Akin a Microcosm of the Country

Todd Akin, as most people are aware, stepped in it pretty deep last weekend when, in the midst of an abortion discussion during an interview on Fox2's JACO Report, claimed that a woman's body has a mechanism for shutting down pregnancy during a "legitimate" rape.  For those who may have missed it, here is the short clip from YouTube:

Akin has been publicly eviscerated and flogged so many ways, it's bordering on sketch comedy at this point.  He's sworn to stay in the Senate race, despite the entire Republican Party and their presidential and vice presidential nominees making it known they want him gone.

It can be debated ad nauseum whether or not what he said is true.  He did say that he misspoke in using the term "legitimate," when he meant to say "forcible."  Even that drew contempt, as if he was implying that there is any rape that isn't "forcible."  For the record, there is - and the FBI has been using the term for decades - "statutory."  And they are the only two types of rape on the legal books.

There is also a basis for the comment, highlighted in a Tim Townsend article in USA Today, in which Townsend references the origin of the argument being made: a 1972 article by Dr, Fred Mecklenburg, where the doctor said that rape pregnancy was rare, and then listed several reasons why that appeared to be the case, including the hypothesis that trauma will prevent a woman from ovulating, even when she is scheduled to.  There is widespread debate, and doubt, in the medical establishment as to the veracity of such a comment, but it has been the fuel for arguments like Akin's ever since.

I can believe logically that trauma affects functions of the body, especially since trauma tends to affect the brain first, and most.  Ovulation is the result of of hormones being released in the brain that causes the ovary to release an egg.  It wouldn't be hard to imagine that extreme trauma could prevent that from happening.  Women do that exact thing with birth control pills every morning - surely it's not so out there to think that other influences in the extreme could do the same thing.  But I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, first because it's extremely difficult to define and prove, and second, the fact that it's estimated in Townsend's article that rape could be resulting in 32,000 pregnancies per year kind of shoots the "rarity" claim in the foot.  No matter how you try to delineate it, 32,000 is a lot of rape babies.

I don't have a problem with Akin making the statement.  Politicians always try to find a justifiable reason to make their argument true - appealing to the science (despite a lack of) is just one more way to sound relevant while saying nothing constructive.  My main problem was with what he said next: that "the punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not attacking the child."  While I agree with the sentiment, I noticed he never mentioned the woman.  Why is that?  The woman isn't being punished with a life long reminder of her rapist if she gets pregnant?  Why is the woman always left out of the conversation on abortion, except to call her a baby killer?  The continued treatment of women as simply the birthing unit has really started to get on my nerves, and comments like the rape debate drives that frustration home.  And my other problem is the lapse in logic - even if everything he said were 100% true, how does that give anyone the right to legally dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body in regards to pregnancy?

This got me to thinking.  Why not mandate that all rapists be castrated?  You get convicted of rape, we remove your testicles and penis, insert a catheter into the bladder to urinate, and you no longer have genitalia for the rest of your life.  How would that go over, I wonder?  Probably not well, since the majority of lawmakers are men - and there's just no getting around the unwanted squeamish feeling of empathy.  And the "rights to your own fully functioning body" debate would ensue.  The government doesn't have the right to force an action onto a human body.  The implications of this could be extrapolated to the death penalty as well, but the person not surviving the assault on his body during execution would probably make the "rights" issue moot.

As we can all likely agree that forced castration would probably never happen here, it leads me back around to women.  Forcing a woman to accept an imposition on her body is no different than forcing a rapist to accept an imposition on his body.  There is a difference, actually - the woman isn't a criminal.  And if the pregnancy is a result of rape, the imposition is exponentially compounded.  I just don't see how anyone gets around that simple fact.  I get that a fetus has no control over how it came into being, and I would never minimize that fact - but how do we leave women out of the equation, and then just expect them to act like grown ups, take it on the chin, and suck it up when we treat them like children who need to be told what they will and won't do with their bodies?  And that's exactly what we would be doing if Roe v. Wade were ever repealed.

