Never forget: Krugman took tens if not hundreds of thousands from Enron. His excuse was that he got it for nuthin'.

Just saying.

Amy, without getting into the religion issue, I'd like to point out that numerous Democrats - including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - voted for the "partial-birth" abortion ban, and I seriously doubt they did so thinking that their voters would disagree with them, but this was a matter of conscience that was worth them potentially not regaining control of the House and the Senate. I think it's an better jumping-off point for a dissection of Americans' rather schizophrenic views of the abortion issue myself, but YMMV.

Never forget: Krugman took tens if not hundreds of thousands from Enron

As I said about everybody selling out...

My favorite Watergate cartoon had Nixon in two panels: In the first, his gentle finger points Heavenward as he quotes scripture: "Let he who's without sin cast the first stone." In the second, his arms cover his face from a storm of flying granite.

Did you get any Enron money? Me neither.

I only sell out to my dog. And even then, in a most limited way.

"Think about the reality of such a culture. Pregnant women who rationally desired to abort--whether because of accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, or danger to their lives--would be forced to attempt dangerous, 'back-alley' abortions, the kind that crippled or killed untold numbers of women before Roe v. Wade."

What is it about "rationality" that it appears only after such pregnancies?

I don't think it's fair to lump "accidental" pregnancy in with the other factors.

I don't quite "get it" about late-term abortions. Can someone tell me why it would take you eight months and 29 days to decide, "Unh - uh."?

Please remember, if you reply, that I am sure that I don't want to make someone a parent who doesn't want to be. We have enough bad parents as it is.

Who are you kidding? She plays you like a fiddle.

"Partial-birth abortion," or to be medically fucking accurate, dilation and extraction, is very very rarely used for abortive purposes. I couldn't waddle my 6 or 7 month pregnant ass into a clinic and get an abortion, and there are good reasons for that. What it IS used for, is removing a dead or irreparably defected fetus from a woman, so that she doesn't develop a massive infection or go through the physical danger of spontaneously aborting the fetus, a messy and often incomplete process. The Court completely missed the point.
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp
This isn't an abortion issue. This is about arbitrarily removing a woman's ability to have access to a medically necessary procedure, at the expense of endangering her life. Of course, if you don't want to have kids, you could always get sterilized...oh wait, I tried that, and got told to come back when I'm 30. Guess I really don't have any physical autonomy, do I?

Regarding sterilization, the same thing happened to me, amh. Of course, I'm a pushy broad, but I also discovered that it can have nasty side effects -- premature menopause, loss of sexual desire, and other fun.

> sellouts to anything but primitive
> religious belief.

God, people are so fucking snarky. Amy, what's a MODERN religious belief? Do you like those any better? So why the loose language?

> The potential millions who could
> be cured by treatments derived
> from the promising field of
> embryonic stem-cell research
> would instead suffer and die.

Does anyone really contend that stem-cell research has been derailed? Does anyone want *any* kind of research to continue without adjustment to popular morality? Such metrics aren't always to our tastes... Is this a surprise to anyone?

> Guess I really don't have any
> physical autonomy, do I?

What does that sarcasm do? Want some back? Yes, amh, you're one of the most oppressed women who's ever lived. You're a slave in chains.

Religious people aren't going anywhere. They're here they're queer etc. Time to deal... If that's what you're here for. But it feels like other energies are being burned. Anytime someone harps about someone else's "agenda", it start to sound like sports radio, where you're expected to pick a team, just because. And to obsess about their religion as the source of your disagreement recalls that wonderful aphorism (author forgotten): "Atheists are a bore... All they ever want to talk about is God."

Also, sympathize with docs who don't want to face the legal and medical consequences of sterilizing a patient who might change her mind.

I got my V at 30 (childless) by looking the urologist in the eye during the consult... It was a five-minute conversation.

I was determined to get it, then the Kaiser gyno was a little too eager to operate on me, and after I checked out the risks, I decided not to go through with it. These days, there's a new (and, I think, better) procedure -- a cauterization form of sterilization -- to prevent this sort of thing (link via LittleShiva.com):

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k196/endlesstirade/clowncar.jpg

I can accept Krugman's thesis that the Bush administration absolutely intended to appoint Christian conservatives to important positions with the goal of diminishing the separation of church and state and implementing policies they view as "godly." For better or worse (mostly the latter), this is what you get when people vote for man who believes that elections are the same as being chosen by god. Especially the second time around, this should have surprised no one. "THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!"

