MOMocrats™

The MOMocrats Discuss Plan B: Why Did HHS Overrule the FDA’s Recommendation to Offer Plan B Emergency Contraceptive as OTC?

It all started with a smart, heated post cross-posted to the MOMocrats from Advocates for Youth (AFY), lambasting the Obama administration and the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ decision to override the FDA’s recommendation to offer Plan B as an over-the-counter drug. Plan B, of course, is known as the “day-after” pill, preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, much as can happen randomly in any woman’s cycle without influence by any medicines.

In backchannel emails, we each weighed in.

Glennia: I'm all done making excuses for Obama. I can't even begin to describe my disappointment with Sebelius right now. ...I would have written something, but Kate said it all [in the Plan B post on MOMocrats], as far as I'm concerned.

Julie: This is a lot of how I feel too.

But then again, I'm the one who kept saying he was a lot more conservative than gossip had him. I was worried about a lot of issues.

Still this stunned me. Et tu Brute and Brutette?

Donna (SoCalMom): As for Obama -- as upset as this decision makes me, I do feel that by becoming President at this time in our country's history, he simply can never win with us -- let alone the vast right wing conspiracy that is making it impossible to do even the simplest things. Every tiny little victory is won with the greatest effort -- just look at how impossible the GOP has made it to get the Federal government fully staffed (or the CFPB, which Slate said they are "nullifying" by refusing to even vote on Cordray).

I think it's correct for those of us on the left to point out bad policy decisions -- but we also need to strengthen our support more than ever. 2012 is going to be an epic fight on every level of government and we need to be vigilant against all the misinformation the Fox and CNN machine and superPACs are going to throw at us. MOMocrats is filling a real vacuum by disseminating facts that are going to be drowned out by all the right wing noise.

I am reserving my disgust for the religious zealots that believe in freedom, so long as you're an evangelical Christian with a trust fund (everyone else is bupkis).

Glennia: Donna, for the most part, I agree that Obama needs to win 2012 election, but what kind of choice is that, really?  All that he and Sebelius had to do was let the FDA do its job. No HHS Secretary has ever overturned an FDA decision, so why not just let it ride and let the zealots do the dirty work?  I think that this may have a chilling effect on future decisions that might benefit women’s health.

I'm not giving money to Obama or fundraising for him this time. Sorry, I just can't do it. I'll vote for him, but any funds I have will go toward down-ticket women and advocacy groups.  I will vote for him, but that's it.

I haven't had much to say about politics lately because I am disgusted by the whole scene. I can't watch or listen to anyone from either party anymore.

Donna: I think that's a perfect strategy -- that the usual "coattail riding" effect this year will be reversed, with Obama doing well only if the Democrats do in state and local elections (and we need them there!)

The down-ticket women and advocacy groups are going to need all the money they can get.

I wonder what will happen in a second term, when there is no pressure to be re-elected. I know I would love a President who did what was right and didn't worry about re-election -- but I would be just as angry at him for doing a Jimmy Carter and making it impossible to elect another Democrat for another dozen years.

I often feel depressed over the direction our country has taken and the zealotry of the Right. Politics is more dispiriting than fun.

Karoli: I understand the strategy and to a large extent, agree with it. But I confess, I'm a little bit confused over the whole PlanB thing. I have basically been told I'm not a liberal because I don't think it should be available to younger children so easily. I also understand the arguments for making it available. It is a difficult, complex, emotional issue. I'm not sure there is an absolute wrong or right in this case. Only gray, murky areas. For example, Yaz was sold to younger women as the best birth control ever. After the fact, it emerges that it carries some pretty severe and even deadly side effects for some. PlanB is a hormone. I don't think it should be dispensed without some minimum instruction and oversight. That's just me. I also understand the arguments on the other side and respect them. But in the end, is this really a black and white, cut and dried issue?

Cynematic: Karoli, one of the more effective arguments for keeping Plan B OTC, aside from the fact that studies on pubescent girls under 17 showed they understood how and why they would use Plan B, is that when it's under the pharmacist's lock & key to dispense, women 17 and older are now effectively prevented from buying it when the pharmacy desk is not open but the rest of the drugstore/supermarket is. (That's setting aside the "conscience clause" -- for CONTRACEPTIVES!!! -- that some pharmacists might exercise, and might extend to Plan B. Like seriously, we're all Roman Catholics now??!?!? Rhetorical question.)

So in effect, young teen girls are being used as the excuse to curtail access for the older women who in all likelihood are the ones needing to use it. This fear of pregnant 12 year olds is being put forth at a time when teen pregnancy rates are actually declining, as are abortions in that age group. The same study shows that girls are using more effective contraceptives more frequently:

There are currently no direct data available to tell us why teens are changing their contraceptive practices. However, anecdotal reports indicate that recent changes in medical recommendations that allow teens and young adults to access hormonal contraceptives without a pelvic exam or Pap test have made it easier for them to start—and continue—using these methods.

Given the timely nature of Plan B's effectiveness, 12-24 hours delay in purchase and use could make a big difference to the woman who needs it.

I’m glad we’re talking about this on MOMocrats because there are no doubt many pro-choice women, especially moms of daughters, who feel this issue keenly both in disappointment with Obama *and* on another side with relief that he may have put his thumb on the scales by voicing his opinion on disallowing it to girls 17 and under.

Glennia: I think what set me over the edge was the fact that the administration put itself out in front of an FDA decision when it has not on any number of things that benefit pharmaceutical companies. Why this? Why now? was what I first thought. The answer seemed clear: at risk teenage girls are an easy target to throw under the political bus because they have no political clout.  The second thing that irked me was the fact that the decision was not based on science, but politics.

I guess we all have a line, and this was it for me. I think one of the things that I love most about this group is the fact that we don't always agree and that we can discuss things.

