2-part post: Biden & Women's Rights
In some ways it doesn't matter who Obama's running mate is because I wouldn't vote for McCain if you put a gun to my head. However, now that the choice is made, it should be examined.
Biden has been a Senator since '73 and served on Senate Committee for Foreign Relations. So that swirls the whole "Obama has no experience and is weak on foreign policy" argument down the crapper. (I won't even bother discussing the "Obama is a rich celebrity" argument coming from someone who doesn't even know how many homes he owns.)
But how would Biden vote on the issues I care about?
The Washington Post vote database puts him as voting Democratic platform 96.6% of the time. Good. I am a classic Democrat. Key votes of the last few years include:
- No on expanding surveillance without a court order
- Yes to expand children's health insurance
- Yes to inspect cargo coming into the country
- Yes to ban the use of torture (or whatever they're calling it these days.)
Unfortunately, he has also consistently voted yes for blanket war funding, although he did oppose the surge.
According to Project Vote Smart's Interest Group Ratings, Biden has consistently high marks from humane societies, farmer's unions, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, ACLU and other civil liberties groups, human rights, National Education Association, environmental conservation groups, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (Gun Owners of American schizophrenically ping-pong between low and high ratings for him), public health and disabilities groups, labor unions, liberal groups, military groups (especially disabled veterans - do look at McCain's voting record there), and senior and social security issues.
Most importantly to me, Biden has a rating of between 75 to 100% from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, which makes sense for someone who wrote the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This makes him the perfect person to contact regarding Bush's latest loogie smearing down the Constitution, the upcoming Health and Human Services Regulation to Protect Health Care Providers From Discrimination
Know how the far right likes to frame basic human rights - child custody, employment, hospital visitation, marriage - as "special" rights when homosexuals want them? Well, this little bit of legislative sleight of hand puts conservative Christians in a protected class by making it illegal for them to have to aid the termination of a pregnancy - "termination" redefined as birth control of any sort and "pregnancy" redefined as the moment of conception - regardless of the wishes and beliefs of the patient.
Think I'm making this up? The full text is online as a pdf. Pages 1 and 2 provide means of responding to the Department of Health and Human Services during the 30-day comment period.
I've run a search, and the words "woman," "fetus," "mother," "baby," aren't even in the document. What is there is a whole bunch of whining about how "standards of professional organizations have been used to define the exercise of conscience to be unprofessional" and the health care profession is "intolerant of ... certain religious beliefs" (p 9)
My heart bleeds purple peanut butter in sympathy. How dare organizations set standards of provided care and expect all their members to actually provide it! Page 10 goes on to snivel about "the mistaken beliefs that rights of conscience and self-determination extend to all persons except health care providers."
Everyone else in the world has the choice to not take a job if it conflicts with their personal convictions or to put up and STFU. I can think off the top of my head of about 25 different medical careers that don't ever bring abortion or birth control into the issue - there aren't a lot of cardiologists or radiologists or orthopedists having "conscience" problems on the job. So that whole "we're discriminated against" dog won't hunt. What they're asking for is the right to not do their job AND keep their job AND not be penalized, a "right" extended to no one else anywhere.
Remember that guy I linked to a week or so ago? This is his pet project, only now it's inching from "piss-poor idea" to "law of the land." There is a 30-day comment period. Let the HHS *and* your congresscritter *and* your Presidential candidates of choice hear from you.
Biden has been a Senator since '73 and served on Senate Committee for Foreign Relations. So that swirls the whole "Obama has no experience and is weak on foreign policy" argument down the crapper. (I won't even bother discussing the "Obama is a rich celebrity" argument coming from someone who doesn't even know how many homes he owns.)
But how would Biden vote on the issues I care about?
The Washington Post vote database puts him as voting Democratic platform 96.6% of the time. Good. I am a classic Democrat. Key votes of the last few years include:
- No on expanding surveillance without a court order
- Yes to expand children's health insurance
- Yes to inspect cargo coming into the country
- Yes to ban the use of torture (or whatever they're calling it these days.)
Unfortunately, he has also consistently voted yes for blanket war funding, although he did oppose the surge.
According to Project Vote Smart's Interest Group Ratings, Biden has consistently high marks from humane societies, farmer's unions, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, ACLU and other civil liberties groups, human rights, National Education Association, environmental conservation groups, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (Gun Owners of American schizophrenically ping-pong between low and high ratings for him), public health and disabilities groups, labor unions, liberal groups, military groups (especially disabled veterans - do look at McCain's voting record there), and senior and social security issues.
Most importantly to me, Biden has a rating of between 75 to 100% from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, which makes sense for someone who wrote the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This makes him the perfect person to contact regarding Bush's latest loogie smearing down the Constitution, the upcoming Health and Human Services Regulation to Protect Health Care Providers From Discrimination
Know how the far right likes to frame basic human rights - child custody, employment, hospital visitation, marriage - as "special" rights when homosexuals want them? Well, this little bit of legislative sleight of hand puts conservative Christians in a protected class by making it illegal for them to have to aid the termination of a pregnancy - "termination" redefined as birth control of any sort and "pregnancy" redefined as the moment of conception - regardless of the wishes and beliefs of the patient.
Think I'm making this up? The full text is online as a pdf. Pages 1 and 2 provide means of responding to the Department of Health and Human Services during the 30-day comment period.
I've run a search, and the words "woman," "fetus," "mother," "baby," aren't even in the document. What is there is a whole bunch of whining about how "standards of professional organizations have been used to define the exercise of conscience to be unprofessional" and the health care profession is "intolerant of ... certain religious beliefs" (p 9)
My heart bleeds purple peanut butter in sympathy. How dare organizations set standards of provided care and expect all their members to actually provide it! Page 10 goes on to snivel about "the mistaken beliefs that rights of conscience and self-determination extend to all persons except health care providers."
Everyone else in the world has the choice to not take a job if it conflicts with their personal convictions or to put up and STFU. I can think off the top of my head of about 25 different medical careers that don't ever bring abortion or birth control into the issue - there aren't a lot of cardiologists or radiologists or orthopedists having "conscience" problems on the job. So that whole "we're discriminated against" dog won't hunt. What they're asking for is the right to not do their job AND keep their job AND not be penalized, a "right" extended to no one else anywhere.
Remember that guy I linked to a week or so ago? This is his pet project, only now it's inching from "piss-poor idea" to "law of the land." There is a 30-day comment period. Let the HHS *and* your congresscritter *and* your Presidential candidates of choice hear from you.