Anti-Abortion Legislation as of March 8, 2012

This is a good summary of the GOP nonsense, and some pushback, regarding anti-abortion legislation.

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/03/anti-abortion-law-news/

A short response from Senator Jim Wilson

In response to the Oklahoma measure to require mothers seeking abortions to listen to the fetus' heartbeat, two state senators have fought back.  According to this article,

When a zygote-personhood bill was introduced, Sen. Constance Johnson added an amendment making it illegal for a man to ejaculate anywhere outside a woman’s vagina because that would be “an action against an unborn child.” She also suggested that any man who impregnates a woman without her consent should be fined $25,000 and get a vasectomy, “in the spirit of shared responsibility.” Sen. Jim Wilson proposed an amendment that would require the father of the unborn child that the state is insisting be brought to term, be financially responsible for the mother’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment during the pregnancy, instead of shifting that responsibility to the state.

We wrote to both Senators Johnson and Wilson to congratulate them and share our support of their amendments, and also to let them know what we were working on.  We just got this response from Senator Wilson.

I appreciate your email - and sense of humor.  I hope to do something with it before the end of session.

I did mention it during an interview with an NPR affiliate in LA Friday.

Thanks much,

Jim Wilson

Senator Wilson, thanks for your hard work and for giving our little project your attention.  Keep up the good fight!!

What would the REPRIMAND/Inequality law actually do?

The REPRIMAND/Inequality law (REsponsible Pairing of Restrictive & Invasive MANDated Inequality) would require that all restrictive or invasive laws which disproportionally affect only one segment of the population must be paired with equivalent restrictions against the rest of the citizenry.  What would this mean for the GOP's current crusade on abortion and contraception?  It means everyone would feel the affects, and we all know that most people keep quiet about restrictive laws that only affect others, until they feel the effects personally.

Gestational Abortion Limits:  Forty states currently limit abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.  Heartbeat Laws like the one recently approved by the Missouri House of Representatives limit abortions to before the fetus has a detectable heartbeat.  Ohio is considering a similar measure.  This is significantly earlier than the consensus among the other states, and disproportionally affects pregnant women living in Missouri and Ohio, forcing them to break the law or cross state lines to receive a legal procedure.  Suitable equivalents for all others might include mandatory waiting periods or time limits on how long menopausal women can receive hormone replacement therapy, or how long men with erectile dysfunction (ED) can take Viagra, Cialis, etc.  Or since abortion deals directly with pregnancy, the state would have to set limits on how many times a couple can try alternative methods of fertilization, like Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) or In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF).

Insurance Coverage for Contraceptives:  If an employer is allowed to refuse coverage for women's contraceptives then they must refuse coverage for equivalent drugs or medical treatment for all their other patients.  Again, this might include hormone-replacement therapy in menopausal women, ED drugs for men who can't "perform,"  or fertility testing and treatment.  After all, if it is God's will to naturally procreate then using medical science to make babies when nature stops working is...against God's will!

Preferential Firing of Women on Contraceptives: If an employer can and does fire a women for using contraceptives, then that employer must fire post-menopausal women (who do not need the treatment) and men under equivalent circumstances.  Perhaps men at these businesses should be forced to show all their pharmacy receipts and can be terminated for buying condoms.

Personhood: These laws require that a fetus (or embryo or blastocyst) have the same rights and protections as any other person, often as early as the moment of conception.  Under these laws, abortion can be treated as intentional murder and is effectively rendered illegal.  Pregnant women are no longer able to access their legal right to have abortions at all.  It is hard to think of a law that unilaterally restricts a person's access to a legal activity, and demands that an equal prohibition to the rest of the residents of those states.  Since the state is so concerned about the health and welfare of the baby before it is born, perhaps the state should be required to provide lifetime, comprehensive health insurance to each baby born in that state.

Mandatory Transvaginal Sonogram: Laws like those in Texas and Virginia that require a women seeking an abortion to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound are being forced by the state to submit to a medically unnecessary internal probe.  States must require similar internal probes for men, such as mandatory rectal probes for men seeking treatment for issues related to low testosterone (this is the basis for the original REPRIMAND law).