Unfortunately, when a de facto religious litmus test is applied to job candidates, a lot of skilled people are eliminated, and things get (more) screwed up. This is where we are today, and it doesn't bode well for the Christianist candidates (e.g., Romney, Brownback, Huckabee) in the next presidential election. In the long run, there is still a problem (as I noted yesterday, the religious right is organized, motivated, and working very hard to bring up their children explicitly to be "solidiers" in the battle for a Christian America), but I'd be surprised to find that the next administration isn't of a more secular and meritocratic nature. And who knows - if they do a good job, perhaps people will let 'em stick around.

That photo is funny. Who'd lay odds on a bet that they attend church every Sunday, rain or shine?

>Also, sympathize with docs who don't want to face >the legal and medical consequences of sterilizing >a patient who might change her mind.

Don't know if that was sarcastic but if not then it's an irrelevant point, Crid. I know for a fact that when a woman wants to be sterilized she will most likely be told to come back in 15 years (or whatever...). That she will "change her mind."

Maybe some women are able to get sterilized and then they change their minds five years later. Well, that really f*ing sucks - b/c the desire to have a child (I wouldn't know but I've seen many people go through fertility treatments) is so strong that if you're struck by the baby-bug but can't conceive b/c of something you did intentionally I can foresee how that would be a major kick-yourself ordeal.

But guess what - it was her decision to make. She made the choice to be sterilized, not the doctor. You don't just march into an office and have an invasive procedure performed, and I'm talking about all procedures. There are consultations and signings of forms confirming that you fully understand what will be happening, the outcome and possible side affects. This should legally protect the doctors - and if it doesn't then we need to seriously examine our system of contract law - consenting to a procedure is just that; it's consent! In other words, it's YOUR choice.

So sure, a doctor might think in his head "shit, she is gonna regret this in 10 years." And the doc can emphasize that it's irreversible and that X% of women who get the procedure later come back and try to have it "fixed." The doctor can say all that until s/he turns blue in the face - but ultimately women shouldn't be refused the procedure b/c the doctor believes the woman will regret it. And yet, women are refused.

In that regard, yes, women do not have full autonomy over decisions concerning their bodies. And as far as I'm concerned preventing pregnancy isn't wrong no matter what my CCD teacher told me when I was younger.

Exactly. Religious people suffer for the specificity of their view of the world. Bush has been as hurt by his obsession with loyalty as he's been helped by it.

But I don't think voters don't consider religious belief to be a binary property in their candidates, so that now they'll go the other way. They've never gone the other way! It's a religious country. No man worked a pew like Cllinton

P.S The photo - they were on a TLC t.v show or something... seem like a really nice family. Their household is shockingly calm and under control.

But I'd have to be fucked in the head before getting knocked up 13 times.

AND! - the woman has a fantastic body, go figure!

Europeans are way ahead of us in the way they've dropped religion. We're the most powerful nation of primitive thinkers on the planet. I wonder how long it will take for people in our country -- at least, for a wide swath of people -- to stop believing in all this silliness.

But I don't think voters don't consider religious belief to be a binary property in their candidates, so that now they'll go the other way.

I don't. But I don't see the candidates that the religious right gets excited about (NRO's K-Lo is my bellwether on this) appealing broadly right now.

No man worked a pew like Cllinton

True. Obama's trying to give him a run for his money, though. He's clearly someone who has studied preachers' styles and cadences. Perhaps not surprisingly, he's the candidate whose speeches get crowds worked up, too.

The Exactly was for Justin. This place is moving today. I thought Thursdays were teh big comment day.

Also, WE WANT THAT FAMILY TO ATTEND CHURCH. Don't kid yourself.

> women shouldn't be refused the
> procedure b/c the doctor believes

So get a new doctor! Are these policy problems or consumer problems? Sometimes the dry cleaning's not ready when they say it will be. I blame those fucking Christian Scientists!

> Europeans are way ahead of us

Frogwash. Those people dropped the ball in the 20th, and they're not getting it back. America's religious diversity and enthusiasm are big part of what made the miracle happen here. People with strong beliefs want to go to the place where they can practice their beliefs. Remember that next time someone tells you how pious and devout the natives are in this-or-that hellhole.

> primitive thinkers

Amy, Amy, Amy.

There's a big difference between "working a pew" and basically working to bring about a theocracy through government and legislation. It's the latter that's the problem here.

> basically working to bring
> about a theocracy

"Bascially." Always with the wiggle words. Again, in Nixon's day this was called "plausable deniability"

Speaking of Clinton... has Hillary weighed in about the court's decision? A year or two ago she mouthed a position taken by the Jesuits for years -- ie, to keep abortion safe and legal, while trying to address some of the economic and social conditions that lead to the increased use of abortion at the population level. (FYI: I'm not so sure that this position is accurate. Just wondering where the lady with the big blonde helmet is, now that she's got so much more at stake politically.)

Whoops, sorry, it was Kennedy.