Donna: Like you, I love the fact that we are not a monolithic, marching orders type of group. (As in the famous Will Rogers joke, "I don't belong to an organized political party - I'm a Democrat.")

And I can only stomach so much of it, too -- I take frequent breaks from the news, because it's depressing when it's all so bad. That's why I'm grateful that there is a large group of us to populate the MOMocrats' blog, Facebook page, podcast, Twitter stream, et al with material.

Erin (QueenofSpain): The Plan B, abortion for teens with out parental consent, etc is a fight I have with my husband daily ... ok not daily but a lot.

He thinks anything to do with giving a drug to his daughter or doing a procedure on his daughter, who is a minor, requires his consent. HE doesn't care what other families are like. He doesn't care what could happen to some other girls, he just see it through the eyes of HIS daughter. And I think that's what happens with this issue. We're dealing with a President who had two young girls so I have ZERO doubt this is a discussion he and Michelle have had. Why the admin went this route, I am SURE has something to do with what they are going to get on the other end- which very well may be part of the upcoming battle over Affordable Care Act repeal and decisions and discussions. At least, that's what I hope. That there is some damn good reason we are unaware of. Of course, like in most cases, there is no good 'enough' reason and teenage girls certainly can't vote...so.... sigh.

I don't think anyone can see logically on this one. Regardless of how hard we try. If it were up to me abortions would be like flu shots right now -- at every CVS and Rite Aid and advertising out the wazzooIoo -- I have taken the morning after pill 'just in case. Once. And it admittedly was not the greatest experience and I was too embarrassed to ask my OBGYN questions. It would be typical of our society that any guy could easily grab a condom but for women it must be complicated -- drugs, hormones, etc.

I can see both side of this argument, and I live in a liberal household, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And the President has never been shy about how moderate he can be and there is a crap load going on behind the scenes as they deal with what is the most ignorant bunch of Republicans ever assembled.

I just hope everyone keeps their eyes on re-election. Because knowing he won't have to campaign again in his second term makes me very hopefully he'll be tougher on somethings he can't be tough on now.

Or I'm a big sucker. One of the two.

Julie: I hear [Erin's husband's] point here. I'm uncomfortable with abortions for a lot of reasons. I know you guys know this. But I strongly believe it’s a personal decision so I support the right to choose. And when it comes to this, I see babies in school bathroom trash cans. It is 2000 times more important to me to prevent, to prevent a greater tragedy or trauma. And sure babies are blessings and sure many teen moms see it as a great making of their lives. I'm glad for that. But sometimes it is just better for some people if things had not gotten to that point. I do carry a bit of a que sera sera belief, but when asked to choose, I always prefer prevention.

Donna: I take solace in the fact that Plan B is available to all but minors without a prescription -- especially since the anti-Choice crowd did not want it on the market in this country at all.

If my daughter should need it before she turns 18, I'll get it for her -- no questions asked. Unfortunately, I don't think she would come to me.

In the UK, almost all the meds we are used to getting over the counter must be obtained through consultation with a pharmacist. It threw me for a loop the first times I needed decongestant or a cortisol cream -- but I got used to it.

When I was a teen, condoms were also kept behind the counter. I worked at a drugstore when I was a teen; I don't recall it being a deterrent for those who wanted to buy. Just something to get used to, I suppose.

And when you remember what a fight it was to get Plan B approved in any form, I am just glad that most of us can get it without a prescription. If my daughter needs it before she's of age, I'll gladly purchase it for her (that is, if she feels comfortable enough to ask me - but that's another matter).

Erin (QueenofSpain): You never know Donna. It was hard but when I was 14 I asked my Mom to take me to get the pill. She told me over, and over, and over again that she would take me and not say a word when I wanted. And she was true to her word. I asked her, nearly puking I was so scared, to take me. She made the appointment, we sat in the waiting room (God I will never forget) and said very little ...we went in. I asked the doctor to go on the pill and got my pap smear...and that was that.

She filled it for me every month and left it on my dresser top. Eventually we talked a lot more about it and stuff but that initial visit was her in my head, promising me over and over and over again. Had she not done that, I never would have asked.

Joanne (Punditmom): Actually, I do doubt the Prez has consulted Michelle, at least regarding policy for all girls. And it makes me sad that I have that doubt.

Erin (QueenofSpain): Well as I said I'm sure they have discussed it because they have two daughters. Consulting her in an official capacity is entirely different. They have two daughters -- we have one who is 6 and we've discussed it already at our house. If they have any sort of marriage and speak about their daughters’ futures, I can't imagine this hasn't come up.

I'm curious if you actually doubt he and Michelle discuss matters that affect their daughters or if you mean he consulted her in an official capacity as decisions on this were being made?

Because that leads to a larger question of what sort of father and husband you think he may or may not be as opposed to what sort of President. Which is entirely different.

And that doubt may speak to what some voters are feeling- that he's an overall jerk who doesn't even talk to his wife about matters concerning their daughters OR if he simply wouldn't talk to his wife about matters on his desk about women and girls.

Considering the type of woman our First Lady is, I doubt very highly she is not involved. Much like First Lady Clinton. But Michelle has to be even more careful as the entire world seems to pounce on every word she says, which of course is a country not ready for a strong black woman. But that's another story. I wish she could be as outspoken as Hillary was when First Lady...but sadly our country isn't ready for it. And hasn't been, and made that VERY clear during the last election.

Stephanie (Lawyermama): This one stunned me too.  I knew he was the most conservative of the 3 real choices we had, but overruling the FDA really bothers me.

