So says the New York Times:

The Bush administration violated federal law last year when it restricted states’ ability to provide health insurance to children of middle-income families, and its new policy is therefore unenforceable, lawyers from the Government Accountability Office said Friday.

And I think it’s pretty clear what is at the heart of the matter:

The letter told states what steps they needed to take to be sure the children’s health program would not displace or “crowd out” private coverage under group health plans. The White House cited the policy as a justification for rejecting a proposal by New York State to cover 70,000 additional youngsters.

Remember back when Sen. Mitch McConnell pretended to give a flip about middle income families? That dog don’t hunt. Aren’t you ready to DITCH MITCH?!?!

(h/t: Feministe)

read comments (22)

Sen. Mitch McConnell, 2008:

I doubt that couples with children who make $63,000 a year think that they’re rich.

Why, it seems like only yesterday that Sen. Mitch McConnell and his BFF, Pres. George W. Bush were arguing that such families were rich!

Of course, we all know that when it comes to giving a flying you-know-what about the middle class, Sen. Mitch McConnell gets a big fat F. For all the huffing and puffing he does, for all the scraps he tosses our way every once in a while, ultimately, Sen. Mitch McConnell has failed this state.

Does anyone really believe we are better off with this man as our senator? I don’t know about ya’ll, but this gal has had just about enough. DITCH MITCH!

read comments (5)

Via the C-J comes news that (right wing old guy who has never been and never will be pregnant) Jack Westwood’s ultrasound bill will move forward.

Allow me to collect myself for a second.

What the article says:

State Rep. Jack Westwood, R-Crescent Spring, said ultrasound technology produces images that women should be allowed to see before they terminate pregnancies.

Westwood showed fellow lawmakers images of an unborn baby at 10 weeks gestation, one showing a baby’s tiny foot and toes.

“The idea is that what is inside this woman is not a mass of tissue, but, in fact, is a live baby,” said Westwood, sponsor of the legislation that has drawn vocal opposition from abortion rights supporters.

Um. Excuse me? “Allow”? “Baby”?

Here’s what the bill actually says:

Amend KRS 311.720 to redefine “abortion” and to add definitions of “reasonable judgment,” “unborn child,” and “woman”; create a new section of KRS 311.710 to 311.820 to require physician to perform an obstetric ultrasound and show images to the woman seeking an abortion; create a new section of KRS 311.710 to 311.820 to provide for an exemption to the ultrasound in case of an emergency and require placing the reason for the emergency in medical records; amend KRS 311.990 relating to penalties to provide a fine of not more than $100,000 for a first offense and not more than $250,000 for each subsequent offense and provide for referring incident to Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure for action and discipline.

So, you see? The bill doesn’t allow for squat. Because women are already allowed to view their ultrasounds if they wish to do so. This bill is not about allowing. It’s about forcing and punishing and slut-shaming. And it is dangerously-worded.

I have a few things to say to all the anti-choicers out there. If you have any desire whatsoever to actually reduce abortions, try doing it in a practical and ethical way like, oh, I don’t know, educating people about how to protect themselves rather than just saying “keep your legs closed,” or the less-frequently uttered, “keep it in your pants.” When Kentucky women rank 50th in health and well-being and nearly half of Kentucky children are poor or near-poor, and when concern for existing children is cited as the primary reason for most abortions, maybe you could work on tackling the reasons behind the choice rather than restricting access to reproductive health services.

Of course, I realize you may have your plates full, what with very important matters like regulating titty-shaking and such. Glad to know where your priorities are. It’s good to know that some legislators can approach reproductive health with a little bit of common sense, at any rate. Time to return to my cold medicine-induced blissful ignorance.

read comments (14)

Amanda votes pro-choice because she knows women are human.

Ann votes pro-choice because she’s a values voter.

Anna votes pro-choice because her personhood is not conditional.

Bean votes pro-choice because we have so far yet to go.

Cara votes pro-choice women’s health is not a “special interest”.

Jessica votes pro-choice because reproductive justice is about more than abortion.

Jill votes pro-choice because she values life.

And all these good people say it better than I could right now.

Me? I vote pro-choice for lots of reasons, most of which are mentioned in the links above. But also because I am sick of faux concern for women and faux concern for “unborn children” taking the place of actual concern for women and actual concern for children in the Commonwealth.

read comments (1)

Though likely to be overshadowed by the fact - and all the sexism and judgment it entails - that some teen starlet went and got herself knocked up, the CDC has released a report that comprehensive sexual education works:

They found teenage boys who had sex education in school were 71 percent less likely to have intercourse before age 15, and teen girls who had sex education were 59 percent less likely to have sex before age 15.

Sex education also increased the likelihood that teen boys would use contraceptives the first time they had sex, according to the study by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

So why is it, again, that lawmakers continue to extend funding of a program that provides youth with lies and misinformation and, what’s more, doesn’t work?

read comments (2)

The AP reports that President George W. Bush is ready to veto yet another version of SCHIP. And it’s not sitting well with Republican legislators, as it well shouldn’t:

But the votes are uncomfortable for GOP lawmakers. It is a popular program with the public, making some Republicans wary of sticking with Bush on such an issue with the 2008 elections looming. Of the 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, more than 6 million are under 18 years old. That’s more than 9 percent of all children.

Keep sending it through, and let the same handful of shameful line-toers keep opposing it. Sure will make it easier in 2008, after which we can get some real work done!

read comments (1)

H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith, with NKY’s very own Rep. Geoff Davis signed on as cosponsor.

Your lesson: Christians rule and children drool.

Space Cowboy breaks it on down at Shakesville.

read comments (2)

A group of scientists sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid encouraging them to discontinue federal funding of abstinence-only sex education. Some highlights:

Withholding lifesaving information from young people is contrary to the standards of medical ethics and to many international human rights conventions...Governments have an obligation to provide accurate information to adolescents and adolescents have a right to expect health education provided in public schools to be scientifically accurate and complete.

The large-scale Mathematica evaluation of the Section 510 program, released in April 2007, found no measurable impact on increasing abstinence or delaying sexual initiation among participating youth or on other behaviors such as condom use…One of the few measurable impacts of the programs was a decrease in adolescent confidence regarding the ability of condoms to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

A spring 2005 longitudinal study by Bruckner and Bearman found that abstinence pledgers, when compared to non-pledgers, experienced similar rates of sexually transmitted infection. Pledgers did delay sexual intercourse for a limited period, but when they did start having sex, they were less likely to use condoms. They were also less likely to seek reproductive health care compared to non-pledgers.

Importantly, the emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining critical public health programs in the U.S. and abroad, including comprehensive sexuality education and HIV prevention programs.

We also note that a December 2004 Congressional report on federal abstinence programs from the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff found that 11 of the 13 most frequently used curricula contained false, misleading or distorted information about reproductive health - including inaccurate information about contraceptive effectiveness, purported health risks of abortion, and other scientific errors.

We would note that all of the mainstream organizations of health professionals that focus on the health of young people have strongly criticized federal support for current abstinence programs. These include the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine. We have also attached the weblinks to the policy statements from each of these groups.

The full letter, along with valuable links to sources, can be found at RH Reality Check.

And, while we’re on the subject of pound foolishness, WIC funding is in danger of being cut.

read comments (2)