The point is, Clinton attracted those same voters with very similar rhetoric. So was it wrong that he was elected?

(Some of us are SO GLAD, if unsurprised, that Mrs. Clinton doesn't share the talent.)

There is a modern political-religious movement to bring about a theocracy to the USA. I'm not sure if you are aware of the Dominionist-Christian Reconstructionist movement. Check out this group that monitors their activities within the GOP:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

It's a CONSPIRACY! They have METHODS and SECRET ALLIANCES!

Wait for the signal! Tell no one you saw me!

Don't forget your decoder ring.

People with strong beliefs want to go to the place where they can practice their beliefs.

I take issue when they start practicing them on the rest of us. Again, this is the beauty of people who believe in astrology. They believe in really stupid shit, yet keep it to themselves and people who pay them $100 for their "chart."

And I do know about that, Joe, but thanks for reminding me...haven't looked at that site for a while.

Clinton attracted those same voters with very similar rhetoric. So was it wrong that he was elected?

Crid is makes a good point. Anyone who runs a successful presidential campaign will need to make some gestures to religious-minded voters. The fact that Bill Clinton can talk that talk certainly helped his campaign. G.H.W. Bush did it, too (kinda badly, though), as did Reagan - it's an essential part of the campaign process, especially for a Republican. The difference between then and now is that the Bush and his people were sincere* (**) about their evangelical beliefs and have sought to implement them in policy, instead of the status quo of past administrations (just taking the votes of the religious right and then selling them out when it comes to policy). We expected lip-service to the religious voters, and what we got was service. I'd hazard a guess that this has something to do with the fact that these people have remained Bush's staunchest supporters, even in the face of massive incompetence.

* Unlike a lot of people unimpressed with President Bush, I don't think that his politics are based in cynical ploys (Rove, certainly). I think Bush's biggest problem is that he's not cynical enough - his sincerity of beliefs leads him to a sort of rigidity that makes for bad governance.

** Uh-oh. I'm using asterisks now. Was unintentionally mimicking Kaus? I think yes!

> especially for a Republican

Not really. Carter was all about church, and Kennedy's faith was a big topic anyway.

> instead of the status quo
> of past administrations

Reagan pandered without surcease. Remember the Meese Commission?

> his sincerity of beliefs
> leads him to a sort
> of rigidity

Exactly, exactly, exactly. When Jonathon Alter was selling his FDR book, he said Dubya's rigidity was a product of his teetotaler's discipline. This explains a LOT. We're told that meetings begin and end on time in this White House, and everybody wears tie. Clinton's days of nuance-catalogging all-nighters with pizza and loafing brothers-in-law on the couch are gone.

[(Call him out on the Kaus thing! -Ed.) Not worth it.]

> women shouldn't be refused the > procedure b/c the doctor believes

So get a new doctor!

I begged my doc for a tubal ligation and he refused for years. He was sure that I would change my mind. I consulted other docs and was told that I was too young to make the decision. My doc finally agreed- when I was 30- but he had to make sure my husband consented.

Now my daughter is 19 and just had a baby. She and her husband do not want more children, and they are hitting the same wall; the are told they are too young for a tubal ligation or vasectomy. She is begging her dad (my husband is a doc) to help her find a doc that will help her out. He can't help her- it simply isn't done.

I'd so love to be in on one of these consults.

Have you discovered Pandagon, where there is a wonderful spoof posted ?

Have you discovered Pandagon

Oh Amy's discovered Pandagon...

I'd so love to be in on one of these consults.

Me too. I wonder if there are guidelines as to minimum ages for sterilization.

My doc finally agreed- when I was 30- but he had to make sure my husband consented.

This is fucked up, too. Sure, you should consult with your husband on this sort of thing, but where is it your doc's business to consult with him?

--
Here's what I found with a brief amount of digging

Physicians must be aware of and follow any applicable federal and state requirements regarding informed consent for sterilization procedures, including time intervals between consent and sterilization. If federal funds are used for the procedure, the required US Department of Health and Human Services consent form must be signed 30-180 days prior to surgery. Furthermore, this consent cannot be obtained if the patient is younger than 21 years, in labor, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, mentally incompetent, or having an abortion.

link

The search also produced abundant websites with complaints that doctors wouldn't perform tubal ligation surgery on women under thirty, especially the childless (or vasectomies on comparable men). Lots of descriptions of endless consults and the like, too.

Weird. Doctors do get paid for doing this work, right?

Word! Word! WERD! (The E makes it sound more urban and ethnic and immediate.)

