ProgressOhio

I received a superb email today from Planned Parenthood, regarding the anti-choice TV ad that is to air during this year's Super Bowl. The message from Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards got to the heart of what it means to be pro-choice (see below).

I've signed on to the Planned Parenthood statement and I hope other members of the Progress Ohio community will too. Locally, click here to check out the advocacy campaigns led by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio Action Network.

Dear Lorraine,

By now you've most likely heard all about it — the anti-choice group Focus on the Family is spending millions to run an ad during the Super Bowl featuring football player Tim Tebow and his mom talking about a deeply personal medical decision she made years ago. She decided to continue her pregnancy against medical advice, due to what had been diagnosed as a high-risk pregnancy.

People have been asking us at Planned Parenthood what we think about the ad and Mrs. Tebow's decision. It's simple. Planned Parenthood respects the right of every woman to make important medical decisions for herself.

Mrs. Tebow weighed medical and moral considerations and decided what was right for her. She made her choice in private, and without government interference. That's exactly what we want every woman to be able to do.

The truth is, the Tebows' experience is completely consistent with what Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses have learned from the millions of women they've served over nearly a century. Women take decisions about their health very seriously. They consider their doctors' advice, they talk with their loved ones and people they trust, including religious leaders, and they carefully weigh all considerations before making the best decision for themselves and their families.

That's the way it should be. And that should be our shared goal — on Super Bowl Sunday and every day.

I hope you'll show your support for ensuring that every woman makes her own personal medical decisions by adding your name to a brief statement from Planned Parenthood.

Thank you for joining with us today.

Sincerely,
 
Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Where in the Constitution does it say that religious extremists get to hold our rights hostage? Oh yeah, the Constitution specifically tried to protect us from this:

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) coordinated opposition to the Senate health bill’s abortion compromise this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

Stupak, in an interview with POLITICO, called the Senate bill’s abortion position "unacceptable" – but disavowed his staffer’s collaboration with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I never talked to McConnell about the health care bill,” said Stupak, adding that “I did not authorize the email [which] “was sent without my knowledge.”

Stupak said that he has discussed the Senate’s abortion position with Democratic senators Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert Casey (Penn.), who both hold conservative views on abortion.

Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate plan, despite those conversations and intense pressure from the White House, suggests that reconciling it with the House bill may prove politically challenging.

The Senate language represented “a dramatic shift in federal policy,” said Stupak, adding that he remained hopeful that the differences could be resolved in conference. Nelson, though, said earlier Saturday that his support for the legislation was contingent on the abortion compromise remaining in it.

The emails suggest a previously unseen degree of coordination between the offices of Stupak and McConnell. Stupak is the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats who say they’ll oppose the sweeping legislation if it uses government money to pay for abortion, while McConnell is firmly committed to killing the legislation.

The fact that their offices have made common cause against the Senate's health care compromise will likely further infuriate Stupak’s Democratic colleagues in the House, and demonstrates his willingness to stop any bill that doesn’t pass his test.

“Guys - when will we see your letters of opposition to the managers amendment?? We need them ASAP!” wrote Erika Smith, the Stupak aide, at 9:23 this morning, less than an hour after the amendment had become available.

The email’s recipients included key staffers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, as well as Autumn Fredericks Christensen, aide to top pro-life Republican Chris Smith, and Lanier Swann, a McConnell aide.

A minute after Smith sent out her plea, Lanier reiterated it to the list.

“Nelson is telling people in the building he will vote yes. If there was any time to weigh in against this deal —- THIS IS IT,” Swann wrote at 9:24 a.m.

Abortion Takes Center Stage (Again)

A month ago, House leaders were forced into a corner by conservative Democrats insisting that health reform legislation include language prohibiting abortion coverage on the exchange. This week, the scenario is threatening to play out again in the upper chamber, where Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will introduce an amendment today mirroring the House provision.

The amendment isn’t likely to get the 60 votes needed to pass, but its failure might not be the end of the debate. That’s because Democrats will likely need Nelson’s vote to pass the final bill sometime down the road, and the Nebraska moderate has threatened to withhold that support if strong anti-abortion language isn’t attached.

