The current abortion debate is so distorted, it is framed as though abortion is against the law, and that we need only to sort out the legal exceptions.  Pro-choice advocates should emphasize that the "exceptions" question is irrelevant: we must stop being seduced by hysterical arguments about rape, incest, and the life of the pregnant woman. 

We already handle the horror of rape and incest miserably in our society.  The quest to improve our response to such crises should be given the attention it deserves, completely outside the discussion of abortion.  Any woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest should have immediate access to a safe abortion.  That is true now and should remain true, end of discussion. 

Questions of medically necessary abortions are also beside the point.  When an egregiously stupid politician seeks political advantage by saying ignorant things about women's health, he should lose votes because he is egregiously stupid.  When he has a national audience, creating the potential for his ignorant remarks to misinform the public, it's good for experts to step in: hence the statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to clarify that there are indeed cases in which an abortion is necessary to safeguard the health of the pregnant woman.  But a medically necessary abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy based on criteria that she determines. 

Oddly enough, Paul Ryan had it almost right.  As long as abortion is legal, how someone becomes pregnant is beside the point.

It is the legal status of abortion that Republicans hope to change.  Every time we let them lure us into exhaustive public arguments about what the exceptions would be if abortion were illegal, we help create space in the collective consciousness for the idea that some abortions are okay, some are not, and the difference will be determined by the state.  Unless they succeed in changing the law, the question of exceptions is moot.  Our only response should be, "What difference does it make?  Abortion is legal."

Abortion is a heartbreak.  A nightmare.  A frightening, painful, sorrowful event.  Nothing is more present in the mind of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy than the concept of potential life.  A sonogram does not present breaking news.  It is the height of presumption to imagine that this procedure would elucidate for a woman that the fetus inside her has a heartbeat.

The callous legislators across the country pushing the new sonogram laws have established by their actions that they understand nothing about the process women go through to make this decision.  And as of now, the decision still belongs to the woman alone.  Abortion is legal.  These guys need to back out of the territory they have wandered into. 

They appear to be under the impression that when a woman gets a positive pregnancy test, she mulls it over for a couple of days and decides it would be inconvenient to have a baby right now, and heads to a clinic to get it out of the way.  This may describe a process that someone, somewhere has gone through, but it is not the norm.  In fact, the legislators show their hand by the very tactic they want to use: in attempting to use an ultrasound to tug on maternal instincts and change a woman's mind, they are conceding that these maternal instincts are there. 

By the time a woman has made her decision, she has gone through an emotional wringer.  Maybe these lawmakers don't know that most women have provided a shoulder to cry on for a friend, sister, niece, daughter, or mother who is trying to make this choice.  Even those women who haven't had to face making their own decision about an unplanned pregnancy can speak with authority.  Pregnant women in crisis reach out to the other women in their lives.  They seek advice.  They talk, they cry, they ask for opinions.  They look for answers and wisdom.  And they seek information.  They go online, they make phone calls, they pray.  They weigh options, and picture scenarios.  There aren't many women who have not confronted the emotional ordeal that is an unplanned pregnancy, either first hand, or through working or volunteering in the field, or through being there for another woman.  Exposure to this kind of trauma, whether personal or empathetic, arises again and again throughout the lifetimes of women. 

So believe us when we tell you that your sonogram is not needed.  When a woman is in the decision-making stage of an unplanned pregnancy, merely walking past baby shoes in a store can be devastating.  And in the end, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is based on the same protective, selfless, maternal instinct that these forced sonograms are meant to manipulate.  Abortion is a dark sacrifice.  It is a conclusion that a woman draws that she, a prospective vessel for new life, cannot reasonably determine that there is a place in the world awaiting that life.  It's an answer to this question: "Can I be the one to usher into the world a nascent human being, to provide it safe passage, and be responsible for it becoming a person; a creature that must then face everything life will give and take?"  Only the woman, the potential vessel, the responsible party, can answer that question.  Only her.

