Sunday, September 28, 2014

Science should trump political opinions and it backs Udall's position on birth control

Does the personhood amendment ban certain kinds of birth control?  That is becoming a key question in the Colorado Senate campaign, and buried in a recent factcheck.org meandering judgment call, it might be up to the US Supreme Court to decide.  That is hardly comforting.  Furthermore, scientific facts should trump political opinions, and the facts are supported by those most scientifically involved in the issue:  The personhood amendments ban certain kinds of birth control and more. Found at the end of factcheck.org is this gem:
“The nonpartisan American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says that defining a fertilized egg as a person with legal rights ‘would have wide-reaching harmful implications … on women’s access to contraception.’”


Cory Gardner, Republican challenging incumbent Democrat Mark Udall, on one hand opposes the state personhood amendment but supports the federal one. To blunt criticism he is against birth control, he then advocates over-the-counter sales of birth control while opposing Obamacare that covers the entire cost of birth control, wanting women to pay for birth control out of their own pockets. Not only is that a consumer-unfriendly approach, it is also dangerous and would leave little choice of birth control methods to women.

From the ACOG website, www.ACOG.org:  “These "personhood" proposals, as acknowledged by proponents, would make condoms, natural family planning, and spermicides the only legally allowed forms of birth control. Thus, some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception, such as oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and other forms of FDA-approved hormonal contraceptives, could be banned in states that adopt "personhood" measures.  Women's very lives would be jeopardized if physicians were prohibited from terminating life-threatening ectopic and molar pregnancies.  Women who experience pregnancy loss or other negative pregnancy outcomes could be prosecuted in some cases.  
“So-called "personhood" measures would have a negative impact on fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), that allow otherwise infertile couples to achieve pregnancy and create their families. Such proposals would also invariably ban embryonic stem cell research, depriving all society of potential lifesaving therapies." 
Not only is Gardner speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but what he is advocating is not in women's interests.  Mark Udall is correct in hitting Gardner for his stance on birth control and personhood in current advertising. 

So why all of this focus on women's choice issues anyway?  There are many other pressing concerns that will face the Senate.  The reason is that women's rights are of great interest to a very important demographic -- unmarried women -- which has determined the outcome of elections in Colorado in the past.  Women had thought the war had been won, but what the GOP and Cory Gardner are supporting are a rollback of those victories.  However, Gardner has also not made a case for his position on other issues, attempting the soft approach of "my father sold tractors; Udall is a politician who supports Obama."  On those "other issues" he is still an unknown factor, a pig in a poke.
A version of this appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com October 3, 2014

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/09/abortion-distortions-2014/

ACOG Statement on “Personhood” Measures

February 10, 2012

Washington, DC -- The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is unequivocally opposed to the so-called "personhood" laws or amendments being considered in several states. These measures erode women's basic rights to privacy and bodily integrity; deny women access to the full spectrum of preventive health care including contraception; and undermine the doctor-patient relationship. ACOG firmly believes that science must be at the core of public health policies and medical decision-making that affect the health and life of women.
Like Mississippi's failed "Personhood Amendment" Proposition 26, these misleading and ambiguously worded "personhood" measures substitute ideology for science and represent a grave threat to women's health and reproductive rights that, if passed, would have long-term negative outcomes for our patients, their families, and society. Although the individual wording in these proposed measures varies from state to state, they all attempt to give full legal rights to a fertilized egg by defining "personhood" from the moment of fertilization, before conception (ie, pregnancy/ implantation) has occurred. This would have wide-reaching harmful implications for the practice of medicine and on women's access to contraception, fertility treatments, pregnancy termination, and other essential medical procedures.
These "personhood" proposals, as acknowledged by proponents, would make condoms, natural family planning, and spermicides the only legally allowed forms of birth control. Thus, some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception, such as oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and other forms of FDA-approved hormonal contraceptives could be banned in states that adopt "personhood" measures. Women's very lives would be jeopardized if physicians were prohibited from terminating life-threatening ectopic and molar pregnancies. Women who experience pregnancy loss or other negative pregnancy outcomes could be prosecuted in some cases.  
So-called "personhood" measures would have a negative impact on fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), that allow otherwise infertile couples to achieve pregnancy and create their families. Such proposals would also invariably ban embryonic stem cell research, depriving all of society potential lifesaving therapies.

ACOG supports guaranteed access to the full array of clinical and reproductive services appropriate to each individual woman's needs throughout her life. These "personhood" measures must be defeated in the best interest of women's health.  

Monday, September 22, 2014

After the ethnic bloodshed ends, what then?

After ethnic bloodshed stops, what then?  Healing is difficult and complicated, but much depends on the circumstances.  My husband and I have seen the difficulty of healing the wounds firsthand on recent trips to Bosnia and the Basque region in Spain.  Both Spain and Bosnia share a history of violent ethnic conflicts, but there are some basic differences, with different outcomes. The Basques were a unified geographic area striking for independence from Spain; Bosnia's territory contains the warring factions within its borders.

Bosnia has the harder road to climb.  It never recovered from the 1990s ethnic cleansing wars. There may be peace, but reconciliation is slow in coming.  It will take memories of war crimes dimming in the minds of a new generation before it happens.

Glued together by the Dayton Accord, the majority Muslims, the largest group of victims, conceded equal representation in governance to the Serbians and ethnic Croatians.  A formula to end bloodshed, it also would perpetuate gridlock.  The Bosnian federal legislative system is mired in ethnically divided stalemate, and politicians play to their bases instead of seeking middle ground.  The country is in dire financial stress; unemployment in the cities is around 50%, and per capita income has sunk to one of the lowest in Europe.  The mood has been despair about the future, even though the potential for tourism and natural resource development is great.  Membership in the European Union is a distant dream.
There is a corner of Spain we visited recently that shows what good could happen if those in conflict found a way to live with a degree of harmony.  A terrorist organization, ETA, was founded in 1959 with the goal of forming a separate Basque nation.  Four cease-fires were broken, but finally one held in 2011, and in early 2014 ETA disarmed.  The Basque region was granted a great deal of self-governing autonomy.

Bilbao, the storied port on the north coast of Spain, is the capitol of Basque country.  Trade and prosperity were damaged in conflict and the decline of the shipment of ore they mined.  With the end of armed conflict, they reinvented themselves, built new cruise ship docks, scrubbed the city clean, and invested in culture to draw tourists.  The Guggenheim Museum is one of the finest examples of contemporary architecture in the world, and Basque cuisine has drawn from local food and great wine to attract 3-star restaurants. Unemployment is still high, but Spain’s European Union membership has allowed youth to migrate to seek work elsewhere in Europe, a plus for their citizens. The mood of those with whom we spoke was of pride and optimism.

Madrid was watching the Scottish independence vote closely and probably breathed a sigh of relief when the vote went against it. Whether either wannabe breakaway entities would be able to seek membership in the  European Union was an issue in both, and Madrid made it clear they would vote to keep an independent Basque nation or Scots out of the EU for years, no doubt putting another damper on any lingering Basque and any other separatists' desires for independence.

A version of this blog appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News September 25, 2014

Sunday, September 21, 2014

The real Beauprez stood up this morning: anti dream act, still opposing key women's issues, claiming one of the best US state economies is not enough; he could do better

The real Bob Beauprez, Republican candidate for Colorado's governor, is finally standing up this morning on two key issues that will affect the demographics of a large segment of Colorado's voters.  On Fox News (Denver 31) Beauprez affirmed his opposition to abortion  in the case of rape and incest.  He saw the only  reason he approved for abortion would be if the life of the mother would be in jeopardy. He said he opposed the personhood amendment, not because he disagreed with it, but because it was a bad tactic.  The GOP indeed has a problem with single women in this election and he did not help increase his support from that group of voters .  He tried to play both sides of the issue when he promised he  would enforce federal laws on choice (whatever they were).  That should make neither side of those issues very happy.

Hispanics make up 14% of Colorado's voters, enough to swing a narrow election.  In fact,  Beauprez reaffirmed his opposition to the dream act in no uncertain terms. The reason he gave borders on pandering to non Hispanics when he said that there is a limit to admissions in state institutions and that allowing undocumented young people to go to college (using in state tuition) would keep "others" from attending.  That statement deserves close scrutiny and some raised eyebrows.

Beauprez based his positive campaign on his hyper pro business stance to help Colorado's economy. With Colorado ranked as number one in job and economic growth in the nation, and Weld County the fastest growing county, it is a difficult platform for running against incumbent John Hickenlooper, who is taking a victory lap on his pro business administrative reforms and results. All Beauprez  could say  to gild the economic lily is that we could do better if we followed his formula of becoming even more business friendly by wiping out many regulations. and eliminating any uncertainties, encouraging more energy investment in the state.  (Read: a vote against the  fracking ban would have eliminated any uncertainties). That is the best he could do since Hickenlooper convinced the anti fracking activitists to take the issue off the November ballot.   Guess it is Katy bar the door when it comes to consumer and environmental protection, but he wisely  did not offer any specifics.  It is always politically  safer to keep to generalities, right?

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Fact check on Cory Gardner's position on birth control worth reading

Colorado’s Contraception Controversy   Ads regarding Cory Gardner's position on women's reproductive rights are flooding Colorado television.  Gardner has countered that he favors legislation for women to buy over the counter birth control without a prescription, but as fact checker points out in this posting, he cannot legislate that. Only the FDA can.  Likewise, Gardner still wants to appeal Obamacare that requires birthcontrol to be covered. Other misleading ads are profiled here and both sides are guilty, but Gardner more so.   Fact Check.org is a very well respected non partisan site. This is well worth reading.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Obamacare premiums lower in second year .

Obamacare insurance premiums coming in lower in second year.  United Health entering the CT market exchange after staying out.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/13/just-when-you-thought-obamacare-couldnt-surprise-y.aspx

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Thursday, September 4, 2014

The laugh is on Cory Gardner regarding his recent remarks attacking Mark Udall re: Obamacare

I got a laugh when I read the Denver Post story about Cory Gardner, running against Democrat incumbent Mark Udall for Senate.  Gardner tried to make an issue of a long ago Udall statement that he (Udall) did not want a government run health insurance program but wanted to improve our employer based program and then to find a way to cover those uninsured.  Claimed Gardner it was another lie a la the President's promise to allow you to keep the insurance you had.  Shame on Udall.. he LIED. ..so the inference goes.

First, Obamacare did not remove the employer based program we have, but it did improve the employer based insurance system.  It stopped  the insurance company  practices of charging more than 20% for overhead, for discriminating against women by making them pay more for premiums, or putting lifetime caps on insurance, and other consumer unfriendly practices.  Nearly 80 per cent of those not on Medicare, Medicaid  who worked had employer's insurance and that has not changed.

The laugh refers to the origin of Obamacare.  It was a plan to thwart attempts to move to a single payer system like Canada's or other socialized medicine systems and still provide a way to cover the 30 million not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or who did not get insurance from employers because their employers did not provide it.  Out of fear that the insurance industry would be destroyed by a single payer system that short cut the private insurance industry, the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a proposal to require all who could to pay for insurance per income level to purchase private insurance.  That is exactly what Obamacare does and the laboratory for it was Romneycare...the state of Massachusetts.  It kept the private insurance industry in the loop, gave them a potential of 30 million new customers who now had their policies subsidized so they could afford private insurance , and it is, per the American Medical Association, performing as designed.  The projections  are that within 3 years, the program will be fully operational and most of the 30 million will have been insured.   Those who have gotten insurance via Obamacare seem happy with their policies, even though they may have had to change doctors, but that is not new. Employers often change insurance providers leaving employees having to change doctors as well.  (For more regarding this point, key word search this site for "Obamacare" where much is written and polled about this).

Is this a government run system?  It depends what you mean by government run.  Requiring insurers to abide by standards so that consumers are no longer harmed, or setting up the infrastructure to be able to subsidize consumers per income level, or providing a marketplace for consumers to choose a private insurance plan may fit the most broad definition, but so far the GOP has not been able to come up with a better plan to cover the 30 million uninsured.  Even their attempt to propose alternatives such as cross state competition or malpractice reform has been a farce.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would reduce premiums so that 3 million more could afford insurance....hardly adequate for the job of insuring the other 27 million. When the GOP comes up with a plan that will provide the same benefits and make insurance affordable, maybe we can take them more seriously. Until then, they are the ones worthy of a laugh.