McCain presidency would mean more of same for women

[Pixsurguy]

McCain presidency would mean more of same for women
By Roberta Riley
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
September 12, 2008

OH, HOW JOHN McCAIN courts women. With Sarah Palin at his side and our unpopular president sidelined, he promises huge, glass ceiling-shattering change.
What is the substance behind his symbolism? On every issue of concern to women -- from education to equal pay, health care and physical security to retirement and financial security -- John McCain and George W. Bush are identical and abysmal. It is their best-kept secret.

How can this be?

Anti-Woman Actions

Lipstick doesn't just differentiate the hockey moms from the pit bulls, as Palin joked in her convention speech. Lipstick conceals the harsh, anti-woman actions of McCain and Bush. Bush searched high and low for women, preferably attractive ones, from groups opposed to such things as equal pay, health care for all, contraception and shelters for battered women. Then he handed them the reins of government. McCain approved his Cabinet appointees, who have now quietly dismembered federal programs near and dear to women. Their favorite tools are executive orders, rule changes and unfunded mandates, which do not require congressional approval and rarely grab headlines. They excel at doublespeak. When congressional action is needed, McCain votes with Bush 95 percent of the time, and now he's recruited Bush's lipstick crew to his team.

On the 35th anniversary of Title IX, the federal law requiring equal opportunity for females in education, Bush's Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, held a warm, fuzzy news conference to celebrate the law's successes. Then she silently weakened the rules for Title IX compliance, threatening sports opportunities and scholarships for women. McCain tacitly approved. Not only is the slice for females getting smaller, the whole pie is shrinking because Spellings, who regulates the federally guaranteed student loan program, ignored the inspector general's advice and refused to recoup the hundreds of millions in excess profits that predatory college loan lenders siphoned from funds meant for students.

77 Cents on the Dollar

On top of the overall financial insecurity squeezing middle-class families, women still earn only 77 cents to every dollar made by men. Despite strong evidence that some women are segregated into low-paying occupations, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a Bush economic adviser from the Independent Women's Forum, voiced the administration's opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, arguing the wage gap stems from women's different "choice of occupation." While there might be some truth to that, it's not the whole truth.

Lilly Ledbetter worked for decades at an Alabama Goodyear plant doing the same job as her male co-workers. After she learned the men received better pay, she sued and a jury awarded her fair compensation. Rather than pay a modest sum to a wronged employee, Goodyear pursued the case all the way to the Supreme Court. There Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Bush II appointees approved by McCain, reversed the verdict. Their decision paves the way for companies to commit rampant pay discrimination. With the devil buried in the details of a lengthy court decision, McCain and Bush cloak their complicity in the economic harm that Ledbetter v. Goodyear will cause women for years to come. When pressed on the subject, McCain did admit he supports the ruling and opposes reparative legislation. He also promises to fill future court vacancies with "clones of Alito and Roberts."
Without minimal Social Security benefits, more than half of elderly women would live in poverty. Yet Bush and McCain tried, with the help of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, to put a friendly female face on their plan to privatize Social Security. Their proposal would have shifted funds to Wall Street, cut basic benefits and worsened harsh effects our system has on lower paid workers (mostly female), widows, divorced women and the average woman, who spends 15 years out of the paid work force to care for others.

Uncompassionate Conservatism

What did "compassionate conservatism" do for women's physical safety? Approximately 1,200 women are killed and 1.3 million physically assaulted each year by an intimate partner. In 1994 Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act to fill gaps in state prevention efforts. To oversee the act, Bush appointed Nancy Pfotenhauer to the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. In her earlier role as president of the Independent Women's Forum, Pfotenhauer waged a bitter fight against the entire act, claiming it would encourage "vulnerable women to mistrust all men."
With Ms. Trust Your Batterer pulling the strings, it is not surprising that right after a photo op authorizing its renewal, Bush cut the act's funding. McCain voted against restoring those funds and opposed programs to aid children affected by domestic violence. With one hand, Bush and McCain deplore the murder of pregnant women and "unborn children." With the other hand they scrap promising federal efforts to prevent such murders.

Military women suffer alarming levels of sexual violence. Yet our commander in chief compounds their plight by selectively enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays in the military. In 2007 women composed 15 percent of the Army but accounted for 45 percent of the discharges stemming from this policy. The whole thing is a trap: A woman who spurns a man's advances risks accusations that she is, God forbid, a lesbian. Yet if she winds up pregnant, she'll have hell to pay. McCain voted for "don't ask, don't tell" and says it works well.

