Playing Doctor with Americans’ Lives

3Doctors400Republicans, in both the House and the Senate, are currently colluding to gut Healthcare Reform and deny actual healthcare to millions of women across our nation using a process called Reconciliation.  Reconciliation is an expedited budgetary process that offers some procedural advantages: it needs only the support of a simple majority in the Senate, and cannot be filibustered. The bill they intend pass via reconciliation is HR3762, inappropriately named, “Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act” … it should be named “Butchering All Hope of Being Able to Afford Effective Healthcare Act.”

This reconciliation bill includes language to repeal key parts of Obamacare: the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the medical device tax and the ‘Cadillac tax.’ There are press posts saying that it will also end the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), but I can’t find such a provision in the bill.In addition, it would defund Planned Parenthood for one year

Defunding Planned Parenthood for a Year—

Here’s the section which specifically codifies the vilification of Planned Parenthood as a “Prohibited Entity” that just happens to provide “essential” healthcare for millions of women across our nation:

SEC. 202. FEDERAL PAYMENT TO STATES.
(a) In General.—Notwithstanding section 504(a), 1902(a)(23), 2002, 2005(a)(4), 2102(a)(7), or 2105(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 704(a), 1396b(a)(23), 1397a, 1397d(a)(4), 1397bb(a)(2), 1397ee(a)(1)), or the terms of any Medicaid waiver in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is approved under section 1115 or 1915 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315, 1396n), for the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act no Federal funds may be made available to a State for payments to a prohibited entity, whether made directly to the prohibited entity or through a managed care organization under contract with the State.

(b) Definition Of Prohibited Entity.—In this section, the term “prohibited entity” means an entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics—

(1) that, as of the date of enactment of this Act—

(A) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code;

(B) is an essential community provider described in section 156.235 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, that is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care; and

(C) provides for abortions, other than an abortion—

(i) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; and

(2) for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act in fiscal year 2014 made directly to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity, or made to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity as part of a nationwide health care provider network, exceeded $350,000,000.

[Emphasis mine]

Please note that the provisions to completely eliminate any funds for Planned Parenthood were proposed and recommended by the Ways and Means Committee currently led by Rep. Paul Ryan, that same Paul Ryan who will is expected to be elected as Speaker of the House next Wednesday — that is, unless the right wing extremists of the Republican Freedom Caucus renege and cast their votes for their beloved Rep. Daniel Webster instead.

Repealing the Individual and Employer Mandates —

Repealing individual mandate provisions are likely to increase, rather than decrease, the number of U.S. residents without health coverage, thus eliminating the progress that has been made in holding people responsible for their healthcare.  If the CBO forecasts are correct, the H.R. 3762 mandate repeal provisions could increase the number of uninsured U.S. residents by 55 percent to 65 percent. But, that’s okay with Republicans because for each person who doesn’t buy health insurance, the government doesn’t have to shell out $760-$815.  But they took it one step further.  To help their corporate benefactors, they also plan on repealing the mandates on employers to provide medical coverage.  Thus, ordinary Americans seeking to access affordable healthcare coverage for themselves and their families are going to rapidly find themselves up the proverbial creak, with no paddle, a leaky boat and no pail with which to bail out their boat.

The house voted on passage of HR3762 on Friday.  The vote was 240-189 with 5 Democrats not voting.  One Democrat (Peterson) voted for passage and ALL THREE of Nevada’s Congressional Republicans voted ‘AYE’ for passage! The bill is now off to the Senate, where it can be considered without a 60-vote cloture requirement (assuming the package passes muster with the Senate “Byrd Rule.”).

The Byrd Rule is a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to allow Senators, during the Reconciliation Process, to block a piece of legislation if it purports significantly to increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an “extraneous matter” as set forth in the Budget Act.  It is named after West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessed the effects of HR3762 on long-term deficits and direct spending as follows:

  • Including macroeconomic feedback, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending as well as on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in one or more of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026.
  • Excluding macroeconomic feedback, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct spending by more than $5 billion in either of the first two consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026; however, the agencies are not able to determine whether enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending by more than $5 billion in the third or fourth 10-year period.
  • Excluding macroeconomic feedback, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in one or more of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026.

And because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues, ‘pay-as-you-go procedures‘ apply.

The President is then expected to veto, setting up the need for a veto-override vote in Congress.  In a statement promising Obama’s veto, the White House said the GOP measure “would take away critical benefits and health care coverage from hard-working middle-class families.”