Announcing REPRIMAND/Inequality: End bias in laws restricting access to legal acts

These last months have seen an unprecedented rise in the volume of legislation biased against one segment of the law-abiding population.  Virginia and Texas have legislated that women seeking abortions must undergo a medically unnecessary transvaginal exam.  Texas has also signed into law a statewide ban on medicaid funding for any doctor or clinic that performs, or is even affiliated with, abortion.   The Missouri House of Representatives has passed a bill that (1) prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, (2) defining life as beginning at conception (a.k.a. Personhood) thereby (3) banning many forms of contraception by classifying them as murder, and (4) requiring transvaginal ultrasounds for women who still seek abortions.   The Oklahoma State Senate, perhaps mildly more moderate than Missouri, has only passed a personhood bill.  The U.S. Senate tried to allow employers to deny women insurance coverage for contraception, and when that failed, Arizona took up the cause with gusto, adding that employers can fire women who use birth control if it violates their religious views.  The list goes on and on...

Spin the stories any way you want, the fact remains that these laws only impact women who are performing or engaging in lawful acts.  These laws represent blatant legislative biases of elephantine proportions (a fitting reference since they are penned almost exclusively by Republicans).  These laws are written mostly by men, and intended almost exclusively to restrict the rights of women.

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.  Typically we read this as meaning everyone reaps the same rewards from the same rights.  Shouldn't equal protection also require that everyone suffers equivalent restrictions under the law.  If a state has the legal ability to deny, limit, restrict or alter a woman's access to lawful activities, then surely men must suffer equivalent legislative consequences.  Otherwise, these laws have introduced intentional bias.     

"Separate and unequal" is not the GOP motto, but it seems to be their current practice.  Unless states and the Federal government require equal restriction as well as equal protection, what is there to stop a political party from marginalizing any group of citizens through the same kind of legislative bullying as is currently underway?   

We propose the REPRIMAND/Inequality (REsponsible Pairing of Restrictive & Invasive MANDated Inequality) law, that requires that all restrictive or invasive laws which disproportionally affect only one segment of the population must be paired with equivalent restrictions against the rest of the citizenry.  In other words, if you limit a woman's access to insurance coverage for birth control, then you must limit men's coverage for an equivalent condition, such as vasectomy.  If you wish to ban gay marriage, you must ban some equivalent set of rights of all straight couples.  Undo unto others what they have undone unto you.  Otherwise, we are not all equal before the law.

Introducing REPRIMAND/Paternity: Noncustodial and deadbeat dads must pay half of all pregnancy and neonatal costs.

According to a 2007 report from the Dept. of Health and Human services, the average medical cost for a pregnancy was $7600.  Even if your insurance covers all medical aspects of pregnancy, you will still have an out-of-pocket cost of up to $1000 due to deductibles and co-payments.  Now add in the cost of maternity clothes, nine-months of increased food consumption, and out-of-pocket costs for vitamins, anti-acids, etc., and over nine months you will still spend thousands of dollars.  This doesn't even include everything you have to buy, beg or borrow for when the baby comes home.    

In 2010, 15% of American's were poor, as defined by the US Census bureau. This means that for a single mother with one child, the household income is under $15,200 per year.  Most of us can't fathom how a mother making so little can possibly provide for herself, let alone her child.  After the baby is born, that mother can save a little money through child-tax credits, and if she can find a lawyer, she might be able to sue the birth father for child support (although some estimates show that only 10% of poor birth fathers actually pay support).  How does she recover from the huge financial burden she bore in the nine months leading up to birth?   Even mothers above the official poverty line are financially stricken, and after pregnancy, they are financially ruined.  There are millions of sweet, innocent American children growing up in abject poverty.  How are they supposed to grow up to be tomorrow's future if their mothers aren't sure how they will make it through today?   To really see how bleak the situation is, read this article on how bad things are for poor black children.  

You can make all sorts of arguments as to why this situation should never have happened.  Women shouldn't have premarital sex.  Remember, "abstinence only" works, right...?   The man should have worn a condom.  Of course, it is hard to make sure men know their part in safe sex when the GOP wants to remove sex-ed from school.  The mother should have been on birth control.  That is difficult when you are uninsured or on medicaid, and the GOP is fighting to make it impossible to access contraceptives.  The mother should have aborted the baby.  Good luck with that one thanks to the GOP's war on women.  

In this political climate, there is only one solution.  The REPRIMAND/Paternity (REquired Pregnancy Reimbursment If Men AbandoN Duties of Paternity) law will require that noncustodial or deadbeat birth fathers pay mothers back for half of all costs associated with the pregnancy up to and including neonatal expenses.  Tell your State and Federal lawmakers to either pass REPRIMAND/Paternity laws, or go to sleep at night knowing that they are abandoning millions of children.

We can't claim complete ownership of this idea, by the way.  Oklahoma State Senator Jim Murray offered a version of this idea as an amendment to an anti-abortion piece of legislation.  We've thanked him for his hard work, and you should too!

A Response from Ohio Sen. Nina Turner

As part of the the REPRIMAND project, we have written to lawmakers across the country.  Here is a reply from Minority Whip Nina Turner in the Ohio State Senate, who has proposed SB 307 to regulate men's access to erectile-dysfunction medication (e.g. Viagra).  She is a real hero in this fight and should be commended for her vigilance and honest hard work.

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts with me and for expressing your concern for important women’s health issues.  As we all know, this struggle is about equality: whether men and women should be given equal footing when it comes to making important healthcare decisions, and whether they should have equal access to the highest-quality health services our country has to offer.  More importantly, this is about a woman’s right to choose.  Reproductive decisions are best made by a woman and her doctor, and we must respect their ability to make these choices.  Government has no place inside a woman’s womb.

This war on reproductive rights is an insult to women everywhere.  It demonstrates that those waging it view women only as vessels of life—not as the intelligent and capable individuals that they are.  Taking away the right to control one’s own destiny is not only un-American, it flies in the face of the ideals of independence and self-determination on which our nation was founded.

S.B. 307 is a serious bill, and the side effects of PDE-5 inhibitors are real. As a nation of equals, we must care just as much about men's health as we do women's health, and this is why we must take strong steps to protect against the harmful side effects of medications used to treat symptoms of male impotence, such as priapism, hearing loss, and vision loss. Such medications should be considered with the utmost concern and caution. These medications can be seriously detrimental to men with heart problems, including heart pain, heart failure, abnormal heart rhythms, high or low blood pressure, a history of stroke within the last six months, eye problems such as retinitis pigmentosa, sickle cell anemia, or leukemia.

Nobody laughs when legislators throughout the country introduce legislation that aggressively mandates government regulation of women's health decisions. No one questions those who introduce oppressive legislative measures contradictory to the autonomy and sovereignty of American women. This is no laughing matter.  

Women are being disregarded and disrespected by lawmakers across the nation.
We must heed the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." If women today, it will be another group tomorrow. Thank you for being champions in the fight—the fight for our foremothers, for ourselves, and for our daughters. Spread this far and wide.

All the Best,

NINA TURNER
Minority Whip
Ohio Senate—25th District
1 Capital Square | Room 223
Columbus, OH  43215

614/466.4583
SD25@ohiosenate.gov

Why link low testosterone to prostate exams?

Reader's are asking "do men with low testosterone really need prostate exams?"  It is a fair question.

First, our population is aging.  In 2010, one quarter of our population was between 45 and 64 years of age (the Baby Boomers) and another 13% are over 65.  In other words, 2 out of 5 American men are over 45, and are therefore at risk for low testosterone.

A 2006 study by Shores et al. showed that some 20% of male veterans over 40 had low levels of testosterone, and that low testosterone led to a 68–88% increase in chance of death over the course of the study.  Taken at face value, one out of every five men could be up to twice as likely to die because of low testosterone.  

Many studies show that low testosterone increases the risk of being diagnosed prostate cancer, and its severity, i.e. how quickly it grows, spreads through your body, and kills you.  According to the CDC, 1 in 6 men will have prostate cancer during their life, and some 10% of these will die each year.  Prostate cancer accounts for about 10% of the cancer deaths among men nationwide.  So if you are that one man in six with prostate cancer, and you have low testosterone, your chances of surviving get much worse the later the cancer is discovered.  Plainly put, having low testosterone puts a man at much greater risk for death from prostate cancer.  

Another fascinating article published by Albano et al (1997) shows the clear trend that men with less education are twice as likely to die of cancer.  Let's say this again: based on cancer deaths among a group of 120 million people, men with 12 or less years of education are twice as likely to die of cancer as those with a college degree or higher.

Now consider an analysis of the 2010 census, which showed that over 30% of Baby Boomers had less than 12 years of high school.  If we assume even fewer of our elderly population went to college, then we see that a huge percentage of our aging American men are at significant risk of dying from cancer.  If you are over 45, have low testosterone and did not go to college, statistics say that your chances of dying from prostate cancer are very high.  

Up to a million men could be saved from dying of prostate cancer by a simple procedure that takes under a minute to perform.  When a man goes to the doctor complaining of any symptoms that may point to low testosterone, the doctor must do a manual (or "digital" because you use your finger) rectal exam to help protect this at-risk population.  For any number of reasons, from lack of willingness of the patient, to insurance bureaucracy, to doctor's having to pack in too many patients, these tests aren't being conducted.  The law must step in and save these men's lives.   

  

If you knew that a million men could be saved, what would you do?  It isn't the American way to stand idly by.  We picked up our guns in the past to protect American lives.  Now, we should pick up latex gloves and take it like the men that we are!