First, abortion does not lead to an increased rate of cancer. I’m going to direct you to two medical sites that show study after study has found no link between induced abortion and breast cancer:
- American Cancer Society
- World Health Organization

And doctors are most certainly NOT required to perform abortion procedures. Indeed, there are so few abortion providers in the United States that 87 percent of U.S. counties had none as of 2000 (New England Journal of Medicine).

This new fact sheet from the Guttmacher Institute shows, state by state, the policies in place that allow providers to opt out of performing abortions and offering contraceptive services:
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf

From Guttmacher: “Almost every state has a policy explicitly allowing some health care professionals or certain institutions to refuse to provide or participate in abortion, contraceptive services or sterilization services. Even in states without explicit refusal statutes, an individual health care professional’s actions may be legally protected by statutes prohibiting discrimination against employees, based on their religious objections. While some of the institutional policies are limited to private, or even religious, health care institutions, others apply to all institutions providing health care.”

I am assuming that you are pro-life? Otherwise, it does not make sense for you to find his comments “refreshing.” Unless you find throwing the issue of choice under the bus refreshing. But I can certainly understand your perspective from a Pro-Life point of view if this is the case.

For the pro-choicers out there…. If we don’t get seriously pissed about this we are NEVER going to get what we want. If that’s okay with you all….

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am indeed thrilled about the White House Council on Women and Girls. I have my doubts about Valerie Jarrett, since she has no background in regard to working or speaking on behalf of women and is Michelle’s cousin (perhaps an act of nepotism?). Nonetheless, it’s a wonderful creation!

Alot of what Obama restored is great. But this is what I would put into the category of “to be expected” and “better than Bush”. Important, yes. But not bold. Nothing that most Dems wouldn’t think of doing. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I’m not sure I’d categorize this as bold but something most of us would expect considering her popularity during the election and how hard Hillary worked for Obama during the campaign. A good decision yes. But bold? I’d say more of a pay off.

In regard to areas that I feel Obama has not been excellent for women I’d just like to share this short list:

1. His response to John Favreau’s “groping” incident. Sexual harassment toward a workplace colleague for sure. If this had happened at many of the corporations or gov. agencies that I worked at, Favreau would have been fired. Obama should have taken this incident seriously and he did not.

2. Having Rick Warren at the inauguration. Rick Warren’s ministry encourages women who are victims of domestic violence to stay with their spouse. Ouch. His presence at the inauguration was a slap in the face toward those who value building a society where violence against women is taken seriously.

3. Obama’s cabinet count. How does it compare to Bush’s gender ration? Bill Clinton’s? Is Obama’s ratio “excellent”?

4. Tim Kaine. Out of all the wonderful choices out there, Obama has chosen staunchly pro-life Time Kaine to be the new head of the DNC? This is terrible for women.

5. FOCA. His flip-flop IMO is very bad for women. Obama promised to make FOCA a priority during the campaign. He actually said it would be one of the first things that he would tackle! This flip-flop of his hurts women. Obama obviously has incredible influence over Congress. If he were to speak on behalf of FOCA that would be extremely powerful. Instead, politics as usual is taking place, at the expense of women’s bodies.

It saddens me that so many Democratic women are willing to take crumbs from their party. We need the FOCA but here’s what we are not talking about. What will happen to women’s allegiance to the Democratic party once FOCA is passed? How will Democrat’s be able to manipulate women to vote for them? They need to keep the fear of Roe vs. Wade in order to secure votes. It’s the perfect carrot.

And so I don’t think it’s fair to women to be so understanding toward Obama in regard to FOCA. Unless you don’t mind crumbs. We need to speak loudly. Get angry. FOCA now! You promised and we voted! FOCA now! Let’s end this constant worrying of Roe vs. Wade. FOCA!

I think creating the White House Council on Women and Girls is nothing to sneeze at, and appointing Hillary Clinton secretary of state was a bold move. As much as I disagree with her on some policy issues, I’m confident of her commitment to women’s health, and she reaffirmed as much, speaking for the Obama administration, in April: http://is.gd/vLYq-

I was disappointed about his remarks on FOCA, but again — it’s up to Democratic members of Congress to move this bill and that doesn’t seem to be their priority.

Laura, those rhetorical contradictions are indeed frustrating. But like you, I’m OK with the bottom line. I can accept the pragmatic language, even though it makes my head hurt, if the policies are solid. So far so good, though we’ve got lots more to go — which is why we all need to stay on top of these things.