36 Million to 47 Million

Though most women believe everyone should have affordable health care, the number of uninsured climbed from 36 million in 2000 to 47 million today. McCain voted against coverage for 10 million uninsured kids, and when a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the measure, Bush vetoed it because he considered it a step toward "federalizing" medicine. McCain applauded Bush's veto, earning "The Worst Senator for Children" rating from the Children's Defense Fund.

American teens suffer high pregnancy and chlamydia rates, yet McCain and Bush oppose medically accurate sex education. Instead, McCain panders to the far right, vowing to continue the Bush tradition of doling out hundreds of millions of tax dollars to fundamentalists who preach "abstinence only" and don't want young people to know about condoms.

Contraception Interruptus

Medical science recognizes contraception is central to women's health. Without it, the average woman would bear a dozen or more pregnancies. It's strange that Bush and McCain oppose all efforts to make contraception affordable, whether in health plans, programs for the uninsured, drug pricing, drug approval, international assistance, etc. But they don't want sensible folks to know about it. In July a reporter asked McCain a contraception question. His pregnant pause, memorialized on YouTube, sparked more dementia jokes. But voters deserve a straight answer.

Our next president's views really do matter because contraception, which most of us take for granted, is at risk.

That lipstick crew has been working behind the scenes. Some would turn the clock back half a century to when contraception was a crime. Take, for example, Dr. Susan Orr, author of Real Women Stay Married. She equates contraception with "a culture of death." Bush appointed her to lead Title X, the program that subsidizes contraception and cancer screening for the uninsured. Orr brought the program to its knees. McCain earlier voted to abolish Title X altogether. Today 17 million uninsured women need these services.

Even women with health insurance may lose their contraception because a Bush appeals court judge issued a precedent-setting ruling last year against female workers who sought contraceptive coverage. Their health plan covers all other preventive care, drugs and even Viagra and Rogaine for men. The decision erases hard-fought gains women won just a few years ago. McCain voted against contraceptive coverage legislation.

More Contraception Interruptus

Before leaving office, Bush will issue rules to boost a trend among pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraception because of religious objections. Some Montana women must drive 80 miles to find a pharmacy willing to sell the pill. By blurring the line between contraception and abortion, Bush's proposed rules will thwart state laws meant to assure proper care for sexual assault survivors.

Don't believe for a second that McCain and Palin will "change" anything. Palin's group, Feminists for Life, not only opposes all abortion, even for rape victims, it fosters this bizarre, unfounded notion of birth control pills as murder weapons. The group's Web site refers to contraception as an "abortofacient," a favorite code word of the far right. It means they're gunning for your birth control.

The gradual re-criminalization of abortion has, of course, begun. The new Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 ruling, recently upheld an abortion restriction that McCain approved and Bush signed. As though high-risk pregnancy is a walk in the park, the ruling eviscerates the women's health protections of Roe. McCain promises to appoint judges who will overturn Roe entirely. As the far right blurs contraception with abortion, who knows where it will end?

McCain may have a woman on the ticket, but he does not have the interests of women at heart.

©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Roberta Riley of Seattle is a former Planned Parenthood attorney.

[Don'tLikeStinkingThinking]

Mr. Pix I know there has been a lot of changes going on in the Roo, but I find it amazing not a single woman has responded to this thread.

Here is my latest video in my "McC**T vs. Obama and Why?" thread.

Obama Vs. McCain & Why

I would love to hear some reaction from the Roo membership especially the ladies. Hell I wish Jokeroo would respond and call a spade a spade. McCain seems like a freaken nut to me and I usually like nuts that are good for you, but this one is rotten, imo!

[sexysadie]

I watched a debate between McCain and Obama on TV last night, I know I'm not American, but if I was an American, I'd have to vote for the man who made the following statement.....*My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.*

[Don'tLikeStinkingThinking]

I agree Ms. SSS! Good Evening!

[sexysadie]

Good evening Mr.Stinky! I'm sorry for being the only woman to respond to this thread, but the night is still young.

[Dthunder]

I missed the debate because I had to work I doubt it would effect my general feelings anyway.

[Don'tLikeStinkingThinking]

DThunder you can catch it on utube or what ever it is called....

[Patrish]

As a Catholic - i agree with McCain on this topic.
But then again, as a woman i dont like the fact that government tries to conceal the real reason behind contraception.
To 'control' population and to keep the unfit from reproducing.
Which would be all women and men who are not wealthy enough [in their eyes] or the eyes of planned parenthood to procreate.
Planned parenthood means they plan to keep you in the dark on why parenthood isnt for you or you or you.
Heck, with the rate of abortions and contraceptions and the low birth rate - it wont be long before Islam is the biggest faith. And the most controlling.
THEY say - ya get what ya pay for. AND pay back is a [ahem].