For supporters of abortion rights, the sticking point has been infuriating, if only because the Senate bill already retains the decades-old ban on federal funding of abortions. Indeed, under the legislation, women seeking abortion coverage would have to pay for it from their own pockets. The Nelson amendment — like the House provision — takes the prohibition a giant step further, effectively telling women that they can’t buy coverage for a legal medical procedure with their own money.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) was quick to point that out this morning in an interview with CBS:

Let’s be clear, the bill as it stands does continue current law, which says no federal money can be used to fund abortions. [...]

What this amendment does is goes further, it actually says you can’t use private money in a private market for any kind of health services related to abortions. And frankly, I think that goes too far.

If abstinence-only education is the cure for teen pregnancy and STDs -- a dinosaur of an idea many Ohio legislators seem to cling to -- then surely fasting is the antidote to the childhood obesity problem.

The latest manifestation of this kind of science-avoidance, platitude-laden ProlifeSpeak happened Nov. 18 at the Statehouse where the first-ever proponent testimony for the Ohio Prevention First Act (HB 293) took place.

Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio reports:

During the Ohio Prevention First Act hearing, Coalition for Family Health convener Judi Wolf presented testimony on the need for comprehensive sex education.  Her testimony was followed by the claim from Representative Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon) that pro-prevention advocates are encouraging young people to be anything but abstinent and will contribute to the increase in sexually transmitted diseases.  He accused advocates of comprehensive sex education of having an agenda that puts young people at a greater level of risk.

Ms. Wolf replied that medically-accurate, age-appropriate sex education will give young people the understanding of how to prevent contracting STDs.  She informed the committee that students do not receive adequate education from abstinence-only programs.

Rep. Wachtmann's reply, "You're wrong!"

Really, Representative Wachtmann?

Ironically, two days before the hearing, the Centers for Disease Control released their study of STD rates in America. Their finding: STD rates increased significantly in 2008.  This increase occurred at a time when the federal government gave millions of dollars to states, including Ohio, to provide abstinence-only programming.

Dr. John Douglas, head of the CDC's Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, said to avoid STDs, teens can delay the beginning of sexual activity, people can limit the number of sexual partners and use condoms. "Condoms have risk-reduction value for every sexually transmitted condition," Douglas said.

Either the Centers for Disease Control has an agenda set on harming teens or maybe it's Representative Wachtmann who is wrong. ***

Withholding information from young people is not healthy. (And as an advocate of concealed-carry weapons, Rep. Wachtmann should be respectful of the rights of individual citizens.) However, if the representative from Napoleon really believes you can keep teens from having sex by telling them not to, then he should be advocating fasting and the cancellation of school lunch programs for obese children throughout Ohio.

Don't let the anti-choice Stupak amendment become law!

Sign the petition

Watch It:

Chris Matthews corners Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin, who has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., from receiving Holy Communion due to his views on abortion.

In the interview Mathews exposes the moral hypocrisy at the heart of the Church's abortion position: If it's really and truly murder, you're talking about prosecuting mothers, sisters, lovers and friends for having them. Mathews is quite aggressive with the bishop, demanding to know exactly what legal penalties he thinks should be legislated.

Watch It:

A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services adds some expert imprimatur to what many progressives have been saying all along: The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope.

The report concludes that "the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

Although the Amendment appears to address only plans that receive federal exchange subsidies, even health plans sold to private, large employers that purchase outside the exchange ultimately are likely to be affected, the analysis concludes. These findings are based on an assessment of the extent to which the health benefits services industry adjusts its products over time to conform to the regulatory environment in which it operates.

"Under national health reform, millions of women, including women who are covered by small employers (as employees or spouses or dependents of employees) as well as those who are currently uninsured, will receive their coverage through health insurance exchanges. By barring the sale of subsidized products that cover medically indicated abortions as part of a broader package of benefits, the Amendment can be expected to cause the industry to re-design its offerings in order to avoid violating the legal restrictions on abortion applicable to exchange products that receive subsidies," said Professor Sara Rosenbaum, JD, lead author and Chair of the Department of Health Policy. "The Amendment also can be expected to chill efforts to develop supplemental coverage for medically indicated abortions, because it appears to prohibit the joint administration of both a basic and supplemental product," Rosenbaum noted.