As for whether Obama consults Michelle, of course we can't really know what their marriage is like.  But having interacted with her quite a bit and, as Erin mentioned, knowing the type of woman she is -- I think she'd fit in nicely here, I can't believe she wouldn't offer her counsel whether solicited or not. She is definitely a women with strong opinions and a fierce mama bear. I've heard from some people in the administration that she has been very firm with her husband (and his administration) about what they need to do to help military families.  But then, that's not terribly controversial.  And that's the thing, I think it's hard to guess what Mrs. Obama's personal opinions would be about Plan B.  She's been very diplomatic about not delving into controversy.  For all we know, she fully supported his decision for the same reason Erin's husband does.

Cynematic: I get it that reasonable pro-choice parents can be deeply squicked by the idea that their daughters could be 1) sexually active before all family messages have deemed it wise 2) pregnant and then not without parents ever knowing and 3) that my abstract position of "yes teen girls including some very young early-onset puberty pre-tween and tween girls should have access to Plan B" is AN ABSTRACTION for me as the parent of a son. I do not have skin in the game directly with a daughter to think of in the way that I do as a grown woman.

Yep, I get it.

But I am still troubled that by making the pharmacist the gatekeeper, women older than 17 will be potentially subject to someone else's "conscience" about the taking of what otherwise would be OTC medication with the same status as other OTC medications. And scared young teens won't have access when they need it most.

Is the regulation standing in for what should be parental vigilance, especially parental vigilance in helping pre-tween and tween girls develop healthy sexualities, as well as older teens? Should or can an FDA/HHS regulation do that? It seems we’re freighting a regulatory decision with more than it can reasonably handle.

Karoli: Digby has a post up reporting that there is ZERO political upside to this decision. So stop for a minute and think about why a man who is as smart as he would have made it. I have two thoughts. First, as Erin says, he came at it as a father. That's certainly one possibility. The other is the possible concern that it would create issues with Sibelius' directive that BC be free under the Affordable Care Act. If Plan B lands in that classification it would not be covered 100% as OTC.

Erin (QueenofSpain): I get nervous asking for the real sudafed. Seriously. Like they think I'm going to make meth. But it's like EVERYONE is a suspect when the pharmacist has the lock and key. I think about how hard it is for teens to buy condoms. They get all embarrassed, etc. But to have to ask the pharmacist for Plan B... wow. I can't even imagine as a young girl. It was hard enough as an adult.

Cynematic: It's true that Plan B may be tied to the overall battle to get contraceptives covered for free under health insurance. There was noise about the latter last week, then radio silence. There's also been radio silence from many trusted pro-choice legislators who we'd ordinarily expect to have kicked up a fuss.

I had postulated on Twitter that perhaps it was horse trading: appearance of "capitulation" to the religious right/US Conference of Catholic Bishops on this one very circumscribed issue surrounding Plan B in exchange for their yielding on contraceptives as preventative care and therefore free under all health plans. (Why these things have gotten politically muddled, as they seem to, is a different question than whether they should’ve gotten muddled to begin with. And I think that’s what was so maddening -- the FDA gave cover and HHS did not take it.)

As we know, this president has had to thread the needle finer than any other president in recent history to get anything accomplished. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some mixture of the horse trading and/or "prescription/pharmacist-as-gatekeeper-but free-covered under ACA" or "24-7-access-but-OTC-costing $40+" calculus involved.

Joanne (Punditmom): I just doubt he [Obama] would have thrown at risk teen girls under the bus if he had talked with her [Michelle]. Just as I wonder about whether he consults with her on things like Paycheck Fairness Act. He's had Jarrett out front for years telling people -- including us -- that it's a priority. Yet nothing. Part of my doubt stems from Michelle's own accounts of how little he consulted her on big decisions before he was President, which makes me wonder -- if he cared so little about the opinion of his worldly & highly educated wife, why should I believe he cares about women in general ?

He talked the talk in the campaign, but forgot to walk the walk.

Karoli: Let's not forget that the decision-maker was Sibelius, a woman. Also intelligent and thoughtful. I thought her public reasoning was thin, it felt like an excuse. As Glennia rightly pointed out, she overrode the FDA for the first time in history. I keep asking 'why', and I keep coming back to her also-unprecedented decision to require 100% coverage of BCP. I believe they're related to each other and she may have sacrificed one for the other. I have no hard evidence of that, but I simply don't believe it was a 'throwing under the bus' moment without nuance and possibly some other undisclosed circumstances.

Joanne: Well, she announced the decision. I have no doubt she was directed, in some way, by the White House.  It's been too much of a hot potato for the administration to be out of the loop.

Grace: I'm leery of ascribing decisions to POTUS not caring about women that can just as easily be ascribed to him having male privilege, and women's and girls issues being an issue he can afford to table (again, because of male privilege). Similarly to what Jay Smooth says about conversations about racism, I think the conversation is more productively focused on what someone has done rather than who they are as a person. I doubt that POTUS doesn't care much for the opinion of women, but even caring about women's opinions wouldn't make him immune to male privilege in his decision-making.

I've been thinking of writing up a post for MOMo about POTUS's comments about his daughters from the perspective of having grown up Republican/pro-life and having a lot of friends who were convinced Senator Obama was the "most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in history." One reason cited for this was his comments that he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" or STDs if they “made a mistake,” which pro-lifers pounced on as evidence that he thinks all babies are burdens. It's interesting to juxtapose that comment with the one re: Plan B and his daughters, because it shows how paternalism can go both ways when it comes to rights, but even when "benevolent" is no basis for real equality.

Glennia: I think the folks at AFY would like knowing they stirred up some discussion among moms.  Like Cyn, I don't have skin in the game on birth control for girls as the mom of a boy (and am glad that condoms are sold OTC). I think it is a very worthwhile discussion and would like to hear all views.