Hey i could make a thesis on that subject alone.

But for all the big talk coming from Obama about issues and women's equal rights...
How come his Senate Office pays women only $0.83 on the dollar of what men make..?????

Seriously, have you researched the real history of contraception?

And does the font have to be so big?

[Itsnotgonnaspankitself...]

Originally Posted by Patrish

Seriously, have you researched the real history of contraception?

Actually, no...I can't say I have...

until now.


History of Contraception

By Jaimini Chauhan
2003

From crocodile dung to lactic acid anhydride, contraception dates back as far as ancient Egypt and Greece. Many methods, inventions and substances were used in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Oddly enough, using substances such as crocodile dung was never questioned! How it was used can be left to the imagination…….

Dating back to 1850 BC, ancient Egyptians were responsible for using the infamous dung in addition to the female irrigating her vagina with a mixture of honey and sodium bicarbonate. The Ancient Egyptians also developed a tampon-like object that contained lactic acid anhydride, a chief ingredient in modern contraceptive jellies. We can safely conclude that our ancestors were on the right path! According to an ancient manuscript called Ebers Papyrus, 1550 BC, women were advised to mix together dates, acacia bark and honey into a sugary paste and place it in the vulva. This method was often efficient because as the sugar ferments it is converted into lactic acid, as mentioned before, a well-known spermicide.

Commonly used and popular among young adults today is the condom. The condom has a rich history and the concept has been known for some time now. Long before condoms came in different sizes, shapes and colors, animal membranes and pieces of linen were sewn together to form a covering for the penis. The rubber condom was developed shortly after the creation of vulcanized rubber in the 1840’s, by Goodyear. Vulcanized means that the rubber is subjected to sulfur and extreme heat which in turn processes the rubber into a strong elastic material. By 1930 liquid latex was used and is still what is used today to manufacture condoms. By the 1990’s new technology has improved the quality an effectiveness of the condom enabling manufacturers to make them in different sizes, colors and even flavors.

The origin of the condom is still unknown but it is said that a “Dr. Condom” supplied King Charles II of England with animal tissue sheathes to prevent him from fathering illegitimate children. Public Health concerns started to win over the moralistic attitudes of the time regarding promiscuous sex, when syphilis became rampant among American soldiers in World War 1. By the second World War, military leaders had a more realistic attitude about condoms and their use was strongly enforced. Today, condoms are widely used to protect against STI’s, HIV and pregnancy. The condom’s effectiveness can range between 85-98%, depending on how it is used and the concurrent use of spermicide.

After World War II, the increasing rise in world population was alarming. The birth control pill was developed in order to curve this increase. In 1950 an American biologist Gregory Pincus developed the “ideal” oral contraception, which was tested on women from Haiti and Puerto Rico. In 1960 the first oral contraception, Enovid-10, was launched in the US market, known as the “pill”. Women were finally enthused about a form of contraception marketed as “safe and effective” and readily used the pill. Within two years oral contraception was used by over 1.2 million women and the numbers continued to rise.

Technology has allowed the contraception industry to flourish, coming up with many different types of contraception for females, with varying degrees of acceptance and success eg. lower estrogen birth control pills; progestin-releasing intra-uterine device; new ways to deliver spermicides – Vaginal Contraceptive Film, Advantage 24 (bioadhesive gel), Leah’s Shield (a fusion of the diaphragm and cervical cap), spermicidal sponge; longer-acting hormonal contraceptives such as Depo-Provera; the female condom; the emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) (sometimes called the “morning after pill); Recently launched and quite innovative is the Evra transdermal contraceptive patch, which is worn on the abdomen area or on the back, a similar idea to the patch for quitting smoking, it slowly releases estrogen and progestin into the body. Its effectiveness is similar to the oral contraceptive pill and will be available in late 2003. Research continues to be done in the areas of contraceptive injections, pills, nasal sprays and implants for men. However there has been little interest in the drug companies developing them, perhaps due to the lack of enthusiasm from men.

There will continue to be research and development in methods of birth control. Though factors such as the high cost of developing drugs, less money for research from governments, and the concern of lawsuits for manufacturers will have a definite influence. The hope is always there for effective, safe and satisfying methods of contraception.


History of Contraception