Additionally, "based on past experiences with claim administration decisions involving treatment exclusions," the analysts conclude that insurers are likely to interpret the exclusion broadly, and exclude not just elective abortions, but also medically indicated abortion and "treatments for serious illnesses, injuries, and medical conditions that include an abortion undertaken for health reasons." Insurance administrators, they find, are likely to err on the side of coverage denail in order to avoid sanctions.

The report also includes findings on the "rider" provision of the legislation, the provision that would supposedly allow women to purchase supplemental abortion coverage. From the full analysis [pdf].

The provisions of the legislation, as well as the technical challenges that arise in benefits administration, militate against the creation of a supplemental coverage market. Thus, if the result of national health reform is to move millions of women into a market that operates subject to the exclusion, then it is fair to predict that the entire market for coverage ultimately will be affected as a product tipping point is reached and virtually no supplemental market appears." (p. 14)

Orrin Hatch plans to introduce the Stupak amendment in the Senate.

This amendment isn't just a reiteration of Hyde, it's a direct attack on a legal, medical procedure, not to mention the women who might need it.

• A majority of private health insurance plans now provide coverage for abortion services.
• One in 3 women will have an abortion within her lifetime.
• Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures. 

Under the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban, which passed the House in the health reform bill, women would not be covered for abortions in the new health insurance market despite spending their own money to purchase coverage.

And women who opt into the more affordable public option would be banned from getting coverage for abortion services, even if their own money was used to buy insurance.

With Stupak-Pitts, it would be much harder—and perhaps impossible—for private insurance companies to offer abortion coverage for plans under health reform

The same politicians who oppose healthcare reform because it is “big government” now want to dictate the terms of women’s healthcare coverage.  

Tell Congress: Don’t ban healthcare coverage for abortion that millions of women already have

http://www.ontheissues.org/oh/rob_portman.htm

Small sample below, the rancor of the right pushes Ohio to elect extreme right idealogues.

Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Findlaw

How the Stupak Amendment Violates The Establishment Clause

First, the Amendment violates the Constitution's separation of church and state. The anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment's favor have been the Catholic Bishops. This is a brazen and frank attempt to impose a minority's religious worldview on the entirety of American healthcare. (A majority of Americans have favored a woman's right to choose for many years.) There is no secular purpose for the extension of the Hyde Amendment to all private health insurance plans as well. Accordingly, whatever secular purpose might be devised by those trying to defend the Stupak Amendment in court would be a sham purpose, intended to cover the frankly religious pandering the Amendment represents.

One of the clearest Establishment Clause principles is that the government may not impose a certain group's religious beliefs on those with different beliefs. The principle was articulated by the framer of the First Amendment, James Madison, in his important work "Memorial and Remonstrance," and it has been a mainstay of Establishment Clause doctrine. The Stupak Amendment violates this principle by imposing on the entire country a religious worldview that millions of Americans do not share. Moreover, this imposition of religious belief in the private sphere is in the context of healthcare, which every American needs.

How the Stupak Amendment Violates The Equal Protection Clause

The Stupak Amendment also discriminates on the basis of gender. Only women have to deal with the difficult question of abortion. Conspicuously missing are parallel exemptions barring funding for Viagra, or for, say, prostate surgery treatments, which can leave a man sterile and therefore operate as a birth control measure.

In addition, the exemption (the purpose of which is, again, obviously a religious one) does not serve any medical end, when serving medical ends is presumably the overall and most important purpose of the Health Care Reform Act. If health is truly to be served, then refusing to permit women to obtain even private health insurance that covers unplanned pregnancies, or pregnancies involving fetuses with fatal abnormalities, is not just discriminatory, but outright irrational.

How the Stupak Amendment Violates Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights

Finally, the Stupak Amendment attempts to curtail -- across the board – the privacy rights that Roe v. Wade and its progeny secured for women. While other restrictions on abortion (including the Hyde Amendment) have been upheld by the Supreme Court, this is a far more expansive and repressive move against women, and it surely institutes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion in consultation with her doctor. Although it is not clear precisely where the boundary line lies, it is very clear that this move transgresses any reasonable interpretation of the line the Court's cases draw.

