborn children." Get it?
  
  Abortion opponents have been trying for the longest time to get
  embryos and
  fetuses defined as persons under the law. They believe
  it would be much easier to criminalize all abortions if embryos and
  fetuses
  were established in law as children.
  
  So while Mr. Thompson was crowing about what a boon this was for
  poor women, it was the anti-abortion crowd that was celebrating.
  Douglas
  Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said, "We applaud
  this Bush
  administration proposal to recognize the existence of an unborn child
  in
  order to allow the baby, and the mother as well, to receive adequate
  prenatal care — a concept to which only the most extreme pro-abortion
  ideologues will object."
  
  The truth is the decision had little to do with the health care of
  women. It
  was a political move, pure and simple. It was the Bush
  administration's way
  of sending a message to the right- wingers
  of the Republican Party: Don't give up hope. We're committed to
  undermining
  abortion rights.
  
  You don't have to torture the definition of the word child to give
  health
  benefits to low-income women. For example, coverage under the
  Children's
  Health Insurance Program could be extended to pregnant women via a
  simple
  legislative change, or by waivers to existing rules. That would be
  the
  common-sense way to go if the real goal were meaningful prenatal care.
  Harmful and in some cases bizarre conflicts can develop when embryos
  and
  fetuses are designated legally as persons. Kate Michelman, president
  of the
  National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, noted that
  pregnant
  women could end up in tragic conflict
  with their fetuses if the fetuses had the legal rights of people.
  For example, what rights would prevail if a pregnant woman had
  cancer and needed radiation or chemotherapy treatment that would
  be destructive to the fetus?
  "This is not about health care for women," said Ms. Michelman.
  "It's all about politics. It's about undermining a woman's right
  to choose, disguised as health policy."
  
  Lynn Paltrow, director of a group called National Advocates for
  Pregnant
  Women, believes much more than the threat to abortion
  rights is at stake. She described the Health and Human Services
  proposal as
  "cynical," and said it helps divert attention from the
  administration's
  failure to support a wide range of initiatives
  to improve the delivery of health care to women and children.
  She added, "This maneuver to create insurance for unborn children
  both
  personifies the fetus and accentuates the fact that women themselves
  are
  neither full persons under the law, nor valued
  enough to be funded themselves."
  
  This rules change by Health and Human Services, which does not
  need Congressional approval, is both devious and dangerous. It
  exemplifies
  the administration's right-wing allegiance, and its contempt for the
  poor.
  
  There are more than 40 million Americans walking around without
  health
  insurance. About 11 million are children. If the
  administration wanted to do something about extending health
  benefits, it could start with some of them. **