However, a conservative revolt could derail the bill’s progress, as some conservative groups are opposing because the bill leaves some parts of ObamaCare intact


Related Posts

Advertisements

Today’s Mad Men

The military justice system needs a 21st century wake-up call.

— by Colleen Teubner

Colleen_Teubner

I remember when I first started watching Mad Men. Like most of America, I got hooked. How could I not? The glitz and glamour of 1960s Manhattan was irresistible. But from the very first episode, I knew there was something deeply wrong with this world — the business-as-usual, casual attitude towards sexual harassment.

As a modern “working gal,” I can’t imagine being productive in that kind of environment. In fact, I know I wouldn’t be. I’d be uncomfortable and unhappy, and my performance would suffer. We may not have equal pay for women yet, but at least workplace sexual harassment is no longer considered playful banter.

Aren’t we mostly past the Mad Men era? Not if you’re in the armed forces.

Our military men and women risk their safety everyday — but not in the ways you might think. The most recent Pentagon survey revealed that out of the estimated 26,000 sexual assaults that occurred in the military in 2012, only 3,374 cases were reported. That brings the report rate to a meager 13 percent, compared with the national average of 46 percent.

With all the progress women have made in the military, why is the sexual assault reporting rate so low?

The answer is clear: Military commanders have created an environment where women are afraid to stand up to their attackers. Of the women who reported instances of sexual assault, 62 percent suffered retaliation. The current system forces survivors to make an impossible choice: career or due process? It looks like the military justice system needs a 21st century wake-up call.

And Senator Kirsten Gillibrand agrees. The New York Democrat proposed a bill that would remove prosecuting power from the military chain of command. She wants to replace this outdated system with a new one that would inspire confidence through accountability.

That makes sense, doesn’t it? Not to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Instead, Levin agrees with the top brass that the prosecution of assault cases should be kept within the ranks.

This won’t work. It’s already failed.

And James Taranto isn’t helping. The Wall Street Journal writer offers living proof that misogyny remains alive and well today. Taranto wrote that any attempt to address the military’s sexual assault problem is the equivalent of declaring a “war on men” and an “effort to criminalize male sexuality.”

Really? Justice for sexual assault survivors threatens your sexuality? Tell that to the 70 women and men who are attacked every day.

I think we can all agree that this hasn’t been the best year for women. First, there was the media sympathy toward the Steubenville rapists. Then came the news that the already overwhelming number of sexual assaults in the military had increased yet again. And recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would prohibit abortion procedures after 20 weeks of pregnancy, down from the current 24 weeks.

It’s unrealistic to expect that the sources of these problems — the media, military, and the misinformed — can, or will, develop constructive solutions.

I understand that military commanders want the opportunity to reform from within, but the time for Mad Men style, backroom meetings is over. When Gillibrand reintroduces her bill later this summer, Congress needs to give change a chance.

Colleen Teubner is a student at the George Washington University and an OtherWords intern at the Institute for Policy Studies. OtherWords.org.  Photo credit to www.feedtacoma.com

Time is Money and the GOP is Throwing It Away

Earlier this week, the Republicans in Congress (including NV2’s Mark Amodei) voted for passage of yet another bill limiting a woman’s reproductive rights.  It not only would shorten the time frame during which a woman could choose to end a pregnancy, but would also require rape/incest victims to report that assault to authorities to be able to exercise that choice.  That bill would be HR1797.  That’s right, despite not having passed a single jobs bill, the REPUBLIBAN brethren in Congress would rather waste time and our taxpayer dollars on a bill the President has already promised to veto. Their actions are shameful and out of touch with what our country needs.

Available legislative time on the agenda is finite.  That means if the folks in charge of the House of Representatives, that would be the REPUBLIBAN brethren, choose to use their time to debate and process crap bills like this, the alternative cost is that there is NO TIME to devote to meaningful actions necessary to say, pass a jobs bill, pass comprehensive immigration reform, fix the still lingering foreclosure problems still facing many families, or ensure that students will be able to secure reasonable loan interest rates such that they don’t become mere indentured servants to the mighty megabanks.

Just looking at the time wasted on HR1797, here’s what’s shown on Thomas:

4/26/2013: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

4/26/2013: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (41 members)
4/26/2013: Referred to House Judiciary Committee (40 members)

5/23/2013: Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. (15 members)
5/23/2013: Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. (12 members)

5/23/2013: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
6/04/2013: Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
6/04/2013: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 6 – 4 .

6/12/2013: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
6/12/2013: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 – 12.
6/14/2013 10:09pm: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-109, Part I.

6/14/2013 10:09pm: Committee on Oversight and Government discharged.