The Stupak Amendment is also a harbinger of future constitutional violations, for it erects a slippery slope of top-down control of the spectrum of healthcare options. Abortion is surely just the first foray of the religious lobbyists' battle to take away Americans' right to choose among the full panoply of healthcare options. Attempts to control and halt the funding of both emergency and ordinary contraception surely are not far behind, for such attempts are part of the very same politico-religious platform that includes the Stupak Amendment. There is no more obvious violation of Griswold v. Connecticut – which established that laws prohibiting contraception are unconstitutional under the Court's right-of-privacy doctrine -- than for the federal government to reduce the affordability and, therefore, the availability of contraceptives for all Americans.

Conservative Senators who are pandering to religious interests (and/or simply imposing their own religious beliefs on the country) have been quoted recently as saying that they will not permit the Health Care Reform Act to backtrack on abortion issues. But backtracking is a misleading description of what the religious lobbyists are seeking. The truth, instead, is that the Stupak Amendment is a far reach beyond the already repressive Hyde Amendment, and that the advent of the federalization of healthcare is giving anti-abortion religious believers a one-stop lobbying opportunity on an issue that they were previously having to address on a state-by-state basis.

In sum, if the millions of Americans who believe in choice do not act quickly and in a concerted fashion, then we will have a historic rollback of women's liberties. That would be a true disaster, for not only is the Stupak Amendment repressive and regressive, but it also violates constitutional rights.

I was browsing the Half Price Books local interest section yesterday and found The Worlds of Ohio Women, copyright 1977, for $4. An essay by Mary Jo Ginty of Cleveland Women Together caught my attention:

"The development and widespread distribution of highly effective methods of contraception and the emergence of an overwhelming national concensus in favor of birth planning options among Americans in all social, economic, and ethnic groups, is a major achievement. The legalization of the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, simpler less traumatic methods of sterilization, and a federal program to equalize access to these services, have all created the opportunity to now move forward with decisiveness to reduce to a minimum the incidents of unintended pregnancies and births."

Well, you've come a long way from asserting yourself in cigarette ads, baby. But as far as making strides in reproductive health, Ohio women are dismal failures.

Ms. Ginty's optimistic plan to "move forward with decisiveness" to reduce unintended pregnancies has been dismissed repeatedly by our legislators. The Ohio Prevention First Act, introduced three times and stalemated in the General Assembly, seeks to accomplish that very goal.

Here we are 32 years later. Our Ohio and congressional leaders continue to pander to pro-life extremists for their own political gain. I wonder how many of them have ever visited an abortion clinic or could objectively examine the facts.

In the current health care debate, it's clear that our reproductive rights are being used as an easily-sacrificed bargaining chip. Women are not just failing to make progress, our rights are being squelched.

They have no women members -- a serious empathy vacuum. They do not pay taxes like corporations do. They have no medical expertise. They have extremist views on contraceptive use.

So why are we allowing this group to hijack democratic health care reform?

Because when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops talks, Congress listens -- to the detriment of women's reproductive rights.

Apparently separation of church and state principles don't apply when you're talking about women.

Along with Planned Parenthood, I'm disappointed with the House's cave-in to pro-life extremists who seek to chip away at abortion rights established 36 years ago.

Over a century ago, proto-feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton recognized how religion keeps women down:

"When women understand that governments and religions are human inventions; that bibles, prayer-books, catechisms and encyclical letters are emanations from the brains of men, they will no longer be oppressed by the injunctions that come to them with the divine authority of 'Thus sayeth the Lord.'"

As I see it, everyone can live by his or her convictions on this contentious issue. It's easy -- If you're against abortion, don't have one.

If you own a uterus or love someone who does, here's why you should care about separation of church and state: Catholic bishops are doing all they can to force anti-choice amendments into the health care reform bill -- and they're instructing their congregations to help them.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes: "A few days ago, it felt as if we were holding strong in achieving health care reform that would finally ensure comprehensive coverage for everyone. As the legislation began moving closer to a vote, I knew that our job holding on to our reproductive health victories would be hard ... and then I received a copy of a memo that the Catholic bishops sent to their congregations.

 "As I write this, the bishops have asked all the Catholics in the country to contact their legislators, asking them to alter current health care legislation to include anti-choice amendments. The bishops have inserted letters into church bulletins and asked priests to include their call to action in their sermons — and even in their prayers — during Sunday services.