Mr. Akin, a word of advice:  Better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt.

The Voter ID Farce

So the ballot initiatives for Voter ID has simply exploded in the politisphere lately, with supporters claiming a desire to keep illegals from voting, and critics claiming that the supporters are racist and trying to disenfranchise and suppress the vote of poor blacks, Hispanics and elderly people - the logic being that they are less likely to endure the hardship of riding buses, taxicabs, waiting in long lines, etc. to get to ID locations, when there is limited need for them to have one.  I'm thinking both sides are a bit full of it, to varying degree.  But first and foremost, let's accept that ID is required for almost everything we do anymore:

Social Security, Airports, DMV, Hospitals, Doctor's offices, Pharmacies, Jails, Court, Pawn Shops, Credit Card use, Check use, Adoptions, Blood Donation, Guns, Insurance, any phone call you ever make about an account of any kind.  Welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid all require ID.  ID is required for virtually everything. 

And statistically, the poor are the least likely to vote (in USA, we average 36.4%).  The numbers go up as income increases.  Education shows similar effect.  So what's to suppress?  They don't need ID for something they don't participate in, yes? 

I think the voter purging in Florida is complete garbage, and any Miamian knows, illegals go out of their way to avoid government.  This is why they've had almost no success finding illegals voting in Florida - THEY'RE NOT REGISTERED.  It's getting so deep in Rick Scott's office, you need hip boots and a bottle of Febreeze to keep the stink off of you.

Most of us should recognize that photo IDs are the most secure form of ID, since all other forms simply require information to fake.  There's a reason the REAL ID requirements were enacted, and I am of the opinion that everyone should have a photo ID, period.  And from a voting standpoint, if everyone has one, there's nothing to suppress, yes?

So if the problem is simply getting people to the places that issue photo IDs, I have a solution:  why not start issuing IDs in places that the poor would frequent... say, Welfare offices?  Most of the poor are on assistance of some kind.  They already have the documents in hand, because they have to if they're not using a photo ID to get benefits.  The benefits agent, upon verifying their documents for Welfare eligibility, has a webcam at their desk.  They take a photo, the photo ID is printed out at a central printer in the office by the time the lengthy benefits process is over with.  The ID information is forwarded to the state at the same time the benefits processing is (by way of their respective departments' secure web address).  Two birds, one stone.

This could also be accomplished in places where identification verification is required - like employers.  Every employer is required to file employment eligibility forms at the same time they file W-4s when they hire people.  Standard verification is a photo ID and a SS card (or green card), with other verification options if photo ID isn't available.  Once again, webcam - cheap, easy.  Take a picture, send it with the verification form.  State issues a photo ID, mails it to the employer within a couple of weeks, employee gets it with the next paycheck..  Not altogether different than getting a passport.  Two birds, one stone.

For the elderly, how about the doctor's office?  If their Medicare card legally verifies their ID as far as the feds are concerned, then it's simply a matter of obtaining a photo (webcam...) and submitting paperwork (done electronically these days, so no real hardship on the doctors' offices), state mails the ID to the home address, not unlike they do now for renewing drivers' licenses.  Two birds, one stone.

These cover the most likely scenarios for virtually everyone.  If they work, they can get ID through their employer.  If they don't, they're most likely on some kind of assistance, and they can get ID  at the same time they apply for benefits.  Elderly can use the other two options or their Medicare provider.  With almost everything being done on computers and internet, there's simply no reason an easier means of acquiring photo ID can't be accomplished.  Welfare offices are a state agency, so the same system security is available as at the DMV.  If employers are found to be misusing the system for fraud IDs, their occupational license is revoked, and any IDs applied for by the employer are re-verified for accuracy and validity, either through current employers or the Welfare office, if they are on assistance.  Same can apply for doctors' offices.