6/14/2013 10:10pm: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 77.

6/17/2013 7:32pm: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 266 Reported to House. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 1947 and provides for consideration of H.R. 1797 with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

6/18/2013 4:41pm: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 266. (consideration: CR H3730-3743)

6/18/2013 4:41pm: The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 1947 and provides for consideration of H.R. 1797 with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

6/18/2013 4:41pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1797.

6/18/2013 6:01pm: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H3743)

6/18/2013 6:01pm: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS – At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 1797, the Chair put the question on passage and, by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until later in the legislative day.

6/18/2013 6:15pm: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3743-3744)

6/18/2013 6:45pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 228 – 196 (Roll no. 251). (text: CR H3730-3731)

6/18/2013 6:45pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

6/18/2013 6:45pm: The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.

6/19/2013: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

So, what kind of alternative costs are we talking about?  Well, let’s start with the annual salary of a U.S. Representative to Congress.  That would be $174,000/yr.  Now, let’s look at the number of legislative days each of our Representatives will work this year. That would be 126 days (out of 365 calendar days).  Given that they’re only scheduled to be in DC for 4 consecutive days in any calendar week, I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt and say they work 10 hour days.  That means available legislative hours =  126 days x 10 hrs/day =1260 hrs.  That means that the cost for each legislative hour for each representative = $174,000 /1260 hrs =$138.10/hr.

So, for each subcommittee and each committee, and then the House as a whole spent only an hour dealing with this bill what did that cost us as taxpayers (you know, the folks who pay their salaries)?

Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Hearing/Markup: 15 members x 3 hr x $138.10/hr = $6214.50

 Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Hearing/Markup:12 members x 3 hr x $138.10/hr = $4971.60

Full Judiciary Committee
Amendment/Vote of Yeas & Nays:  40 mbrs x 2 hrs x $138.10 = $11,048.00

Full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Vote of Yeas & Nays:  41 mbrs x 1 hr x $138.10 = $5662.10

Full House of Representatives (424 Voting/10 Not Voting)
Debate & Votes:  424 Mbrs x 2 hrs x 138.10/hr = $117,108.80

And none of these figures include the monies paid to that folks in the background, the clerks on the floor of the house, any payments made to those who testified for their travel (etc.), the webmasters who need to post information about the hearings, markups, debates, and votes.  But as you can see, the nominal cost of just the Representatives themselves for consideration of this onerous bill amounts to:

$6214.50 + $4971.60 + 11,048.00 + $5662.10 + $117,108.80 = $145,005.00

Just for reference sake, the average U.S. per capita personal income in 2012 was $42,693.  Thus, the alternative costs the Speaker Boehner and his REPUBLIBAN brethren chose to waste would have basically employed 3.4 individuals (3 full time jobs + 1 part-time job) for a year!  In Nevada, the 2012 per capita Income was only $37, 361 … so in Nevada, that same wasted money, on just that one bill, could have employed 3.9 individuals!

From What Planet Do the Right-Wing Nut-Jobs Hail and Can We Deport Them?

As we suffered through this last election cycle, women across this nation were subjected to myth after myth about how our bodies really worked, by men who clearly are NOT familiar in any way shape or form as to how our female parts actually do work. First there were all those mythical statements about how we can’t get pregnant if we’re “legitimately” raped—

  • “I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen (that it’s a ‘gift’ from god)” — Richard Mourdock, (R-MO)
  • The Facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work, and they don’t get pregnant.” — Rep. Henry Aldridge (R- )
  • “Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.” — Federal Judge James Leon Holmes, a Bush appointee
  • “The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are ‘one in millions and millions and millions.” Rep. Stephen Freind (R- )
  • “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”  Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Then it devolved to rants and raves about how allowing women to have birth control would destroy our nation’s religious liberty.

  • This is not a question about contraception, this is about separation of church and state.  I just think that was a overreach and an overstep by government.” — WWE executive and Republican Candidate Linda McMahon
  • Birth control is a license to do things in a sexual realm that are counter to how things are supposed to be.” Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum
  • “Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”
    ~ Foster Friess, billionaire investor in Rick Santorum’s SuperPAC
  • Then came the Blunt Amendment, legislation sponsored by Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, was voted down 51 to 48. It would have let employers refuse to include contraception in health care coverage based on their “religious belief or moral conviction.”
  • “What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”
    ”So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch…I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much Aspirin to put between their knees as they want…” —  Right-Wing radio pundit, Rush Limbaugh, talking about Georgetown Law Student, Sandra Fluke, who was allowed to speak to Democrats but who was prohibited from speaking to an all-male Republican meeting on Capitol Hill about women needing birth control for reasons beyond contraception.