Conservative legislators want to decide for her.  To illuminate their truth to her, to tell her she is missing the part about the heartbeat.  They need to back off.  As long as abortion is legal, they will have to work out their feelings about it for themselves, away from the private space in which a woman confronts her own truth, in her own way.  They are misguided in their attempt to apply mental anguish with this technical procedure.  More anguish is found in the scent of baby powder, in the melancholy day dreams of a mother who knows it is not her time.

As advertisers pulled out of his radio program right and left, Rush Limbaugh was forced to take a humble tone, and---wait, what's this?  No humble tone here; this guy is doubling down!  Never thought I would type these words, but there's just no denying it:  Rush Limbaugh is a genius.

Here is his statement, issued Saturday afternoon:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.  My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Rush, "word choice" is not the problem here.  ("He used a poor choice of words" was the weaselly phrase also clung to by Mitt and Rick when they were forced to weigh in Friday.)  During his rants, Rush actually softened his word choice at one point, saying “OK, so she’s not a slut. She’s ‘round heeled."  The problem isn't phrasing.  It's that he said demeaning, slanderous things about Fluke because of her position on a political issue.  He could have said, "This good lady assuredly removes her knickers and does unspeakable things with gentlemen callers on an all-too-frequent basis.  Otherwise she would undoubtedly refrain from insisting on economic recompense for correlated expenditures."  It would have the same meaning, and it's this defamation that he should be apologizing for.

This guy knows his stuff.  By saying, "I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke," he only concedes that while people who expect insurance to cover contraception are irresponsible sexual libertines, he didn't mean Sandra Fluke was one of them.

My hat is off to Mr. Limbaugh.  He simply turned his apology into an opportunity to restate his position.  I popped the whole statement into Word - it's a total of 192 words.  After I deleted the self-serving recap, 34 remained.  And the redacted version is heartwarming:

"I chose the wrong words. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.  My choice of words was not the best.  I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

In the wake of his intensely offensive blather last week, Rush Limbaugh discovered that while he was talking, his money was walking. 

So far, active Limbaugh sponsors pulling their ads from Limbaugh's radio show include Sleep Train, Select Comfort, and Quicken Loans.  Other companies that have advertised with Limbaugh in the past or were erroneously named as sponsors hastened to correct these errors or distance themselves.  These include Lending Tree, eHarmony, Auto Zone, and Life Quotes.

I'm posting this immediately to clarify where these companies stand, and will add updates as they come in.  For a great overview of the whole Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh story, click on this Politico blog post by Dylan Byers.  Look for my additional commentary on the whole story later this weekend, including a look at the reactions of President Obama and the Republican presidential candidates. 

Catholic institutions should not have to pay for contraception for their employees.  It's a clear violation of the First Amendment.  This is one of those most difficult of issues we face  - the delicate balance between the Constitutional protection we enjoy from having any religion imposed on public life, and the protection we count on for any religion to practice its teachings freely.  Sometimes I think this is one of the most important clauses - at least it requires the most of all of us to think through, be careful, and imagine how we would want specific laws and rules pertaining to this issue implemented by succeeding generations.

Obama and Sibelius made a drastic error in refusing to grant the Catholic church an exemption from providing free birth control to its institutions' employees.  I kept waiting to hear arguments that would convince me otherwise, but I still can't see it any other way.  I appreciate the thoughts and concerns of people on the left that I have discussed it with, and I believe they are advocating for women, and not just politicking.  But I just haven't heard a single thing that refutes the idea that this is a very dangerous First Amendment imbalance, that if implemented, would not be justified or legal.  (As I write this, Obama has made a reversal of sorts, for which I am glad.  But it's hard right now to say if the switch is to a plan that really relieves the church of having to take responsibility for providing contraception.)

