Where are all the Republican Women?

Personally I avoid Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh like the plague. If I’m in the mood for hypocrisies, conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric I can usually find a good Hollywood blockbuster that will not only deliver but be much more entertaining and much easier on the blood pressure. So when I heard about both hosts referring to United States Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) as a prostitute, as much as my blood pressure did rise, it wasn’t exactly a huge surprise. Being respectful and showing regard to common decency have never been strong suits for either man.

What gets me is the reaction from Republican women. I know you’re probably asking yourself, what reaction? Which is my point. There hasn’t been one. Not a thing. Conservative women, specifically Republican Women who actually serve in Congress have nothing to say about blatant sexism against one of the few female colleagues they have? How about Sarah Palin? She has been at the losing end of some of the worst sexists treatment from media in recent history, yet she has nothing to say about calling a Senator a Prostitute?

The reason Senator Landrieu is being called such offensive names is because she offered to vote in favor of moving ahead with health care debate on the Senate floor, (she did not promise to vote for the bill itself, just the vote to move it along) in return for $300 million in federal aid. Federal Aid for Louisiana. Is there really one person in this country who doesn’t think Louisiana needs federal aid more than we need to put off the debate on health care? I wonder how all the people in New Orleans who are still trying to rebuild, who are still without a home, who are still looking for help after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina feel about comparing Senator Landrieau's deal with a whore? I’m guessing not good.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, after all it was last month that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was told she needed to be “put in her place” by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Huffington Post tried in vain to contact fifteen female lawmakers (fourteen from the House or Representatives) as well as two Republican women's issues groups to get their response to the very sexists statement made about Speaker Pelosi. Not one was willing to provide a statement.

Yes, there were many Democratic women who refused to stand up for Sarah Palin during the media frenzy that occurred during the 2008 Presidential election and the year since because of her politics. But there were many who did. There were many women who put politics aside and made sure their voices were heard when sexism came into play.

But where are female voices from the right? Is sexism not an issue for all of us? Doesn’t Senator Landrieu deserve the respect and defense of her fellow female lawmakers regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on?

Don’t all women?

This is a cross-post from the WomenCount blog. 

Meghan Harvey is the New Media Producer for WomenCount and can also be found blogging at Meg's Idle Chatter.

What’s a Woman To Do?

MOMocrats welcomes guest author Linda Tarr-Whelan's comments on the health insurance reform bill and the promise it holds for women and children. Please support the MomsRising campaign at the post's end!

Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean?  Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%.  But more on that in future posts!

For today, I’m riveted by news stories that a “very prestigious independent medical panel” has recommended big changes in our health care routines.  As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.

We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps:  do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors’ visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary?  Really?

Et tu, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued new guidelines for pap smears, which screen for cervical cancer. Previously, they suggested beginning testing after becoming sexually active and testing annually starting in your twenties. Now, they say women in their 20s only need to be checked every two years and testing should begin after 21. Women in their thirties should only be tested every three years after three clear test results, according to the new guidelines. The new guidelines are based on the newer science, which also shows that unlike other cancers, cervical cancer tends to be slow growing and the doctors say that less frequent testing will lead to less frequent procedures, which, they claim, could lead to disrupted fertility.

Cervical cancer rates have dropped by 50% due to regular pap testing.

The ACOG is quick to add that this should not disrupt women's annual exam schedule.

In the last month, women's health care  has taken a heavy and hard hit. Women's reproductive care hit the metaphorical equivalent of the Great Wall of China with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which just received endorsement from the US Conference on Catholic Bishops. Prominent women, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner have publicaly criticized and opposed this amendment, saying it is an insult to women's health care and an assault on privacy and access to legal care.

Next, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced that it is changing its guidelines for mammography and no longer recommends routine screening for women between the ages of 40 and 49. The American Cancer Society, however, continues to "recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40."

Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer, American Cancer Society said, “The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40.

"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions."