It sickened us all, but the crazies on the right have decided to once again escalate their war on women and simultaneously broadcast their absolute ignorance about how women’s bodies work.  A classic example of that renewed effort from the right is posted over at Right-Wing Watch today (complete with excerpts of the actual audio broadcast):

Swanson: Wombs of Women on Birth Control ‘Embedded’ with ‘Dead Babies’

— by Miranda Blue on Friday, 2/1/2013 1:10 pm

Well, here’s some medical research we hadn’t heard about. Generations Radio host Kevin Swanson, who last week delved memorably into feminist theory, tells us this week that “certain doctors and certain scientists” have researched the wombs of women on the pill and found “there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb…Those wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.”

Swanson must be speaking with the same doctors as former Rep. Todd Akin. Even Kevin Peeples, whom Swanson is interviewing about his anti-contraception documentary Birth Control: How Did We Get Here?, isn’t quite sold on the evidence.

Swanson: I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery, and they’ve compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.

Peeples: We’ve actually heard on both sides of that. We’re researching that and want to make sure we speak correctly to that in our second film. But we have medical advice on both sides of the table there, so we want to make sure that we communicate that properly.

Swanson: It would seem, and I realize that people are a little split on what are all the effects of the birth control pill, but it would seem that there’s a tremendous risk in the use of it for the life of children.

Earlier in the interview, Peeples and Swanson discuss how birth control came to be widely used and accepted by many churches. Women, Peeples laments, “desire the men’s role” and are now missing out on “the role God put them in that he laid out in Genesis.” Before World War II, Peeples claims, “abortion, sterilization, eugenics and birth control were all tied together” until “Hitler took the fall for taking it very aggressively and dramatically.”

Peeples: It starts with men and women fighting and not being happy with the role that God put them in that he laid out in Genesis. So whenever you seek to desire, when women seek to desire the men’s role, they lose the part and the idea of what children does, not just for the kingdom and not just does with their family, but does for their gender role.

Swanson: Are you saying that the population control stuff, egalitarian feminism, birth control, abortion, they’re all sort of interrelated?

Peeples: Yeah, it wasn’t until after World War II that they begin to separate them. Abortion, sterilization, eugenics and birth control were all tied together, they were all kind of a package for eugenics and population control. Hitler took the fall for taking it very aggressively and dramatically, and so they said, ‘Hey, let’s kind of take this back, let’s get rid of the negative things and let’s play on Christian liberty, let’s play on freedom, let’s play on people kind of taking this upon themselves to control population rather than forcing it on them. So, again, it’s just another effect of not researching our history to know what happened in the world alongside of the Church.

I’m sorry, that absolutely infuriates me.  From which planet do these right-wing whacked-out nut-jobs swoop in from each day and why the hell haven’t our immigration agents sent them back from whence they came, and barred them from returning?  Women’s bodies do NOT work that way. Did they get an “F” in their 7th grade health class?  Not only that, THIS is NOT the United States of Stepford where women should expect to be nothing more that incubators for man’s seed while running around barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen cooking dinner while silent as a lamb.

Every single woman on this planet knows that that’s why we have periods or why women unable to complete a pregnancy have a what’s called a “miscarriage” which expells the remains of the failed pregnancy.   BOTH of those processes are the equivalent of Mother Nature doing a bit of spring cleaning such that the woman’s uterus is cleaned up and ready for another try at implanting a fertilized egg on the wall of that very clean wall!

Personhood … It’s Time to Start Demanding TWO votes!

Most of us were thrilled to see the end of the 112th Congress come to pass and the end to all the onerous bills that were proposed during that session.  It would seem, however, that a number of members of the GOP’s “REPUBLIBAN” learned nothing from the election and are once again trudging forward in their attempts to once again define life as beginning with fertilization of an egg.  To that end, they have once again re-introduced the “Sanctity of Human Life” bill, HR23, on January 3, 2013.  That bill has subsequently been referred to the House Judiciary committee.