I too thought of how they have Sudafed [sold with pharmacist's assistance] because adults are not responsible enough to not make meth out of it.  

Melissa: The linkage between the contraception debate as a basic benefit
(opposed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) and emergency contraception/Plan B might seem like a natural one but they don't bear on each other. The decision to include contraception in the basic benefit package follows a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). It covers drugs and devices approved by the FDA. As emergency contraception is an OTC medication, its status is unchanged. The basic benefit package will only concern itself with prescription medication.

I do think this was an incredibly cowardly act. When I was ranting to my husband over his shaky internet connection, he was especially taken by a quote from Norm Ornstein in this article: "I think they’re trying to create some political balance." To which my husband, replied, "Does this political table look wobbly to you? Yeah... just shove some women's bodies under the corner, that'll shore it right up."

And that's what it boils down to for me. I am not a political token. My reproductive freedom is not a political bargaining chip. I am REALLY tired of being told to wait. Give in on abortion in the health reform bill, give in as the administration waffles and plays nice with the United Conference of Catholic Bishops over contraception as a basic benefit (even though a Guttmacher survey found that 98% of Catholic women used birth control methods not approved by the Church) and over "conscience clause" wording in federal programs. I am TIRED of this administration assuming that because -- to paraphase Pat Schroeder -- because I have uterus and brain and they both work I'm just an automatic "yes" in their 2012 battle. I won't vote for any of the crazy GOPers. But that doesn't mean I'll spend this election season working for Obama either. It doesn't mean I'll open my wallet or checkbook. It doesn't mean I'll stand out in the cold for GOTV. It doesn't mean I'll put up a lawn sign. It doesn't mean I'll put a bumper sticker on my car. It doesn't mean I'll go to town halls. It doesn't mean I'll offer to volunteer as an election judge or drive people to the polls. It means I'll sit on my hands.

Except it has become so. Sure, sure, the argument is about the under 17 crowd and I'm just about twice that age. But can someone tell me what differentiates a 16 yr old from a 17 yr old? And if we can't make that distinction, how does a young woman magically change from not-studied to well-studied in a year? After all, we allow young people to access sensitive health services without parental consent in many states. Not just repro services, either; mental health and substance abuse counseling and treatment are protected in 20-odd states. We allow them to buy tylenol which, when mixed with alcohol, can be deadly.

I get the parental consent issues. I look at Ruth, just shy of 4, and of course I'd want her to come to me but here is what I ask myself: If she didn't want to come to me, felt she couldn't, does my desire for parental involvement outweigh the potential consequences? The answer is no. My desire for parental oversight is not great enough to overcome my dread at her becoming pregnant and having to make a much harder decision. We have a very open house -- my father-in-law practically turned purple when Ruth asked at breakfast one morning "How do babies come out?" and I answered "They come out of their mommy's vagina." (A friend's mom just had her 2d baby so we'd had a lot of questions about how the baby breathes in the tummy, how it eats and pees and poops, etc.) I would love it if every household had open and honest discussions around sexual health, pleasure, reproductive rights, biology, etc. I know that isn't realistic and so again, I weigh my desire for parental oversight against the potential consequences.

Spring Adams was raped by her father in Idaho. She told her mother who refused to consent to the abortion as she feared her husband. Some sympathetic Idaho Health Dept workers contacted Planned Parenthood workers who arranged for her to have an abortion in Oregon (she was 16 weeks by that point). When her father learned she planned to have an abortion, he shot her. He tried to commit suicide but failed; last I heard, he is in prison. Why she was still living anywhere her father might have access to her is beyond me.

And Glennia, AFY is awesome.

Julie: Here is the thing. The group of us sit here and discuss this. We’re educated women who work hard to provide good, safe, supportive, open homes for our kids. I’m a daughter, a woman, sister, friend, and also mother of daughters. My life is filled with females of all ages. But how typical are we? And how typical are some of our experiences, such as Erin getting such unconditional support from her mother?

My mother tried to be comfortable with this conversation but she wasn’t, and as a result, I never felt comfortable talking with her. Maybe it was a style difference, I don’t know. But I am trying to do differently with my girls. I want to talk with them, be open and honest, supportive, while still sharing my values. It’s most crucial to me to teach my girls that they own their own bodies -- and how can I not be contradictory and hypocritical when the government is naysaying this and saying it owns the girls’ bodies?

“Well, yes, girls, you own your bodies and can say no and make your own choices, until it comes to reproductive health care, in which case, the government -- predominantly the very people who keep advocating for LESS government -- think they get to choose for you and me and your doctor, and let themselves and other health care practitioners get in between you and the medical decision you believe is best for you all around because of their opinions, not fact, but OPINIONS.” It’s maddening.

How can I teach my girls they get the choice of when and how and what for their bodies when all around us is the constant message about everyone else owns a piece of them -- from the government and reproductive care, to commercials using female form to sell, to popular media that drills the message that girls exist to pleasure, and on and on.

As a parent of girls how can I not believe that the best and safest thing is to let the individual and her unbiased doctor (who keeps her or his moral choices in her or his own life and lets individuals guide their lives by their own morals and ethics -- otherwise, hello, major boundary issues) choose the best course of medical action? And that’s the point, right? Plan B keeps it from getting to a tougher place. A trickier wicket. Plus, when it comes to so many cases, kids have to feel safe to take care of themselves and not all do. Not all grow up in safe homes, or homes where dealing with sexuality and bodies and self care is safe and supported. Many girls grow up like me and need respectful support from people who are supposed to provide it. Like pharmacists. And doctors.