Go Read: US-China Tussles Over Currency Exchange

You may have heard that next week President Obama will be visiting Asia, and significantly, the People's Republic of China. One big bone of contention is the way China pegs its Yuan (or RenMinBi) to the US Dollar. For a long time, it was at 8Y : $1USD. Currently it seems to be running 7:1. The US has been trying to get China to change the practice, and this post from Campaign for America's Future explains why.

Would prices go up at Walmart if China changed its currency to reflect the dollar's relative weakening worldwide? Probably. But maybe, as even Treasury Secretary Geithner has said, American workers would have a fighting chance if the RMB were to stop being manipulated to China's unilateral self-interest.

In the next week, it'll be interesting to see if the initial softening of China's Central Bank to the more flexible policy Geithner called for will continue after President Obama and President Hu Jintao meet.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k. Her retired parents, like many in the Chinese diaspora, spend part of the year living in Shanghai and maintain a connection to the country of their birth. It was her dad, a lifelong basketball fan, who told her Le Bron James' nickname in China is "Lao3 Bei2 Jing4" or "Old Beijing."

Go Read It: US Catholic Conference of Bishops' Hypocrisy on Federal Tax Dollars & the Stupak-Pitts Amendment

Not all Catholics believe the exact same thing. There are Catholics for Choice, Catholics who use contraception, and then...there's the US Conference on Catholic Bishops, which was an active, energetic force lobbying politicians to pass Stu-Pitts prior to the recent House vote on the Affordable Health Care for All Act. Strongly opposed to a woman's right to decide when and if to terminate a pregnancy, the USCCB receives 67% of its budget in federal tax dollars to help fund hospitals and other good works with secular impact operated by the Catholic church, and is itself charged with separating federal funding from religious practices.

Go read this op-ed that calls out hypocrisy in how the USCCB separates taxpayer dollars from church funds in their operations. It spells out why they, if anyone, should realize that the never-voted on Capps Amendment ensuring compliance with 1977's Hyde Amendment already adequately addressed the separation of taxpayer funds from abortion services. A short excerpt:

Catholic Charities, the domestic direct service arm of the bishops, also depends on state and federal dollars. Sixty-seven percent of Catholic Charities’ income comes from government funding. That represents over $2.6 billion in 2008 — an amount that is more than three times as large as the next largest charitable recipient of federal funds, the YMCA. Just as Catholic hospitals do, Catholic Charities receives enormous quantities of government dollars while abiding by existing constitutional and statutory requirements that prevent government sponsorship of religion.

Yet the USCCB wants to potentially sink health care reform--which they've previously supported--with a culture-war grenade. They want to effectively prevent any private insurer from providing a legal medical procedure by pushing falsehoods about the Affordable Health Care for All Act.

Call your senators and congressperson and demand that Stupak-Pitts be prevented from being inserted into the Senate bill and that the final bill reflect the Capps Amendment's compromise.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

The Stu-Pitts of Congress, and Women's Health Care From the Waist Up

Forgive me if I sound a little bitter despite being deeply moved by the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act this past weekend in the House. It IS a huge achievement and one-third of what we need to get the bill to President Obama to sign. I'm proud and grateful so many wonderful elected representatives who truly want to help Americans were able to move mountains and pass the bill.

It's just that, well, that was quick. We had a wonderful feminist moment there, didn't we, when we realized that women are treated differently than men by health insurers. We finally exposed the widespread practice of gender-rating--or disparate pricing by gender--for health insurance coverage that unfairly requires women to pay more than men with similar health status. We learned how eight states still allow insurers to consider domestic violence as a "pre-existing condition" to deny women coverage. We saw documentation of how common it is for women to be uninsured and underinsured whether it's employer-based coverage or self-procured, and how this made health insurance reform of particular interest to women. A quick statistic from the Commonwealth Study linked immediately above:

Six in ten women with moderate incomes (between $20,000 and $40,000) report being unable to pay medical bills, being contacted by a collection agency for unpaid medical bills, changing their way of life to pay medical bills or paying off medical debt over time, as did almost half (46%) of middle-income women.