 "It's clear that every group opposed to a woman's right to choose is pulling out all the stops this week to bring all the progress we've made on health care reform to a grinding halt. The results could be devastating to everyone who desperately needs health care, including the women, men, and teens that Planned Parenthood serves....

"One thing I know for sure — the bishops don't speak for all Catholics. From one Catholic Planned Parenthood supporter:

What bothers me most is this: Millions of people are uninsured and hundreds of thousands die every year as a result. And, to see my church sacrifice health care reform for the sake of this one issue is just going too far. They don't represent me, and they don't represent my beliefs. I'm speaking out, and I'm asking my Catholic friends and family to do the same.

Planned Parenthood urges us to stand up for women's health and tell our senators and representatives to reject this dangerous effort from Catholic bishops.

It's bad enough that Catholic hospitals deny clients basic contraceptives. Now these control freaks want to upend all women's health care.

This is outrageous, grossly undemocratic interference with deeply personal choices.

With two-thirds of the Supreme Court espousing Catholic bias and a burgeoning Catholic immigrant population, women's fundamental health care rights are being diminished and disregarded.

Personally, I think a group of celibate religious men is clueless as to the family planning needs of American women and has nothing worthwhile to offer in the current health care debate. Catholic views on birth control are radical and far from the American mainstream.

On a broader level, this is why separation of church and state matters -- why it is a big deal when a public school teacher insists on keeping a bible on his desk or a menorah is dispayed at Christmastime in a public square. Except in this case, it REALLY matters.

If we let religious leaders hijack health care access and deny reproductive rights to individuals, we are no better than oppressive Middle East theocratic nations.

Fight back for health care democracy!

Many people think separation of church and state issues are petty. It brings to mind uprooted nativity scenes in town squares, nutty Zoroastrians, Bible-toting public school teachers and seemingly harmless public prayer sessions.

So what's wrong with a blithely Judeo-Christian government?

Plenty.

If you happen to be a person who has never worried about getting pregnant, separation of church and state issues may never concern you. However, if you are a woman seeking emergency contraception from a holier-than-thou pharmacist you might feel differently.

In the highly charged politics of reproductive rights, religion usually trumps individual rights.

As Sandhya Bathija points out in Whose Conscious Counts?  in the Americans United for Separation of Church and State newsletter, this kind of religious favoritism can logically be applied to these situtations:

• a police officer could refuse to protect a medical clinic because it conflicts with his religious beliefs;

• a nurse at a public hospital would be free to lecture an AIDS patient and his partner that God “doesn’t like the homosexual lifestyle” and they must pray for salvation;

• a city bus driver could decline to drive a bus that displays an atheist advertisement because it offends her as an evangelical Christian;

• an on-staff counselor can refuse to counsel unmarried or gay and lesbian employees on relationship issues.

Interesting article Prayer policy divides Shelby by Mary Beth Lane in the Dispatch today. Is it just me, or is anyone else disturbed by this?

"The Columbus City Council rotates opening prayers between two Catholic priests, Monsignor John Cody and the Rev. Michael Watson. Their prayers are nondenominational, generally asking for council members to be given wisdom and guidance, spokesman John Ivanic said.

"On occasion, he added, Watson ends a prayer by asking for help for the Buckeyes, the Bengals and the Browns."

Obvious question aside -- Whose side is God on when the Bengals play the Browns? -- these super-paternalistic, anti-choice leaders are making a mockery of the prayer itself.

I don't think this undemocratic expression of religion through government entities is right. It's not petty, and we shouldn't be afraid to criticize our leadership about it.

“Do You Think That There Will Be Human Beings On Planet Earth A Million Years From Now?”

Scientists say that the Planet Earth has 2.3 billion years of Life left before the Sun explodes into the Red Giant phase of a Supernova and annihilates both itself and Planet Earth in the process. To keep the astronomical numbers in a graspable format, let us phrase the question as: “Do you think that there will be human beings on Planet Earth a million years from now?”

There were human beings here a million years ago, (in various stages of development), but the future? In order to reach that future date, everything will have to become integrated into a sustainable life system including human beings. Scientists that are now working on sustainable life systems, to counteract global warming, are considered forward looking if they are projecting two to five hundred years into the future. Not quite enough!