Melissa, your point is so on point. 1 in 3 girls are molested. I think rape stats are about the same. And that is what is based on reports. Those who need respectful support the most -- these victims -- are the least likely to get it. I'm also going to say I know very few women who were happy and ready when sex began in their lives. So many had times when they felt pressured beyond comfort and unsure of how to "be nice" like girls are supposed to be and please the boy, like girls are supposed to, but still care for their own needs. I really don't think we get enough healthy sex and sexuality in the world and the last thing we need is to create more of a culture where girls get more and more boxed in -- forced to sex, forced to parenthood. I love being a parent. I feel blessed by my children, who are so amazing. I am glad that my life worked that I was able to fulfill my plan of college, work, adulthood then parenthood. Had I been unable to do that....what would my economic and life prospects be now?

I don’t think we came to a single conclusion as a group, but I do know many of us tempered our initial reactions -- I know I did, feeling that my outrage over how anti-choice politics seemed to win out over what would otherwise be a simple recommendation from the scientific community would now have to take into account the numerous other real-life and very messy factors affecting this one ruling by the HHS, political and personal. I continue to wrestle with both the emotional sides of the argument (what good is knowing that teen pregnancy rates are down if it’s *your* teen daughter who is pregnant?) and the rational sides that say, Wait a minute, what *are* the numbers of at-risk girls specifically who are affected by this? Should access to Plan B by very young women set the bar in practice for all women? Is this really the case or is this my own bogeyman I’ve invented, and what are the moral implications of protecting young women and also needing to ensure that single adult women as well as women with kids have access -- because they’re some of the people most in need of Plan B because of their obligations to their existing children? So here it is, behind the scenes at MOMocrats. We wrestle with tough questions and have differences of opinion and yet are all at our core profoundly committed to pro-choice as part of reproductive justice. --Cyn

Remembering Elizabeth Edwards

In the Summer of 2007, I attended my first BlogHer convention.  I had been blogging for about a year and had just begun flirting with writing about politics.  I had very firm opinions about everything from women's rights to foreign policy, but I wasn't a political blogger.  Oh no.  Why would anyone listen to what I had to say about politics?

But at BlogHer 2007, sitting in an audience of women (and a few men), I listened to Elizabeth Edwards talk about politics, her battle with breast cancer, and the power of women online, and all of that started to change.

I had supported John Edwards from my cozy armchair during his presidential run in 2004. I supported him again during the Democratic primary in 2008. And shortly after BlogHer in 2007, I heard that a group of women I greatly admire were starting a political blog for mothers supporting John Edwards for president. I asked pleaded begged to be a part of it.  And all of a sudden, I was a MOMocrat.

I don't want to revise history.  Despite the fact that John Edwards turned out to be a complete asshat and a poor excuse for a human being, leading up to the 2008 primary he was the only one talking about the issues that mattered most to me.  He was the first Democratic candidate to come up with a comprehensive health care reform plan and his talk of "Two Americas" brought the plight of poverty in the US to light.  Poverty isn't something that politicians like to talk about.  Not a lot of poor people are out there making political donations and their advocates don't have a lot of money either. But John and Elizabeth Edwards were acting as the voice for the people in this country who need it most.  I admired that.  I still do.

Elizabeth Edwards inspired me to write about my convictions. She inspired me to become a MOMocrat, to let my voice as a mother, a woman and a citizen be heard. I like to remember the time I had a chance to participate in a conference call with Ms. Edwards. (Some of my lucky fellow MOMocrats in California got to meet with her in person.)  Here's an excerpt from my blog post after the call:

I was on the conference call on my cell phone parked at my laptop in the dining room.  My husband has been transferring the contents of said laptop to an external hard drive for the last 3 days, so I was grounded, so to speak, unless I disconnected the hard drive and undid all of T's hard work.  I couldn't lock myself in the bedroom away from the chaos created by two small boys.

During the introductions, I accidentally un-muted my cell phone.  Of course, H&H began screaming and running around on cue.  I didn't realize that anyone could hear them until Elizabeth said "Whoever has the kids in the background, don't shut them up!  I might have to bring my own in here too."  Everyone laughed while I was staring at my cell phone in horror and frantically pushing the mute button! 

Of course, I got over my embarrassment immediately.  This was a conference call with mothers.  Elizabeth is a mother too.  She and my fellow mom bloggers certainly weren't going to judge me for showing a bit of humanity.

Elizabeth Edwards helped me to realize that as a mother I have a special point of view, an important one, and that I have an obligation to make my country what I want it to be.  On that call, she said, "We don't get the change we want unless we're willing to work for it." Elizabeth talked about not just making this a better America, but about creating a better world.

Today, Elizabeth Edwards died. And all of us, but particularly those of us here at MOMocrats, have lost a source of hope and inspiration.

She changed me.  I know she changed all of us.  My hope is that Elizabeth, and her children, realized just how much of an impact she had on so many people.  She really did work to create a better world and all of us owe it to her to keep on fighting for our beliefs.

Stephanie Himel-Nelson also blogs as Lawyer Mama and now works to change the world in her own way as a Communications Director for a nonprofit.

Becoming a Real MOMocrat: 2010 Election Night

My husband and I have taken our sons to vote every year since they were born.  It's important to both of us that our boys know and understand that voting isn't just a privilege, but a responsibility of citizenship.  We want them to pay attention to politics and what is happening in their country and seeing us vote was a good way to start out.

Of course, Hollis and Holden are incredibly lucky little boys. There have been no shortage of politicians in their short lives. Hollis still talks about seeing Barack Obama and the time he met Vice President Biden.  With our close proximity to DC, they've visited the White House several times and love to visit the "Capitol City," singing "I'm Just a Bill" from School House Rock all the way.  With the parents they have, it will also be difficult for them to miss the political screaming matches vigorous political disucssions that take place in our home.

But I think we took it to the next level today.

A good friend and I took our 6 year olds to a local watering hole for dinner with the intention of watching the election returns.  They very nicely turned one of the 50 or so TV's to MSNBC for us and we settled in to watch.  Unfortunately, we were getting frustrated with the lack of local coverage of Virginia's 2nd Congressional District race.  We both campaigned for Congressman Glenn Nye and I even appeared in a commercial for him.  We asked the eatery to change another tv to a local station and they said no.  "No more politics."  (Buffalo Wild Wings in Chesapeake, Virginia, I'm talking to you!)

I was pretty floored that a restaurant full of TV's would refuse to have more than one on election coverage on election night.  But maybe that explains so much of what is wrong with our country these days.  Too many people are more interested in catching the ocassional sound bites that actually delving into the issues and analysis for themselves. I guess it's OK to rant about the state of our country, but why bother actually watching to see what happens after the rants?

Anyway, we decided to head out to the Glenn Nye campaign party in Virginia Beach. We figured we were bound to hear more about the returns at HQ and we were right.

So, wearing t-shirts, sweats and jeans, we headed to the election night party with our 6 year old boys. On a school night. We got some strange looks; the "Moms" were in the house.  But the boys had a great time, we talked about the political process and how important it is to be engaged. I'd like to think they also learned a bit about how to be a gracious loser and the wonderfully civil transfer of power that we have in our country and so take for granted.

Despite the unhappy ending to the night for Glenn Nye and so many other Democratic candidates, I'm glad Hollis got to experience election night. In fact, we think we're going to make this a yearly tradition for the boys. Win or lose, sometimes the best thing you can do is stay engaged. It's my job as a mother and a MOMocrat to make sure my children understand that too.

Hollis enjoys his first election night party.

Happy Tax Day!

 No, really. Happy Tax Day!

We at MOMocrats get as annoyed as any normal person by the tedious piles of tax paperwork we have to fill out each year to do our social duty. (I mean, seriously: we're a bunch of writers. We have to fill out the Schedule C.) And of course, there are some government programs we are disappointed to see our tax dollars going toward.

But as patriotic Americans, we're also genuinely proud to know that we help pay for many of the public sector agencies and government programs that make this country a better place to live, and so we're happy, on this tax day, to reflect on all the good the hard earned cash we're parting with can accomplish.

Here are some of the things MOMocrats writers actually like paying taxes for:

Julie: I am happy to pay taxes because I know it helps fund schools and I do believe that solid, well-rounded education is a cornerstone of a great culture.

I am happy to pay taxes because I know it helps fund CHIP, and knowing that kids get needed health care is crucial to me.

Freedom of Speech and Fred Phelps

I fielded a question about Fred Phelps recently on Facebook that led me to write this post.  I've had several questions about the First Amendment lately, so I thought I'd explain a bit more about "free speech" here on MOMocrats.

I'll try to keep this free from legalese, which also means I'm going to condense much of the factual and legal background and eliminate the use of endless citations. Normally, almost everything I write in a legal brief is followed by a citation of law or authority.  This is not a legal brief.

The Question:

On Facebook, my milfam friend Carrie asks:

So the Marine's father who sued Fred Phelps has been ordered to pay Phelps' court costs. Now maybe you know but does the constitution protect people to protest ANYWHERE they want, or just their right to protest?

Background:

Fred Phelps is that fabulous guy from the Westboro Baptist Church who claims to be a "Christian" and travels the country with Hallmark Hall of Fame placards with such lovely quotes as "God Hates Fags," "You're Going to Hell," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and my personal favorite, "Semper fi fags."  Classy guy, I know.

Mr. Phelps and his misguided followers decided to protest, along with their lovely signs, at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.  His family was understandably displeased.  Al Snyder, Matthew's father, sued Westboro Baptist Church, Mr. Phelps and several members of his family/church (the "Defendants") in federal court in Maryland.  He argued that the members of the Westoboro church invaded his privacy and caused intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Mr. Snyder won almost $11 million at trial.  (This was later reduced to $5 million by the district court.)

Phelps appealed and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in September of 2009.  No, Phelps was not represented by the ACLU, but they did file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of Phelps, et al.

The case is in the news more recently because Phelps, et al. petitioned the court for costs and the 4th Circuit ordered Mr. Snyder to pay Phelps about $16,000 to cover the costs of the ongoing litigation. 

The Fourth Circuit summed up the two sides quite nicely in their opinion:

Defendants’ rationale was quite simple. They traveled to Matthew Snyder’s funeral in order to publicize their message of God’s hatred of America for its tolerance of homosexuality. In Plaintiff’s eyes, Defendants turned the funeral for his son into a "media circus for their benefit."

The Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions regarding staying a certain distance from the church.  Mr. Snyder did not see the signs until he later saw a news broadcast with footage of the Phelps family at the Church.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

Let's start with something we should all recognize from the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution.  It states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(The First Amendment also applies at the state and local level through the Fourteenth Amendment, in case you were wondering.)  Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.  It's a balancing act.  Speech that causes physical harm isn't OK.  You also won't be protected by the First Amendment if you decide to say something about an individual that is factually wrong.  (You can't erect a sign in front of your house that says your neighbor is a pedophile unless he actually is.)  However, just because speech is hateful or offensive does not mean that it can be suppressed.  The government can place reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech but the restrictions have to be narrowly tailored and balance the interests, and rights, of everyone involved.

Here, Mr. Snyder's tort awards could only be upheld if the award was consistent with the Defendants' First Amendment guarantees. See Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505, 522 (4th Cir. 1999).  Speech, even if hateful and offensive, can still be protected speech if it isn't physically harmful or disruptive and it doesn't involve false statements about an individual.