Don't tell me about the magic of social policy. A half-hour ago I spoke with a woman whose 7-yr-old sister lives in the foothills of the Rockies. The sister has sleep apnea because her tonsils are too swollen, but the small town doctor where they live wouldn't authorize a tonsillectomy... Presumably because he's afraid some hillbilly Dad might come after him for sedating a little girl. A grown woman, licensed to vote and drive, who presents reasonable evidence (including maybe paperwork) that she truly, truly wants to be sterilized, can certainly have it done. I wanna know why Miche's daughter can't do that for her doctor. Maybe he hasn't done enough for her. But what has she done to protect him? Hell, send me his number, and *I'LL* give her doctor --or her husband's-- a call. They should concentrate on the husband: Vasectomy is less intrusive, probably even with the new technique Amy describes.

To a certain extent, this is the bed that feminine rhetoric has made for women. There are a lot of robotic types out there who attest that reproduction is sacrosanct: Harvest as ye sow.

My daughter wants us to talk to her uncle, a urologist (the whole hubby half are docs; Grandma, an Ob/Gyn, is retired), but it is not cool to perform surgery on a relative.

The kiddo will keep asking and is eating birth control as eagerly as she did candy when she was 5.

miche, do you think a urologist might be willing to perform a vasectomy on your son-in-law if he agreed to freeze some sperm at some sperm bank with low storage fees and keep it there for X years? Yeah, it'd cost money...but would be less expensive than Kid #2 at least.

Ah, the problems of informed consent, what a sticky subject! Informed consent is the fancy way of saying a patient understands the risks, benefits and alternatives to a given procedure, drug, surgery or lack of any of the above (doing nothing). Informed consent can range the spectrum of “bad things rarely happen” to the description of any 1-out-of-10,000 side-effects. In reference to sterilization, there are codified guidelines for time between interview and procedure; age procedure can be done at, etc. But as Gretchen says, we sometimes think “shit, she is gonna regret this in 10 years”. Ultimately, this is a case of CYA. And yes Justin, although we do get paid for doing this work it is a risk verses benefits for us too. If we do a procedure, regardless of how thorough informed consent was, a patient can always bring us to court saying something along the lines of ‘I wasn’t in my right mind and the doctor should have magically known it’, to ‘I was scared and the doctor bullied me into doing the procedure’ to the ever famous ‘if the doctor would have *only* told me [possible complication] could have happened I would have *never* agreed to the procedure’. When it comes to staying out of court, it is a matter of doing What Is Best for the Patient (and how a jury will view your actions). And sometimes, What Is Best for the Patient is for you not to get involved. Yes, it is expedient but sometimes when you see the big pothole coming up it is best not to drive your car into it.

Good question Marion, and honestly I hadn't thought of that potential solution. I guess sometimes the obvious is overlooked. I will mention it to the kiddos tomorrow.

To add to Doc Jensen's comments: When women decide that they do want another baby after all and seek to have tubal ligation reversed (as about 6% do, according to a couple of sources I found), if the reversal doesn't work (or is considered unlikely to work), the next step is in vitro fertilization. Which is expensive. And typically not covered by insurance. And doctors, as we all know, are rich rich rich, and their malpractice insurance is really what takes the hit, so a $50,000 settlement isn't going to hurt anyone, is it? If someone hasn't thought of this yet, he/she will, trust me.

miche, hope that works. It sucks to be seeking to take charge of your fertility responsibly and then be told by doctors that you're "too young." On the other hand, I can see a jury buying the argument that a 19-year-old who's not old enough to drink isn't capable of making such a life-changing decision, blah blah blah. YOU know that your daughter and son-in-law are capable of making the decision AND wouldn't sue in any case...but the doctor doesn't. (And yes, HAVING a child is ALSO a life-changing event, but juries tend to dislike people who portray children, potential or otherwise, as mistakes, accurate or not.) Sorry your family is having to deal with this.

Ack, tried to put in a "/sarcasm" tag after the "rich rich rich" sentence above and coded it in such a way that it disappeared. That'll learn me to check out post previews. Anyway, just wanted to make the sarcasm of that particular sentence clear...

Before I met my wife, she had already had one child while ON birth control. She had a miscarriage 5 years later while also on birth control (a different brand, even). She decided after that, she was going to have a tubal. The doctor DID counsel her against it ("you'll change your mind 5 years later"), but went ahead and did as she requested. about 4 years later, we met, a year after that, we married, and a year after that we started the In Vitro procedure (doctors counseled against reversal, as the tubal she had done had a fairly low chance of success). We're now past 3 months after the first try being successful (what can I say, she's fertile!)...and hopefully will have a "future mad scientist" on October 19th.

Personally, it's a fairly expensive and tiring experience (especially for her)...but we decided it was important enough to do it anyhow. Though I think it's a shame that there's at least a tenth as much procedure ALL THE TIME for all people to get pregnant in the first place. :p