Thus far, eighteen members of the REPUBLIBAN have signed on as co-sponsors:

  1. Carter, John [R-TX31]
  2. Conaway, Michael [R-TX11]
  3. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX27]
  4. Fleming, John [R-LA4]
  5. Franks, Trent [R-AZ8]
  6. Gibbs, Bob [R-OH7]
  7. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA11]
  8. Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
  9. Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
  10. Palazzo, Steven [R-MS4]
  11. Pearce, Stevan “Steve” [R-NM2]
  12. Roby, Martha [R-AL2]
  13. Roe, David [R-TN1]
  14. Rogers, Harold “Hal” [R-KY5]
  15. Ryan, Paul [R-WI1]
  16. Terry, Lee [R-NE2]
  17. Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA3]
  18. Kline, John [R-MN2]

Even though a single-cell fertilized egg cannot support itself, H.R. 23 would exploit our legislative process to impose a specific religious definition of human life in place of the commonly accepted medical one. It is ludicrous that zealots would choose to bestow full constitutional rights to a single cell, while at the same time, they’re actually pursuing legal action to deny rights to an entire class of U.S. Citizens — the LGBT community at large.

The result of passage of a bill such as this would be a host of complications :

  1. There is no absolute guarantee that fertilization will result in “pregnancy.”  How are they going to enforce the implantation of a fertilized egg to a uterine wall?  What’s next, that if we fail to get pregnant, we’ll be subjected to mandatory monitoring of our vaginal secretions to see if we just happen to pass a fertilized egg?  Then what?  Will we be charged with murder or some other ludicrous charge of failure to “whatever”?
  2. What happens if a woman has a miscarriage?  Will she be investigated to see if she willfully caused the miscarriage and thus the death of the cell, embryo, or fetus?  Will they then devise increasing penalties based on the degree of development?
  3. If they define life upon egg fertilization, it ends “all” abortions, including rape, incest, and the life of the mother.  So here’s the conundrum:  If the egg/embryo/fetus is killing the mother, are they going to charge the egg/embryo/fetus with murder when she dies or are they just going to say, “well, it must have been God’s will”?
  4. Abortion would no longer be legal in the United States but would continue to be legal elsewhere in the World.  Are they going to pull the passports of women during their child-bearing years?  What happens if they find out she left the US and got an abortion in another country?  Would she be arrested upon coming through customs?  What If the pregnancy she aborted abroad  resulted initially from rape?  Would the rapist have a cause of action against her, essentially violating her twice?
  5. These guys continually rant about needing to enact “comprehensive” legislation, yet they’ve failed to address the issue of taxation as part of this bill.  If the fertilized egg is granted full constitutional rights, why hasn’t a tax deduction been authorized for that fertilized egg?
  6. How will it affect in-vitro fertilization?  Doctors currently implant more than one egg to get at least one to take.  Then if too many take, they use a procedure called selective reduction to reduce the number of embryos to a realistic number the woman can carry to term (usually one or two). The cost would go up immensely in that only one cell could be fertilized and implanted at a time, else leftover embryos, with their newly legislated “right to life” would have no uteri in which to thrive.  What would then happen to doctor or lab that fertilized those eggs?  What happens to the woman who get’s implanted but can’t bring the that implanted egg to term?
  7. What happens when that fertilized egg fails to develop as expected, or when that baby is born with birth defects?  Is the state going to sue the mother for somehow harming that developing fetus while in utero, thus causing those defects?  Is that just genetics and the luck of the draw, or was it “her” fault some how and blame needs to be lain?
  8. And then, of course, there’s birth control … you know, those little pills that make the uterus hostile to the implantation of a fertilized egg.  Well, you can kiss those goodbye.  Hope you’re good at using the rhythm method or you’ll be having one baby after another — or worse — you’ll be being investigated either for one miscarriage after another, or for “failure to provide a nurturing uterus.”

REPUBLIBAN zealots think “life” is a black or white issue.  It’s just NOT that simple.  There are a myriad of grays in that analysis and no absolutes.  As fond as they are of referring to their sacred “constitution” … maybe they should take a few minutes to read it, and finally realize that women have a constitutional right of freedom from being oppressed by their religion and we also have a constitutional right of privacy in our bedrooms.  I’m sorry, but I am a female, a woman, a member of the human race, not just an incubator for some man’s seed.  “It’s looking more like women need to start taking early pregnancy tests to the voting booth — and if the test comes out positive, they need to start demanding to get two votes.” (Karen Webb, Oklahoma Observer)

Here’s a copy of the text of the bill:

113th CONGRESS — 1st Session — H. R. 23 — January 3, 2013

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. TERRY, Mr. CARTER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. JONES, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. CONAWAY, and Mr. FLEMING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States–

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) FERTILIZATION- The term ‘fertilization’ means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

(2) CLONING- The term ‘cloning’ means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Related Posts:

Roe v. Wade and Fetal Personhood: Juridical Persons Are Not Natural Persons, And Why it Matters