(This is a gross oversimplification of the law here, but I'm trying to spare you the minutiae of the law regarding general speech versus speech clearly directed at an individual. Let's just say there was some debate over whether the signs carried by Phelps et al. were general statements of opinion, such as "God hates America," or specific factual statements aimed at the Phelps family such as "You're going to hell.")

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court on two issues:

1. The Fourth Circuit explained that the district court erred in permitting some instructions to the jury that allowed the jury to determine something that is an issue of law, mainly whether or not the Defendants' "speech" (signs, etc...) were entitled to Constitutional protection.  The scope of protection afforded under the First Amendment is a legal question, not a factual one.  Juries only decide issues of fact; courts determine issues of law.
2. The signs carried by the Defendants were entitled to Constitutional protection because they "[did] not assert provable facts about an individual, and they clearly contain[ed] imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric intended to spark debate about issues with which the Defendants [were] concerned."

In other words, because Phelps' signs weren't like the front yard sign about your neighbor's pedophilia, something that can be proved or disproved, they were considered "hyperbolic rhetoric" protected by the First Amendment.

The Fourth Circuit closed with a quote from Judge Hall that I'll share with you:

Judges defending the Constitution "must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply. It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."

(citing Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374, 380 (4th Cir. 1993).). The First Amendment may protect some pretty nasty people and some horribly hateful words, but we have to hold our noses and uphold the Constitution.

It's Not Over

Now, lest you think that this is the end of the matter on this subject, let me assure you it's not. 

Snyder has appealed the Fourth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court and the Court has agreed to hear it.  This generally means the law is not clear, the Circuit Courts of Appeal are not in agreement, or the Supreme Court just thinks it's time to clarify the state of the law. Here, there is no clear split in the case law of the federal circuit courts, but we have to remember that it only takes 4 of the 9 justices to grant a Writ of Certiorari (the petition to the Supreme Court to hear a case).

It could be that the Court wants to clarify the issue I alluded to regarding factual or general speech directed at individuals.  Courts have also tended to allow more restrictions on speech at funerals because the funeral goers are pretty much a "captive audience." The Supreme Court might be ready to expand protections for those who are a "captive audience."  I seriously doubt it though.  Expanding those protections would also expand protections for people arriving at abortion clinics during a protest.  Somehow I can't see the Roberts Court telling abortion protesters they have to back off.

My Two Cents

What about Carrie's question?  Does the Constitution allow people to protest wherever they want?

The answer is no, it doesn't.  Remember, the government can place "reasonable time, place and manner" restrictions on speech.  Many states have passed laws regarding protests at funerals and Congress has placed some restrictions on protests at funerals on federal property.  

In fact, Maryland, where Matthew Snyder's funeral was held, has a restriction on protests at funerals in place.  The Maryland law provides one of the most generous buffer zones in the country, requiring that protesters stay 1000 feet away from the funeral.  Phelps and his followers were complying with local ordinances and state police when they protested at Matthew Snyder's funeral. 

So, as hateful as Mr. Phelps and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are, they do have the right to peaceably assemble and spread their message of hate.  Like the skinheads and the KKK before them, Phelps is engaging in an activity protected by the First Amendment.

We don't have to like it.  In fact, I must add that I wouldn't be at all disappointed if Mr. Phelps was struck by a meteor falling from the sky.  Or if he encountered 3 huge Marines in a dark alley while holding his "Semper fi fags" sign.  (But then I've never pretended to be a Christian, which is more than Mr. Phelps can say.) But the Bill of Rights that allows me to stand outside my Congressman's office with a sign telling him what I think about health care reform, also applies to people like Fred Phelps at public funerals.

We can only hope Phelps understands the significance of the Constitutional protections he invokes to promote his hateful speech; the Constitution that Lance Corporal Snyder and his comrades in arms have sworn to protect and defend with their lives. 

If there is a God, Mr. Phelps, she is watching you.

And now for the Lawyer Mama Disclaimer: If you think I'm offering you legal advice or that this has established an attorney-client relationship, you're an idiot and you shouldn't be reading my blog. If so, slap yourself in the forehead. Right now! Oh, and I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Photo courtesy of the Source 4 Politics blog.

This post appeared in somewhat different form on Stephanie's personal blog, Lawyer Mama.

Voting Against Health Care? Tell us the REAL reason.

Update below

This evening, Congressman Glenn Nye (D-Va), released a statement announcing that he will be voting against the health care bill tomorrow.  I'm incredibly disappointed.  I supported Nye and was looking forward to helping him get reelected this year.

I have spoken with Nye about health care reform and always knew there was a possibility he would vote against it if the legislation didn't help decrease health care costs.  Nye is the Chair of the House Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology and he's pragmatic.  When the recent CBO report on the health care reconciliation package estimated that the legislation would "reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade," I thought we were in the clear and Nye would vote for the bill.  Alas, I was wrong.

The article from my local paper, implies that a major reason Nye is voting against the bill is it's possible affect on the TriCare health plans military families use.

The original version of legislation in the House had specifically exempted TRICARE from being affected. However, when the final bill language was released on Thursday afternoon, it was revealed that neither the Senate bill nor the reconciliation package contained an exemption for TRICARE.

“Our military families need to be able to count on their health care benefits, and I am not willing to risk negative consequences for our military personnel and their families, particularly at a time when our troops are serving overseas in harm’s way,” said Nye.

It seems that Rep. Nye is using the lack of an exemption for TriCare health plans as a major justification for voting against the pending health care legislation.  Regular readers of MOMocrats know that I am part of a military family and a staunch advocate for military families.  Glenn Nye has been a wonderful advocate for military families as well, so this reason for voting against the bill has a ring of truth.

There's just one problem.  At 2:52 this afternoon, the House approved legislation exempting TriCare.  It's called the TriCare Affirmation Act and Glenn Nye voted for it.

Widows of Our Veterans Will Stand Beside Glenn Beck

A few days ago, fellow MOMocrat Jaelithe forwarded all of us a story about Glenn Beck's involvement in fundraising for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.  While at first glance this sounds pretty benign, it turns out that SOWF is using tax free donations to the organization to pay for Glenn Beck's latest rally at the Lincoln Memorial. 

As someone who is heavily involved in another non-profit organization dedicated to helping military families, I was absolutely floored that SOWF would align itself with such a polarizing individual and possibly put its non-profit status at risk by participating in a rally with Glenn Beck. 

Make no mistake, the event is billed as a rally.  And while the donation page for the event touts its compliance with IRS regulations and claims to be non-partisan, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that politics will not be a part of any "rally" with Glenn Beck.  This is, after all, the man who seems to have dedicated his professional life to stamping out pretty much everything Democrats and progressives stand for.

I was also disturbed because my husband, who recently retired from the Navy after 20 years of active duty and reserve service, works for a small government contractor that donates to SOWF.  My husband and I are both horrified that he may be indirectly working to benefit a charity that aligns itself with the venom-spewing Glenn Beck; a charity that apparently has no problem alienating some of the very people it purports to support, if they happen to be progressives.

While researching this very disturbing topic, I discovered that a friend and fellow military spouse was already all over Glenn Beck and his shady fundraising activities.   So without further ado, please welcome guest poster Angela Jean. 

I am a military wife.

Each of you will already have a picture in your mind of a woman holding small children while embracing her husband as he heads out to war.

She will be holding back tears and one of the children will be clutching her leg, while holding an American Flag.

In reality, we know that the pictures are more diverse, that simplicity can’t define a military wife. But in our minds, the image is imprinted along side these words:

Pride, Honor, Sacrifice, Dedication, and Strength

Now, imagine those words being used to describe Glenn Beck.

How do you feel? Disgusted? Incredulous? Angry?

Maybe you understand how I feel.

Glenn Beck, standing beside widows of Special Operations Troops and Veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will stand at the base of Abraham Lincoln's feet to address the American people on August 28, 2010, the anniversary of Dr. King's I have a dream... speech. He calls the event “Restoring Honor.”

Standing before him will be a sea of Americans. They will all have something in common. All will be conservative to the core and will have traveled side by side with other Tea Partiers and 9/12ers, Oath Keepers and Secessionists. All will claim to be non-partisan, though they lie on the same end of the political spectrum.

Beck has a plan. It is actually called "The Plan," and it will address the course of our nation for the next 100 years. Like other malcontents before him, he believes he knows what is best for his own nation.

Bob McDonnell's Republican Response to the SOTU: A Military Misstep

Last night, the MOMocrats hosted a live blog of the State of the Union address and the Republican response.  It was an inspiring speech by Obama and, I think, one of his best.  The Republican response, however, had me out of my seat hollering at the TV, and not in a good way.

The State of the Union is, I think, a marvelous example of how inspiring our political system can be.  I never fail to be moved when I hear the Congressional Cryer yell, "Madame (or Mister) Speaker, the President of the United States!"  It doesn't matter whether the President in question is a Republican or a Democrat; it's always a thrilling experience.  The State of the Union is required by Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...." Since 1790, the State of the Union has been delivered approximately every 12 months.

All members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, are present, as are some of the Supreme Court justices, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's Cabinet, with the exception of the designated survivor. (As an interesting side note, the designated survivor for last night's address was Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.)  While Congress invites the President to attend, it is typical for the White House to invite guests as well.  Last night, several military service and family members were in the box with Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden. 

There are many perks to being President, one of which is having the military and military backdrops at your command.  This use of the military and its service members as props became much more common during the term of George W. Bush. The most prominent being Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier and then speaking with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background.

Make no mistake, the State of the Union, while definitely a political event, is not a partisan political event.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff and invited military guests attend as part of their service to our country.  The rebuttal to the State of the Union is another animal entirely.  It is completely partisan, begun only in 1966 and traditionally given by a representative from the party not currently occupying the White House.

Virginia Governor (of only 11 days) Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response from the Virginia capitol building in Richmond.  McDonnell had an audience of mostly regular people. (Oh, and some Virginia Republican legislators.  Bob apparently failed to invite any Democrats until about 2 hours before the drop dead RSVP time on the afternoon of the speech.)  There were even people behind McDonnell on risers as if it were a political rally.  The setting was a smart move on the part of Republican strategists.  It gave McDonnell and audience responding to him, giving the speech a much more "official" and emotional appeal than canned studio speeches given in the past.

The content of McDonnell's speech was not surprising.  It was rendered somewhat irrelevant by most of President Obama's speech, but that tends to be par for the course when you're responding to a speech you haven't yet read or viewed, with pre-loaded teleprompters.  Plus, I read the rebuttal before the State of the Union began, so I knew what was coming. No, what surprised me was the individual sitting behind McDonnell and to our left.

Do you see that guy in Army green behind McDonnell?  The individual in question is Staff Sergeant Robert Tenpenny, who apparently served with McDonnell's daughter in Iraq.

That's a problem.

MOMocrats Live Blog the State of the Union

Join the MOMocrats here tonight for a live blog of the President's State of the Union address. The fun will begin at 8pm EST and continue through Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response for the Republican party.

Update: Full text of the State of the Union address (as released to the press) and the rebuttal, below.

PunditMom: One Step Closer to World Domination

Have you checked out Rick Sanchez's lists on Twitter?  CNN is calling it "Rick's List" now.  Well, Joanne Bamberger, our own Pundit Mom, made Rick's Afghanistan list.

And there she is, catty corner from John McCain, in the top row, bright, smiling and looking like the savvy political blogger she is.  Go, Joanne!  First, CNN, next the world.