by Meg White
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's nose is growing again.
Reid is trying to cover for his inclusion of a reinstatement of funding for abstinence-only education in the Senate version of the healthcare reform bill, but I'm not buying it.
Congressional Quarterly cites Reid's spokesman saying that the reason the senior senator from Nevada chose to include the abstinence-only measure was "because he was sticking closely to the bill the Finance Committee approved in September."
That, as far as I can tell, is unmitigated bullshit. If Reid wanted to stick to the bill produced by Sen. Max Baucus' Finance Committee without selling out the students of America, he could have chosen Baucus' own amendment which was offered in direct opposition to the abstinence-only amendment offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Baucus' amendment would secure funding for programs that both disseminate complete and medically-accurate information and actually reduce teen pregnancy. So far, abstinence-only programs haven't been able to show that they accomplish this.
Though both amendments passed committee voting, Baucus' passed with two more votes than Hatch's, making it the clear favorite for anyone crafting legislation that would stick "closely to the bill the Finance Committee approved in September."
One might guess that this is a ploy for Reid to shore up support back home in preparation for his troubled reelection campaign. But that's unlikely, too, since any constituents who have been paying attention already know Reid's stand on abstinence-only education: He opposes it.
Clearly, this is yet another instance of Reid selling out women to get this crippled version of healthcare reform passed. Sarah Kliff's analysis at Newsweek is that not only is this an obvious concession to the right, but that it will probably stick.
So we're stuck with this increase in wasteful spending on programs that don't work. You may be thinking, "So what? An extra $50 million that we were already spending during the Bush years is tantamount to a drop in the bucket when it comes to healthcare reform as a whole."
Here's the big deal: I'm not just miffed that Reid told this stupid white lie, it's that he's lying to protect a favorite right-wing falsehood. After all, abstinence-only education is itself a lie. Not only does it not do what it's supposed to do (ever), but study after study after study indicates that abstinence-only education actually increases incidences of teen pregnancy and acquisition of sexually-transmitted diseases.
Combining that false efficacy with the other attacks on reproductive rights in this bill and I fear an increase in teen pregnancy that may outstrip Bush era gains.
One of the few writers to comment upon the sexual dichotomy within the Senate legislation is David Rosen (emphasis mine):
The crisis over the nation's sexual health stems from the Christian right's fear of sexual pleasure. It is expressed in the right's deep-seated opposition to women's reproductive health (particularly the right to an abortion), its adherence to teen abstinence-only polices, its acceptance of increased reported cases of STDs and AIDS and its admonitions over the increase in pregnancies among teen girls and young women.
Under the Senate bill, two provisions are included that seem at odds with each other, the result of classic political compromise. One would allocate $75 million a year for comprehensive sex education or more secular "sex ed." The other would allocate $50 million a year for abstinence education; the bill would reauthorize the Title V abstinence program that expired this summer. Under the Senate bill, there will be support for school based "health clinics."
Of course, while the Senate bill will likely preserve the $50 million for abstinence-only education, conservatives in Congress won't put down their torches, largely because of the bipolar nature of the Senate bill as pointed out by Rosen above. For example, the conservative group known as The Liberty Counsel is telling parents that the school-based health clinics, which have been in existence for the past three decades, are institutions via which "your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"
None of these institutions have ever provided abortions, nor is there any move to change that. Much like the school lunch program, they're a safety net for kids who don't have access to such niceties as regular meals or check-ups at home. Of course, that didn't stop Rep. Michele Bachmann (RWNJ) from crowing back those same lies on the House floor. And don't think some $50 million is going to shut her up, either.
In all honesty, this smacks of the same patriarchal idea that the government knows best when it comes to reproductive choice. Indeed, these lies are similar to those that led to the false rating from Politifact of the notion that the healthcare reform bill will force taxpayers to pay for abortions. Even before the Stupak Amendment, this was a lie.
Now the healthcare bill threatens to virtually outlaw abortion by making it inaccessible. But still, conservatives aren't even happy with that. This Bishop writing for the Catholic Sentinel not only repeats the lies of the school-based clinics providing abortion services, but says the Stupak amendment doesn't go far enough.
Why? Well, he says "the proposed health bill continues to provide abortion payments in cases of rape and incest and when the life of the mother is threatened. This is contrary to Church teachings about the inviolability and dignity of every pre-born human being regardless of the circumstances of their origin."
Once again, the Catholic Church comes right out and says that, as a woman, my life is less valuable than a cluster of cells. These people will clearly rest at nothing to remake society in their own vision as a precondition to providing support for healthcare reform. The idea that such single-minded misogynists even still have a respected voice in the healthcare debate sickens me.
What will this country look like after a decade of virtual inaccessibility to abortion services, combined with a re-emphasis on abstinence-only education? I honestly fear a baby boom unlike any other we've seen before: an unprecedented wave of babies raising babies.
But before Congress considers continuing the failed policies of the previous administration when it comes to sexual health, perhaps they should take a look at where it's gotten us. Again, from David Rosen:
The increase in the rates of STDs, HIV-AIDS and pregnancy among young women indicates that America has yet to overcome the tyranny of rightwing, Christian anti-sex values that were implemented under the Bush administration "abstinence" policies. Women, the poor (especially African-Americans) and young women are the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" in America's emerging sex-health crisis.
It's important to realize that abstinence-only education programs aren't just an hour a day of a health teacher saying "Just don't do it until you're married" over and over again. No, they've got to use more persuasive techniques than just that. So, what do they do? Simply, they lie. As I noted back when this stupid idea was first included in Baucus' bill:
A study conducted on behalf of Rep. Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee, more than 80 percent of federally-funded abstinence-only programs "contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health," including, but not limited to, insisting that condoms do not protect against pregnancy or sexually-transmitted diseases and presenting gender stereotypes and/or religious ideology as scientific fact.
Presumably, the thought is that kids can be coerced into abstinence. Not only is that not likely to be effective, but it's damaging to the psyche. Eventually, whether grown up or not, these students will be exposed to sex. And if they are brought up thinking it is a scary, damaging thing, who knows what kind of risky and abusive situations they'll allow themselves to be wrapped up in, out of fear of the act or distaste over being lied to.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Reid would include funding for a program that embeds lies about sexuality and health within this fundamentally flawed healthcare bill. I shouldn't even be surprised that he lied about the reasoning behind including it.
After all, virtually every part of the healthcare bill that deals with women's health -- from sex ed to abortion to mammograms -- is based on a lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment