The War Against Women Continues, and Now Includes Men

When the Pennsylvania House goes back into session in March, they'll be considering House Bill 1077, the “Women's Right to Know Bill”. You guesses it, ultrasounds…

Providing for ultrasound test requirements to determine gestational ages of unborn children; establishing the right to view ultrasound image and ultrasound video of unborn child and the right to observe or hear the fetal heartbeat; providing for powers and duties of the Department of Health and for duties of physicians performing abortions; requiring certain reports to be filed with the Department of Health; imposing administrative sanctions and criminal penalties; and providing for remedies. Full bill.

If you live in Pennsylvania and want to call your rep, you can find his/her contact info here.

I keep ending up with the same two questions: who's going to pay for this? It seems that since the state won't pay, the docs won't do it for free, and insurance won't pay since it's not medically necessary, women have to pay to be raped. 

My bigger question though, is why do the Republicans want MORE government action in medicine? Their argument against the Affordable Health Care Act was that it put government between a patient and doctor. They seemingly want government out of every single aspect of people's lives except when it involves shoving an ultrasound probe up a woman's vagina. 

But there's more, and it's on a national scale. Remember the Violence Against Women Act which came out of Joe Biden's office in 1994? The one that authorized funds related to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking? It's up for re-authorization and Republicans are opposed. Yes, Republicans like violence against women. Yes, it does slightly expand:

The bill includes smart improvements aimed, for example, at encouraging effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits. The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an antigay, anti-immigrant agenda. The main sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence — a necessary step to encourage those victims to come forward. 

Every single Republican on the Judiciary Committee voted against it. Their idea? Cut funding, and obliterate the Justice Department on Violence Against Women.

Finally, we come to the Blunt Amendment which would not only eviscerate the Affordable Health Care Act, but would allow employers and insurance companies to deny coverage to anything that went against their “moral and ethics.” Men, they obviously hate you, too. Here is a list of things insurers and employers could say no to:

  • HIV/ADIS testing (you should have been more careful)
  • Liver transplants (you shouldn't have been drinking)
  • Hepatitis treatment (we don't know how you got it, so we're assuming the worst)
  • Lung cancer treatment (even though you say you weren't smoking, we think you were)
  • Accident coverage (you shouldn't have been skiing, skydiving, swimming, diving, running, driving so fast, etc., those things can be dangerous)
  • Type 2 diabetes coverage (it's your own fault for not eating better)
  • Cardiac conditions (you should have taken better care of yourself)
  • Mental health coverage (you should treat it with prayer)

Here it is. And yes, really, under the amendment they can refuse everything on the bullet list. And more. Who the @$%&)#@ made insurance companies and employers the arbiters of “ethics”? The pedophile priest church? Enron? Exxon? BP? Any Wall Street bank? Really? Ethics?