This is not a perfect solution, but it's an option.  It's certainly better than complaining that poor minorities might have to take a bus and stand in line.  Really?  That's the argument?  So any suggestion of utilizing a more secure form of ID besides a library card and a utility bill, and requiring it to vote, is simply racist and an attempt to suppress voter turnout?  The intellectual laziness is staggering...

I don't think voter fraud (at the polls, anyway) is a huge problem.  If photo IDs can cut down on the dead votes and double voting, great.  Not too worried about illegal immigrants - they pretty much avoid anything governmental the best they can anyway, so they're not showing up in voting booths, I don't care how hard you argue that - it's sounds ridiculous (because it is).  But identification security has become an increasing important issue, and has to be addressed.  Photo ID is the most efficient way to do it. 

And if everyone has one, then requiring it to vote, along with the myriad of other things we need ID for, is no big deal.

A Man's Take on Birth Control

Couple of things on birth control... 

While I am not a fan of the Affordable Care Act in general, the contraception mandate is very low down the list of aspects that bother me about ACA.  But since people have made a pretty large mountain from a relatively small molehill, allow me to inject a tiny bit of reality amidst the hype:

1.  One of the things that drive me crazy is people shouting without knowledge - or worse, in spite of it.  One of the most common rants I see and hear is the seeming belief by the religious (generally Christians) that they can't stop themselves from espousing in public:  that birth control kills potential babies.  Wow, I'm not sure people could be more wrong.  Ovulation is predicated upon a spike in estrogen levels mid-cycle, that activates the pituitary gland to release hormones that cause the ovary to release an egg.  Birth control stabilizes the estrogen levels to prevent the spike and, as a result, the pituitary gland never has the chance to cause the ovary to release an egg.  Everybody understand that last part?  The egg never releases.  Read that sentence again, it's pretty important.  No potential life is killed.  The egg is still right there, in the ovary, and can still be released at a later date when the woman stops the birth control.  The potential life is still there.  That's a whopper of a piece of information to not know, or get completely wrong, when you are brow-beating women on "ethical" grounds, over deciding to use contraception.

2.  Birth control helps women on numerous levels that have nothing to do with pregnancy, including consistently regulating and lessening the intensity (cramping) of menstruation, as well as minimizing the frequency of heavy bleeds.  It also significantly reduces the chances of developing ovarian cysts and cancer, endometriosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).  As often as not, women are prescribed contraception for these reasons alone.  This is no small point, since Viagra was designed for cardiac patients' regulation of heart valves - the point being, don't scoff at a drug simply because of one aspect you find questionable, when there are larger benefits involved.

3.  The only thing the religious hate more than contraception is abortion.  Well, if  woman can postpone pregnancy for a while (I reiterate, the eggs are still there for later use), elective abortion numbers will drop like a rock.  One would think that would be highly pleasing to those so adamantly against it, yes?  So please - try to see the forest from the trees.  With contraception, you postpone life, which vastly reduces the elimination of it after conception through abortion - a larger victory, maybe?

4.  Now for the financial aspect:  taxes will not go up as a result of this mandate... I repeat, taxes will not go up - insurance premiums will.  Now, before people blow their wads, pay attention to the estimated increase - the average increase will be $21.40 per person, per year.  That comes to $1.78/month, or for those of you on bi-weekly paychecks, 89 cents per pay period.  And the mandate doesn't just cover contraception.  It also covers domestic violence screening and counseling, breastfeeding supplies and annual preventive care, such as pap smears and pelvic exams.  The contraception and preventative care alone would reduce health costs over the long term, which could in turn reduce premiums.  Don't be short-sighted and frustrated - see the bigger long term picture.

I find it interesting that the people that bloviate the most about this stuff tend to be the same people who bloviate the most about their freedoms being derailed.  Well here you go.  You may not agree with the goals of the contraception mandate, but you still have the freedom to choose not to utilize whatever you don't want to.  And while you all have your panties in a twist about it, just remember that it could always be worse:  We could be China, murdering babies based on the gender and number of children in the family...