Hello everyone, I am back after gaining about 40 pounds since I have come back from Thailand. But now that I am on a diet and super-bitchy as a result, it is time to disprove some imaginary friends here. And there is one thing I know offhand to do this – the mere existence of transsexuals. Transsexuals are proof that there is not an all-loving creator who perfectly created us. Just like anyone else born with a birth defect, transsexuals have to go through a lot to overcome their birth defect.

The treatment of transsexuals, by believers, is at best disrespectful and at worst, a violation of their humanity. It is due to the very nature of our ailment that most Christians despise us. This makes it much harder for us to procure equal rights or even the right to treatment in some Western countries.

In addition, the false belief in god engenders other false beliefs, which include the ideas that transsexuality is a choice and that gender is the same as physical sex. These harm transsexuals by hampering understanding, encouraging people to try to stop their loved ones from finally living the life they should live and keeping procedures to correct the body seen as ‘elective’ procedures, rather than necessary medical treatments.

Michelle just posted a drunken rant on the Stupak-Pitts Bill that overwhelmingly (and needlessly) passed a ban on any insurance plan involved in the government’s up-and-coming insurance exchange programme or the public option healthcare system from providing women with abortion care.

Here’s my drunken rant.  It’s not as good, but it’s equally drunken.

With the Stupid-Gits Bill in effect, sexually active women with insurance provided or partially-provided by federal subsidies will have to purchase a separate private insurance plan on the off-chance that they get pregnant if they can’t afford to pay for an expensive abortion out of pocket.

This bill further complicates a woman’s right to a safe abortion and takes us that much closer to the days of back-alley abortions and perforated uteri.  There are already several idiotic and misogynistic laws on the books preventing federal money from going toward abortion services, but this bill just makes it worse, forcing women who might need an abortion in the future to take out multiple insurance policies and slowly drown in debt if they want to avoid having to pay for an abortion out of pocket and drown in a sudden flash-flood of debt.

It doesn’t ban all abortions, it just effectively bans poor people from having abortions.

I have a Dodge Ram pick-up from the 1980s.  It’s delightfully sketchy and makes terrible noises when you drive it.  I’m going to fill the truck bed with hundreds of wire hangers and hang a sign on it that says, “Women’s Mobile Health Care Unit, Brought to you by Rep. Stupak and Rep. Pitts,” and drive it around Washington D.C. next time I get a few days off work.  If anyone has a pile of wire hangers lying around, I would be glad to take them off your hands as a donation.  Email me for shipping directions.

I’ve invited my friend Pith And Wit to contribute a guest post in the near future.  She previously worked for a women’s healthcare service that provided abortions to the Roanoke Valley in Virginia.

Originally this was a post about religious privilege and the health care debate.  I had a relatively thoughtful discussion about how we were in danger (and still are) of having religious faith healing and non-evidence based medicine having mandated reimbursement from insurance companies with the current healthcare reform.  I also explored, perhaps a bit prematurely, how religion has played a role in the healthcare debate regarding abortion, access to abortion, and restrictions on abortion.  That article is no longer relevant, and will probably not see the light of day, although portions of it have been adapted below.

Why, you might ask?  Well, because of a particular amendment to the healthcare bill that will prevent insurance customers that receive subsidies from the federal government or participate in the mandated exchange from receiving abortion coverage, even when paid for with private funds.  Supplemental insurance or out of pocket costs will be required for elective abortion coverage.

I suppose you could argue that this is a little outside the purview of this blog, but as  Quixote from Shakersville reminds us, “Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they’re just privileges. And privileges can be taken away.”  The same sense of privilege that allows religious people to feel as if it is acceptable to vote away marriage rights to a minority allows them to feel okay about deciding what a person may or may not do with their body.

Honestly, the DNC wasn’t going to be getting any of my money because of the wholesale debacle they’ve made in supporting gay and minority rights, but this fucking seals the deal for me.  Here’s a list of the Democrats that voted for the amendment, and attached at the bottom are the Democrats that voted FOR the amendment and AGAINST the healthcare bill.  Anyone in those districts that want to run against your rep?  If you’re in Michigan/Ohio, I’ll come campaign for you.

For those looking for non-drunken babble about health-care reform, you should probably check out Spare Candy, who has helpfully compiled a list of people much more rationally and sober than I, speaking about what the hell this means for women.  I’m done with the fucking news for the night.

Edit:  RHRealityCheck has a concise and pretty good breakdown of WHY the Stupak Amendment is a huge setback for abortion access. I presume theirs is also a non-drunken post.

Not THAT Carnivale… we haven’t made it through winter yet.  No spring celebrations saturated in booze and sex with a razor thin veneer of religious respectability painted over it.

Instead, I’m in the Symposium of Humanists, along with fifteen other authors who are really amazing writers and thinkers.  Plus, the very gracious host, Confessions of a Closet Atheist, had an excellent layout.  For those of you who don’t quite get where it comes from, check out Feed.

My personal favourites come from VJack’s “Coming Out Atheist: Is Losing Your Relationship Worth It?” and “In Honour of Terry Pratchett” from Ebonmuse (Daylight Atheism). Excellent reads, both of them.  Enjoy, and let me know what you think!

Something of a link-and-run tonight, I’m still hungover from Friday (any night that ends with my clutching my boyfriend’s knees while singing Paparazzi, and then attempting to feed an entire pat of butter to his dog, is a good night). However I think everyone out there needs to see the a pair of Catholics demolished by Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchins. 

Now I could just post the amazing clips of the two of them tearing Catholicism into tiny little pieces, but honestly it’s funnier to see John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe blustering and trying to defend themselves. Besides, in the interest of fairness, you want to hear both sides of the debate, don’t you? Don’t miss the Q&A session at the end, and the results of the final vote. Oh, you don’t want to miss the final vote.

The playlist can be found here. There is currently no transcript online that I can find, but I’ll edit one into this post when one turns up on the internet. All credit to Atheist Planet Blog (via Gaytheist reader ShadedSpriter, who reads far more blogs and news sources than I could ever manage to).