Considering the horrifying waste of resources that has been going on, especially since the Industrial Revolution began, has anyone begun to comprehend the problems facing the sustainability of the human race itself? What resources will people a million years from now possibly have? Do I need to point out that some resources are already in short supply?

The possibility that 6.7 billion human beings, (the present population), could survive, much less thrive for a million years, on Planet Earth, is nil. Some population specialists have been discussing the “Zero Population Growth” movement as a source of hope. Fringe elements (known as “Realists”) have discussed bringing the numbers of the human population below a billion for the entire planet, but no one has brought this question before the public to begin a dialogue. What would be a viable population number for the human race matched to the sustainable resources on this finite planet until we have the capability to colonize other planets in the Universe? Happy Earth Day!

Tamara Kunko, LSW

On September 29, 2009 Senator Teresa Fedor and Representative Tyrone Yates came together in the Ladies' Gallery of the Ohio Statehouse to formally introduce the Ohio Prevention First Act..

Senator Fedor's statement on Senate Bill 176.

Watch It:

The Ohio Prevention First Act is a comprehensive bill that would increase access to family planning and comprehensive sex education in Ohio.  

The provisions of the bill include:

• Forbid a health insurance company from limiting or excluding coverage for FDA-approved prescription contraception if the policy covers other prescription drugs or devices.
• Require sex education classes to provide students with medically accurate information about abstinence, contraception and condom use as ways to prevent unintended pregnancy and STD's including HIV/AIDS.
• Create a teen pregnancy prevention state task force that would recommend medically accurate and scientifically proven effective programs for reducing Ohio's teen pregnancy rate.
• Require a pharmacy to dispense any prescribed drug, devise, or over-the-counter medication in stock without delay, consistent with the normal time frame.
• Ensure that sexual assault victims have access to emergency contraception and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases in all hospital emergency rooms.
• Require the Department of Health to create and make available on their website, materials to educate medical professionals and the general public about emergency contraception.

So much kooky stuff has been said about abortion by self-righteous humans who have never given birth -- it makes me angry. So backhanded is the rhetoric and so complex the health care debate, it's hard to get a handle on it. But I'll try.

First off, the following statements are false according to President Obama and Planned Parenthood, and utter BS according to me:

A public plan would be "forcing American citizens to directly subsidize abortion-on-demand with their tax dollars."
- Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) in a National Review Op-Ed

"They won’t pay for my surgery, but we’re forced to pay for abortions."
- Family Research Council TV advertisement

"Make no mistake about it - abortion will be funded by the government through the new healthcare plan."
- Ohio Right to Life in an email to supporters

-Sigh-  Beware of leading phrases like "abortion on demand." Do you know anyone who has demanded an abortion? No? I don't think I've ever known anyone who has even wanted an abortion, much less demanded one. I mean, get real. There are circumstances (including rape, maternal illness and genetic disease) where a woman and her family might decided that abortion is the right decision, but to characterize this as "abortion on demand" is highly uncompassionate.

What about naturally occurring abortions (i.e., miscarriages)? Is this health care excluded from the national insurance program proposals? How can the government tell the difference between induced abortions and those naturally occurring? Who will take responsibility for DIY abortions? A slippery slope, for sure.

How can you morally justify denying any kind of government support for millions of live births on the pretext of not-one-penny-for-public funding for abortions? Give me an f-in break, man.

The current scare-tactic health care debate regarding abortion could not be any more removed from the actual concerns of a frightened, pregnant 16-year-old.  You old white guys need to get some empathy.

After a week of lies engulfing the conversation on health insurance reform, the tide is clearly turning.

Today at a townhall meeting, President Obama laid out the case for insurance reform in three sentences:

If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options, once we pass reform.

If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company, or a government bureaucrat, gets between you and the care that you need.

And we will do this without adding to our deficit over the next decade, largely by cutting out the waste and insurance company giveaways in Medicare that aren't making any of our seniors healthier.

Those basic principles of health insurance reform are widely supported by everyone who's not an insurance company executive. So what we've been subjected to the last few weeks are increasingly desperate and bizarre lies that are centered on obscuring the real issue - increasing access to reliable, affordable health care.

Planned Parenthood hit the streets of Columbus today, helping to raise awareness about the need for health insurance reform. You can see more photos from the event here.