Results tagged “Indiana” from Blog for Choice
Good news!
Yesterday, the Obama administration prohibited Indiana from implementing a new state law to defund Planned Parenthood.
Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, notified Indiana officials in a letter that the state could not single out Planned Parenthood for exclusion from Medicaid funding.
What's the response? Well, Indiana officials plan to ignore the federal order, and push ahead in implementing the state's illegal law. This could potentially cost the Hoosier State more than $4 billion in federal funds.
So, let's keep in mind what this means: the Indiana government is putting a politically-inspired law before women's health.
This is not a political back-and-forth. We're talking about thousands of women's access to birth control, cancer screenings, and other basic care.
Last year, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels called for a truce on social issues. But anti-choice politicians in the state legislature can't handle the truce.
Rather than tackling the tough work of fixing the economy, the legislature is pushing a bill that would jeopardize women's access to birth control and cancer screenings by defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana. It also imposes dangerous limits on abortion care.
This sound familiar to anyone?
Anti-choice politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives tried to defund Planned Parenthood on the federal level--and failed. Now, they're trying to push through their War on Women, statehouse by statehouse, anywhere they can.
Truce? A relentless obsession with destroying women's access to health care is pretty much the opposite of a truce. Taking away access to contraception and cancer screenings and injecting more political interference in our personal, private decisions do not a truce make.
Are you a Hoosier or do you know someone in Indiana? If so, see how you can call on Gov. Daniels to honor his commitment by vetoing this extreme anti-choice legislation.
A politician in Indiana suggested that women might lie about being the survivor of rape or incest in order to access abortion care.
I wish I could say this was someone's idea of a sick April Fools' joke. Sadly, it's true.
Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner argued on the floor of the state House that a rape or incest exception to a proposed abortion ban creates "a giant loophole."
Why? According to Rep. Turner, because "someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they've been raped or there's incest."
Fortunately, state Rep. Linda Lawson was there to set the record straight on Rep. Turner's callous and outrageous suggestions:
Unfortunately, these extreme attacks on women's freedom and privacy are not confined to the Hoosier State.
Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would manipulate the tax code to advance an extreme anti-choice agenda.
Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the committee's ranking member, said that taking action on an anti-choice attack was unprecedented for the Ways and Means Committee:
I cannot recall a time in my two decades on this Committee - and I have checked with a few others that served this Committee before me -- that we have devoted a full hearing and markup to [abortion]. I regret that it takes away our attention from our shared goals of job-creation and tax reform. And I regret that this bill is overall just a tax increase on women.
The bill, which is a component of H.R.3, the dangerous "Stupak on Steroids" bill, could subject survivors of sexual assault who choose abortion care to "rape audits" by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the Associated Press that the "rape-audits" provision "would be an alarming new responsibility for the IRS."
This War on Women has gone far enough!
If reading this post makes you angry, then join the 36,123 Americans who are telling House Speaker John Boehner to STOP the "rape-audits" bill!
Tags:
Abortion, Donna Crane, Eric Turner, hr3, incest, Indiana, Internal Revenue Service, irs, John Boehner, Linda Lawson, No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, rape, rape and incest exceptions, rape audit, Richard Neal, sexual assault, Stupak on Steroids, United States House of Representatives, war on women,
Which of these two would get birth control if the anti-choice leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives gets its way?
Politico and RH Reality Check are reporting that anti-choice Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has introduced an amendment to a spending bill that would promote contraception--for wild horses.
This comes at the same time as the anti-choice House leadership is pushing to eliminate all funding for Title X, the nation's only domestic family-planning program for humans.
Ted Miller, communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the move would be ridiculous if the stakes weren't so high:
House members fighting to preserve a horse's right to birth control would be laughable, if they weren't trying to block women from accessing contraception at the exact same time. What's next? An amendment that would allow veterinarians to refuse to provide birth control to a horse if the vet is personally opposed to contraception?
(Well, doesn't giving birth control to wild horses just encourage them to be even wilder?)
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels recently called for a truce on social issues. (That means choice.) Even more recently, lawmakers in the Hoosier State ignored him.
Just this week, anti-choice politicians in Indianapolis were abuzz with ideas on how to attack a woman's right to choose. One anti-choice leader was rather blunt about his intentions:
We all recognize the focus will be on education and budget issues. We will not neglect those responsibilities. But we can multitask.
Oh, that's rich. Political intrusion into private decisions is the new multitasking. Apparently, it's an epidemic as anti-choice lawmakers in Montana, New Hampshire, and other states roll out their plans to attack choice. The same people who campaigned on so-called "limited government" are racing to be the first ones to give politicians more control over our personal, private decisions. Perhaps they're figuring out that creating jobs is hard, and that the only way for them to pacify their right-wing base is by attacking choice.
Search the Blog