As I was reading commentary about this on various websites, it wasn't Republican Congresspersons who convinced me, unsurprisingly.  They apparently aren't worried about the votes of centrist women, or centrist men who care about women's issues.  They aren't even making a stab at acknowledging that we as a society have an interest in seeing that women have as much access as possible to comprehensive health care.  I would think that even apolitical, moderate citizens, if they don't have a religious objection to birth control, are likely to see that there are a couple of opposing interests to be weighed here, so I don't know why Republicans aren't giving that thought the time of day.  No, they went straight to:  this is a secular attack from an unholy socialist President, intent on suppressing religion in the US.  Their infuriating hyperbole embarrasses them - they don't need it here, so what's the point?  They needed hyperbole to make people think the Obama "War on Christmas" is bad, because it isn't real, so hyperbole is all they have. But since this is a real issue, I don't know why they feel they have to resort to the "War on Religion" rhetoric.  Yuck.

What actually confirmed my immediate gut feeling that this would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state was the rationale for the rule provided by people on the left.  A piece of Kevin Drum's blog on Mother Jones sums up the argument.  (My comments are in brackets.): 

"(I) support the Obama administration's decision to require health care plans to cover contraception, as well as its decision to permit only a very narrow exemption for religious organizations.  (Here's why.)

• In any case like this, you have to look at two separate issues: (1) How important is the secular public purpose of the policy? And (2) how deeply held is the religious objection to it?

[Agreed.  So far so good - those are exactly the things we should look at.]

• On the first issue, I'd say that the public purpose here is pretty strong. Health care in general is very clearly a matter of broad public concern; treating women's health care on a level playing field with men's is, today, a deep and widely-accepted principle; and contraception is quite clearly critical to women's health. Making it widely and easily available is a legitimate issue of public policy.

[Agreed on the sentiment, absolutely.  Access to contraception is a critical public health concern.  Barriers to access include lack of information, lack of resources like cash and transportation, and difficulty finding service providers.  But it is legitimate, when the First Amendment stakes are this high, to consider degrees of hardship.  I am willing to factor in that we are talking about women in the workforce here.  Even though that doesn't guarantee they have much money or reliable transportation or understanding of where to go, those are things that could be addressed by the government in other ways.  The big box pharmacies sell generic birth control for $4-5, and non-profit agencies provide them for free, so its a matter of getting referrals and getting there. 
(back to Drum's quote)]

• "On the second issue, I simply don't believe that the religious objection here is nearly as strong as critics are making it out to be. As I've mentioned before, even the vast majority of Catholics (underline his) don't believe that contraception is immoral. Only the formal church hierarchy does."

(end quote)

The latter statement provides a precise example of why government has to stay out of religion.  The number of people within a religion's ranks who practice what their leaders preach has nothing to do with the law.  And he displays an ignorance of a piece of Catholic culture that is important here.  (Why wouldn't he be ignorant of it, but that's why the public should be hands off with the private.)

Individual members of a religion - even lots of them - may feel out of sync with the hierarchy's teachings, but they should still be able to expect their church to have full legal protections.  There is probably scarcely a religious tenet that isn't questioned, opposed, or just not followed by some of the members of its church.  Whose business is that, and what does it have to do with respecting the legal rights of that church? 

For Catholics, coming to grips with the most conservative teachings of their church in real life application is not a new question.  I come from a family of eight.  As much as that is a reflection of Catholic teachings being followed, the fact that I don't come from a family of twelve reflects that (thankfully!) at some point my parents obviously did not follow the Churches teachings.  (The old joke was, what do you call people that use the rhythm method?  Parents.)  Catholic teachings oppose divorce, too, but Catholics do get divorced.  These are things we have to leave up to them to work out.