Women rallying support around health insurance reform, I maintain, helped lift poll numbers for the public option and lift some of the curse extremist Teabaggers had tried to cast on the bill.

A Word on Gay Marriage

As everyone celebrates the one-year anniversary of the historic election of President Obama a lot of us, especially here in California are sadly reminded of another anniversary this week. The anniversary of the passing of Proposition 8, which was made even more painful after a similar vote passed in Maine on Tuesday. Writing this, I still can’t wrap my mind around the one burning question that keeps haunting my thoughts. Why?

Why are people voting on the right for other people to marry? Why do people care? And why are people so stupid? Yes, I said stupid. Sue me.

One of my favorite books in high school was The Crucible. I’ve always loved the subject of the Salem Witch Trials. The part of the story that was always so fascinating to me was the people in the community who were so easily taken advantage of. People who let their fear and ignorance become a tool that was used to make fools out of all of them.

This is perfect analogy to me of the poor fools who continue to vote against gay marriage in California and Maine and  every church that preaches against it. These people continue to have their own fear, their religion, and their ignorance used against them to take a stance against gay marriage.

I joke about these people and their ignorance with friends, but in truth, it’s not funny. In fact it breaks my heart.

It breaks my heart because for me when I think of gay couples and their families, I don’t see “gay couples.” I see my friends. I see family members. I see other PTA moms who fight with their kids to do homework. I see soccer games, I see vacations, and I see kids growing up in loving homes, just like my kids. No different.

So to you, the people who keep fighting the inevitable legalization of gay marriage, I ask you to face the sweet young faces of the kids who are being raised in these loving homes by loving gay & lesbian couples and tell them why their family is different. Why their family breakfasts, their trips to the supermarket, and their Saturday T-Ball games with the family are any different than yours.

Tell them, explain it to them. And then tell me, because I’m totally clueless.

This is proudly Meghan Harvey’s inaugural post at MOMocrats. When she’s not working hard to find a cure for ignorance she can also be found blogging on her personal blog, Meg’s Idle Chatter. 

Go Watch It: Rachel Maddow Takes on Americans for Prosperity

In August, I wrote about how astroturfing groups funded by big business and staffed by GOP political operatives and corporate lobbyists — like the Koch Industries-funded group Americans for Prosperity — are influencing the national debate on health care by helping to organize and promote Tea Party gatherings and town hall protests at the local level.

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow took on Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips in a scathingly direct interview. If you're concerned about the involvement of corporate lobbyists in the health care debate, don't miss this interview! Watch parts one and two below (part two is after the jump).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I Hate to Break it to the GOP, but We ARE in Our Place!

Oh those crazy people at the Republican National Congressional Committee!!  When there's something they're not happy about, they can't help themselves from saying something silly!

The RNCC tried to chide Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with this:

If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope [General] McChrystal is able to put her in her place.

Her comeback?

I'm signing up for the Speaker's next class on political zingers!

30 Senate Democrats Stand Firm for a Public Option in Letter

Thank you, Democratic Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Tom Udall (D-NM), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Roland Burris (D-IL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Bob Casey (D-PA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ),  John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Paul Kirk (D-MA), and thank you Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont.

Today, by signing a letter written by Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown supporting the inclusion of a strong public option in the Senate health insurance reform bill — a measure of health care reform that the majority of Americans support — you stood up on behalf of the American people and put the interests of ordinary working American families ahead of the interests of multimillion dollar insurance companies. You put people ahead of profits, put principles ahead of politics, and brought the United States of America one step closer to joining the other developed nations of the world in recognizing access to basic health care as a human right that should be granted to all of a nation's people.

You promoted the general welfare, just like the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says our government should. Your mothers should be proud.

The MOMocrats extend our gratitude, and encourage more Senators to join you.

Readers, if you support the public option like nearly two-thirds of your fellow Americans, and your Senator has not yet signed this letter, please encourage him or her to do so.

Full text of the letter after the jump: