[this is a recovered post from the great data disappearance of 2009. links, comments, and other html may have been lost permanently.]

(before launching into my outraged diatribe, i’m going to stipulate that safe abortion access is an integral part of not only women’s reproductive health, but our ability to exercise self-determination. many other individuals have written more coherently and persuasively on the subject than i could, so i’ll leave any interested readers to the googles for the specifics.)

with that out of the way, on to the diatribe.

in a press release celebrating the 240-194 approval of his odious abortion restriction amendment, bart stupak exulted,

Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

he’s also said, “All Americans deserve the right to quality, affordable health care coverage.”

all americans? really? apparently stupak doesn’t think that abortion access has any place in women’s “quality” or “affordable” reproductive health care. his amendment (couched in “this just [just! - ed] continues the hyde amendment’s prohibitions on the use of federal funds for abortion” logic) will have the practical effect of denying abortions to any women participating in the health insurance exchange.

how? right off the bat, it prohibits exchange-participating plans that offer abortion coverage from accepting any federally-subsidized customers (estimated at 80% of exchange participants)¹.

oh, but wait. apparently women will be allowed to purchase separate “abortion riders.” that’s great, provided a) women will think to insure against unintended pregnancies (or better yet, pregnancies with complications necessitating an abortion either due to risks to the woman’s health, or abnormalities with the fetus); and b) that there are insurance companies willing to offer those riders in the first place.

and it’s b) that’s really the kicker. via NARAL,

According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders.²

so. we’ve got a health reform plan from the house that is intended to create universal coverage by requiring individuals to acquire health care coverage through a national exchange³. and that exchange will effectively reduce women’s access to abortion services. fantastic.

i really, really hate washington right now. a meteor could demolish the entire hill, and i’d only mourn the architecture. okay, i’d feel sad for the families of the members of congress, but the representatives? not so much.

particularly not bart stupak or nancy pelosi, who facilitated the introduction of stupak’s amendment. because of those two (insert foul adjective of choice here… oh, hey… choice!)s, women are going to remain second-class citizens when it comes to health care.

(and finally, because i’m pissed off at the pro-choice democrats who folded and voted for the bill with stupak’s amendment: there’s a niggling voice in the back of my head trying to convince me that perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and that this reform bill is better than none. to that voice i say – there are far fewer anti-choice democrats than pro-choice ones in the house. if the pro-choice dems couldn’t get the antis in line and force a vote without restricting abortion access, they’re a useless political machine. if they’re going to allow abortion to be a political football, they should play the damn game to win.)

_________________________
¹ how ironic that the democrats have brought us our own version of the mexico city policy.
² i’d link directly to the national women’s law center on this, but i can’t find anything on point on their website.
³ it will also expand medicaid access, but that doesn’t help low-income women access abortion. see the hyde amendment.

[this is a recovered post from the great data disappearance of 2009. links, comments, and other html may have been lost permanently.]

i have no words to describe how disturbing i find this – high-heeled crib shoes:

i think i am doubly disturbed because before coming across that site, i was perusing the latest in tendon-atrophying, back-swaying, toe-pinching torture devices from christian louboutin. taken in isolation, i find the louboutin shoes visually interesting – the colors and shapes are striking, and there’s an obvious attention to both design detail and craftsmanship. but they’re essentially fetish wear.

louboutin’s shoes are the most sexualized examples of high heels – a very sexualized item of clothing to begin with – that i’ve seen in a long while. and that’s fine: if adult women want to strap into these and conjure up thoughts of everything from sexual prey to sexual dominants in the eyes of their beholders, so be it. and it’s not just louboutin’s shoes – most high heeled shoes do this, to greater or lesser degrees. but why on earth would we want to transfer those connotations to infants? that’s not “heelarious,” that’s pathological.

recovered comments:
5 Responses a “stockholm syndrome”

1. alejna Says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Ugh. That makes me sad. Maybe there are baby fishnets available to go with them.

(My mother-in-law, always the bargain hunter, actually picked up some toddler fishnet stockings on sale for Phoebe. They have stayed in the packaging.)

2. Holly Says:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:19 am

You pretty much nailed that, all of it.

Eeeeeewwwwwww…

3. Cold Spaghetti » Blog Archive » July Just Posts for a Just World Says:
August 7th, 2009 at 2:41 am

[...] laloca of baggage carousel 4 with stockholm syndrome [...]

4. The July Just Posts « collecting tokens Says:
August 7th, 2009 at 2:42 am

[...] laloca of baggage carousel 4 with stockholm syndrome [...]

5. Eva Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

People are stupid. That’s the only explanation I can think of.

clarence thomas wants you to know that you should hide your drugs in your underwear, because there’s no way that the school will have the balls to look for them there!

(in an amazing twist of logic, thomas wrote,

“Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he said. “Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.”

which might make some sense if redding actually had concealed anything in her underwear… but she hadn’t. thomas thinks it’s okay to abuse children because of what they might do. nice.)

7:55 a.m. 18th st NW. double below-the-knee amputee. at least he wasn’t wheeling against traffic.
 
in other news, happy repeal of the volstead act (1933). now go get yourself a beer.
 
 
 

conservative ministers attempt to force a re-evaluation of the separation of church and state (tax-exemption), and one says,

“We want people when you prick them, they bleed the word of God.”

a pilot program to bypass customs! what could possibly go wrong?

it really makes a lovely juxtaposition with those haldol-happy ICE officers. anyone else think we were a more humane nation when we had the immigration and naturalization service, rather than immigration and customs enforcement?

i tell ya, i really should stop reading the morning paper.

from the wapo:

JERUSALEM, Dec. 24 — Israeli military prosecutors have determined that Israel’s use of cluster bombs during last year’s war in Lebanon did not violate international humanitarian law, the army said Monday, closing an investigation into a practice that has drawn heavy criticism from the United Nations and international human rights groups.

move it along, folks. nothing to see here.

(two different things)

first, the card. it rocks:¹

second, the tref. it’s awesome:

(click here, silly)²

and third (a lagniappe): it’s snowing! it’s been snowing all day! people don’t know how to handle it! yay!
_____________

¹ thanks, margot!
² hat tip: nick

according to the NYT,

Verizon plans to share what is known in the industry as consumer proprietary network information, or C.P.N.I, which includes how many calls a customer makes, the geographical destination of the calls and what services the customer has purchased. That information cannot be shared without permission under federal and state laws.

apparently making it opt-out rather than opt-in gets around the permission requirement. so verizon has gone the time-sensitive opt-out route. if you don’t opt out within 30 days of being notified of their intent to share your info, they deem you to have given them permission to do so.

to opt out: call 800-333-9956 ASAP.

this is all such bullshit. hat tip: james.

*phone rings*

hello?

*pre-recorded, male, vaguely african-american voice begins to run*

hello. this is a 45-second survey. do you intend to vote in the 2008 presidential election?

yes.

this question concerns the attempts of some radical members of society trying to create a two-tiered system of justice. do you believe that all human life should be protected equally under the law?

depends on what you mean by “human life.”

please answer yes, no, or repeat.

repeat.

this question concerns the attempts of some radical members of society trying to create a two-tiered system of justice. do you believe that all human life should be protected equally under the law?

*sigh*
no.

are you male?

no.

are you over fifty?

no.

thank you. this survey was authorized and sponsored by the family research council.

*click*

how much do you wanna bet this gets publicized as a properly conducted public opinion poll? and i’d love to see the entire instrument.