Regardless of what my readers think about how individual Catholics work out their faith in their own lives, the law says their church has a right to practice its teachings.  I am not a religious person, and I am pro-choice and certainly pro-contraception.  But I have to admit to some respect for the consistency of the Catholic belief system about the sanctity of life.  They are steadfastly opposed to the taking of any life as they define it.  I personally have different views about when a fetus becomes a person, and whether a person has a right to choose to die, and other such specifics.  But what I'm saying is, they are so devoted to this concept that it is central to their beliefs, and it is consistent.  They are against the death penalty, against the killing of enemy combatants that don't present an imminent threat, and only accept war in a self-defense capacity.  What of individual Catholics practicing birth control?  That is personal, very personal.  I can guarantee you something:  while it may be difficult for a practicing Catholic, working for a Catholic employee, to have to get a hold of their own birth control, not on the company's dime, you will have a hard time finding Catholics who want these employers to be compelled to offer it.  It will be in those numbers that you will see the mistake the left is making in trying to argue, "no trust me, this is what these people want, most of them use birth control anyway."

Again, I need to take some time to look at this recent reversal on Obama's part.  I was going to change this post drastically in light of it, but I have a feeling there will be a few more rounds before it's settled, so I will post this part for now.  I think he made a huge blunder politically, and I'm not sure the reversal solves anything yet.  I hope I am overestimating what a problem it will be, but it's going to be at least an ugly fight. 

If this revision doesn't solve anything for the Catholic leadership, I hope we will keep working on it.  There is some real compromise that could happen here.  Would the church be willing to provide an allowance for discretionary health spending?  Sort of like a flexible spending account, but not out-of-pocket?  Or would the state be willing to partner with employees' current providers to defray the cost of birth control for employees of exempted institutions?  We can make it work.  

I'm off to research the revision - hopefully it provides the compromise we need.  Look for an update soon._

The Plan B issue is a hot topic, and a tough call.  I'm going out on a limb with my view.  Let me have it, but I ask only one thing.  Note that I'm not saying I'm sure this was the right decision, just that I think I know what might have been behind it. 

The glaring mistake on the part of the administration is one of not owning the decision and clearly communicating a rationale.  I remember this problem so well from the early part of their term, about everything from not closing Gitmo to not putting the birther thing to rest by producing a birth certificate.  I think there are equal parts arrogance and good faith there, as in "look, we shouldn't have to walk everyone through this - they elected me to do the right thing, and I'm doing my best, based on deeply help principles, and it's hard enough dealing with the onslaught of decisions, let alone having to go out there and explain every move I make."  Really bad approach, and they have obviously absorbed some feedback about it, and they have done better.  But they aren't doing better on this one, so everyone is left once again with a big wtf. 

After a good 24 hours of struggling to understand what the heck is up with this action, this what I think is going on. 

The science is in, the risks are low.  I have no doubt that Sebelius and Obama understand that - they aren't ignoring it, they are putting it into a bigger context.  (The wailing that this decision is some kind of indictment of Obama's commitment to science is dogmatic overreaction.  This administration is in no danger of disregarding evidenced-based research, and since there are several vying for the White House who are very happy to do that, which is a critical concern, we need to save our energy to direct it there.)

Rather, I think the administration is thinking that it's not as simple a question of whether Plan B is as safe as Tylenol.  Tylenol is used for headaches, Plan B is used for pregnancy prevention.  Pregnancy risks only exist for people who are sexually active.  Girls 16 and under who are sexually active need support, information, counseling - at the very least, they need attention.  If the crisis of a birth control lapse facilitates the girl reaching out to an adult in some way, that's an opportunity.

Is this good thinking, practical, best practice, a well-conceived approach?  I don't know.  I'd have to think about it more, and talk to several people I know who have done a lot of work/thinking about teen pregnancy.  (Carol, Angie, I want to know your take!). 

I'm just saying that how Plan B is labeled re: the age of girls purchasing it was an issue for this administration, and they had misgivings about lowering the age to the extent they stepped in in a very assertive way. 

And yes Obama, this is one you need to walk us through your thinking on.

I predict he will eventually do that, and agree or not, it will be easier to acknowledge this move was based on values principles rather than politics.