Birth Control Users: You MIGHT Be a Terrorist

I know I'm a little late to the party but I have to comment on this anyway. Last week, I saw plenty of tweets and headlines mentioning Rep. Mike Kelly and his comparison of birth control coverage to attacks on the US such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but I just now actually watched the video of his speech.

So, as of August 1, the Affordable Care Act will provide free birth control coverage to women who have health insurance. And, according to Mike Kelly, August 1, 2012 should take its place in history alongside Dec. 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 as an attack on this country. "I want you to remember August 1, 2012: The attack on our religious freedom."

Come on!! I mean seriously, even if you are so against the idea of birth control, birth control coverage as a part of health insurance, or even the idea of women having sex in general, isn't this comparison just a tad extreme?

Let's break it down, shall we?

Dec. 7, 1941: Japan manages a sneak attack on a US Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
Results: 8 battleships damaged, 4 sunk; 188 US aircraft destroyed; 1,282 Americans wounded; 2,402 Americans killed.

September 11, 2001: multiple buildings damaged or collapsed, including the two towers of the World Trade Center; citizens from over 90 countries were killed in the attack; 2,977 people were killed.

August 1, 2012: 47 million women gained access to expanded healthcare coverage; women gained coverage for preventative services such as check-ups, screenings, STI testing and counseling; of course, contraceptive coverage without co-pays; 0 battleships damaged; citizens from 0 foreign countries killed; 0 Americans killed.

I don't care how you feel about contraception, this is a ridiculous and offensive comparison. Taking care of America's women and their health is not the same as a surprise attack resulting in thousands of deaths. Who are the terrorists in this situation? Women asking for coverage? Doctors supportive of coverage? President Obama? Probably, from the standpoint of the Republican party, all of the above.

Birth control coverage does not equal an attack on religious freedom. What do the Republicans think of my right to healthcare? They don't. How does my receiving birth control coverage from my health care provider affect Rep. Kelly's religious freedom? My birth control pack isn't blocking his entry into his church. My healthcare provider isn't sending bomb threats to his church. I'm taking a pill, I'm not getting pregnant, and as far as I can tell, the lives affected by this are mine, my boyfriend's and my mother's (because she helps me pay for it).

Birth control coverage does not equal a terrorist attack. To Representative Kelly: Everyone in the United States was affected in some way by Pearl Harbor. It led to our entry into a war. It killed our friends and families, and even those with no direct ties to people killed, it caused fear and uncertainty, and the war affected everyone. Everyone in the US was affected in some way by 9/11. We were all terrified, we were all unsure, and, again, it led to a war. It led to taxpayers' money funding a war they didn't all agree with.

Women gaining birth control coverage does not affect Americans in these same ways. No one is dead because of it. Everyone will save money by helping women receive preventative (and cheaper) care instead of (more expensive) treatment for problems that went ignored because women couldn't afford to see the doctor.

If Representative Mike Kelly had more respect for both women and American history, he might think twice before making this kind of offensive statement. Instead, he is interested in playing with (and attempting to manipulate) the emotions of Americans, using horrific events in America's past to push an anti-Obama, anti-woman agenda.


See also: Rachel Maddow's commentary on this ridiculousness.

What's the Buzz? Tell Me What's A-Happenin'!

First of all, yes, that is a musical reference in the title of this post. No, Jesus Christ Superstar is not my favorite musical, but the song title was fitting. So here we go. I haven't posted in a while, and I feel like I've missed the chance to write about certain topics as they were still very current. So quick recap:

Obama reinforced his birth control coverage rule, making it clear that religious institutions are required to cover birth control for their employees with their insurance plans, regardless of their beliefs about birth control/contraception. As Laura Murphy said in defense of Obama's plan, “People are not being forced to adopt a new set of religious beliefs by this rule. They can practice their religion as they see fit, they can choose not to use birth control.” Thanks, Obama, for standing up for women everywhere!


The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure pulled funding from Planned Parenthood, supposedly because of a rule about funding institutions currently under investigation. After a huge outcry, the decision was reversed, and the VP Karen Handel has resigned. Jessica Valenti writes about the controversy, and the proof on online feminist activism making a difference, over at the Nation.


Prop 8, a California ban on same-sex marriage, has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The next step will likely be an appeal to the Supreme Court, but this is still a victory. 


OK, I promise a real post in the next day or two. Thanks for sticking with me! And if I missed any current events, let me know in the comments section.

Xtreme Politics: Republicans and the War on Women

The campaigns to find the Republican presidential candidate (or, as I like to refer to them, the Big Freak Show) have me a bit baffled. I realize that many Republicans have been waging a war on women, attacking reproductive health rights, health care, and more, but I'm suddenly very aware of how extreme all of these candidates' ideas really are. Look at the first paragraph of this article from Salon:

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Also according to Salon, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all signed the Personhood Pledge, which would ban all abortions as well as potentially restricting or banning many forms of birth control and IVF. (Mitt Romney said he would support this, even though he clearly didn't understand how birth control could be affected by it.) Yet, according to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, "Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method," and "Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a method." 

So even though a majority of women are using birth control, the majority of Republican candidates are in favor of restricting access to it, or banning it all together. Bachmann, Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all also supported stripping all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, most of which goes to family planning and providing contraception, not abortion. And I realize that for many people abortion is the argument, but come on! We know, and the candidates know, that their actions and the bills they support are much more far-reaching than that. 

It breaks my heart that people get so caught up on something like abortion that they refuse to see the bigger picture. Think about my home state, Mississippi. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate; banning abortions will only increase this. Banning contraception will absolutely increase this. And, I have to go back to the slogan from the Personhood fight: "Republicans only care about you if you're a fetus." This may not apply to all Republicans, but it certainly seems to apply to all of the major candidates this year. Increasing health care for women and children? Of course not! They don't plan to take care of these children once they are living in independent bodies! They just want to keep women from having complete control over when, how, and if they have children. 

The personhood fight is not over. The war on women is not over. We have to stand up against these extreme candidates. It's interesting (read: sad) to me that Phil Bryant, a man who can compare over half of his state's voters to Nazis and Satan, a man who was in fact the co-chair of the Yes on 26 Campaign, can be elected governor in the same moments that personhood is soundly defeated. Now, I don't think that elections should be determined by one issue, or candidate's should be supported or opposed based on one issue. However, I do think that the war on women is an exception of sorts. For one thing, the war on women encompasses more than just a stance on personhood; it's a stance on healthcare, reproductive rights, insurance plans, life-saving treatments for pregnant women, and much more. 

But also, even if we lump all of this into one category, one "issue," it could (and will) decide my votes. These issues are too important and too far-reaching to ignore. We can not elect officials who refuse to stand up for women and allow them equal rights and equal control over their lives. We should not be voting down personhood while electing its most vocal supporter. 

Republicans like Phil Bryant and those running around in the Big Freak Show have taken a strong stance against women. 

Now, we need to take a strong stance against their extreme views that serve no one's best interests but their own.