As I should have said:

What frustrates me about writing is that as soon as I've committed something to print, someone else does a better job of it. Particularly Katha Pollitt's piece in the Nation on the Stupak amendment and Melissa McEwan of Shakesville on Obama refusing to stand up for women.


Pollitt:

"You know what I don't want to hear right now about the Stupak-Pitts amendment banning abortion coverage from federally subsidized health insurance policies? That it's the price of reform, and prochoice women should shut up and take one for the team. "If you want to rebuild the American welfare state," Peter Beinart writes in the Daily Beast, "there is no alternative" than for Democrats to abandon "cultural" issues like gender and racial equality. Hey, Peter, Representative Stupak and your sixty-four Democratic supporters, Jim Wallis and other antichoice "progressive" Christians, men: why don't you take one for the team for a change and see how you like it?

For example, budget hawks in Congress say they'll vote against the bill because it's too expensive. Maybe you could win them over if you volunteered to cut out funding for male-exclusive stuff, like prostate cancer, Viagra, male infertility, vasectomies, growth-hormone shots for short little boys, long-term care for macho guys who won't wear motorcycle helmets and, I dunno, psychotherapy for pedophile priests. Men could always pay in advance for an insurance policy rider, as women are blithely told they can do if Stupak becomes part of the final bill.

President Obama, too, worries about the deficit. Maybe you could help him out by sacrificing your denomination's tax exemption. The Catholic Church would be a good place to start, and it wouldn't even be unfair, since the blatant politicking of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on abortion violates the spirit of the ban on electoral meddling by tax-exempt religious institutions. Why should antichoicers be the only people who get to refuse to let their taxes support something they dislike? You don't want your tax dollars to pay, even in the most notional way, for women's abortion care, a legal medical procedure that one in three American women will have in her lifetime? I don't want to pay for your misogynist fairy tales and sour-old-man hierarchies."

And where are the french fries I did not ask for? You need to anticipate me!

Greetings, Gentle Readers

I'm delighted to have Joel capitalize on the fact that I'm too lazy to maintain a blog of my own. This will be far more efficient than yelling suggestions from across the room. First things first, I think we need some titles. For example, I am nominating myself the official Information (Mad)Scientist as well as the Czar of Lady Business.

On that note, here's some News that Makes me Angry:
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Stupak amendment to the health care reform bill by 290-194. This included 64 yay votes from Democrats (scumbags).

This amendment prohibits covering abortions for anyone on the prospective government health insurance plan. According to the Associated Press, "The amendment also prevents private insurers from covering abortions for anyone getting federal subsidies to help pay their premiums." Yet another instance of the Dems throwing women's health under the bus to placate a pack of obstructionist loons. Like their capitulation over a decent public option, I don't see the point of even passing a health care bill if it's stripped the elements that could make it effective.

And I'm counting down to when the Obama administration repeats their tune of "We all need to work together to find common ground over the abortion issue". This isn't an argument with two reasonable sides coming to an agreement, it's about whether we'll allow women and their health providers the freedom to control their own medical decisions.

What I can't get over is that the Republicans and the credulous are having conniptions over 'government mandating' of health care, or anything that interferes with the work of the Free Markettm in public services. Yet they see no conflict in turning around and effectively banning a procedure that could affect half the U.S. population.1

And I'd just love to know what personal medical decisions men are prohibited from making under this plan."The Democrats' original bill would have allowed people getting federal subsidies to pay for abortion coverage with their own money." Isn't this the heart of American conservatism? 'People do what they want with their money, bureaucrats be damned!' (Oh, that assumes they think women are people, doesn't it?)

You can find out how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov I'm pleased to see that Hodes and Shea Porter from NH voted no, and unsurprised to see that IL-15th's unmitigated ass Tim Johnson supports this.

There's the possibility that this could be taken out of the Senate version of the bill, so I'll be sending letters to Congress.


And to combat my woe, here's a picture of Robert Pattinson pretending to be a lobster man:

What disdain, quel ennui ! That's no way to enjoy corn, you sparkly putz...

1. By which I mean the poor part of half the U.S. population. Wealthy women will of course still be able to go to Canada or get ahold of RU-486. Don't have the funds for that? There's always back-alleys and coat hangers.