ProgressWomen

image via wikimedia commons

Newt Gingrich has been repeating ad nauseam his claim that Barack Obama is “the best food stamp president in American history.” However, this is not true.

Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org reports:

Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures. [emphasis added]

…To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

In a Businessweek article, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack criticizes Mr. Gingrich’s remarks:

Those who get the federal assistance “are playing by the rules,” Vilsack, whose department administers food stamps, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg News. “There are misconceptions about this program and confusion” about recipients caused by negative portrayals by some Obama opponents, he said.

Given the program’s importance in keeping working families out of poverty, it also shouldn’t be mischaracterized as a handout for the undeserving, he said.

To start with, “food stamps” is not even the proper terminology. The program’s name has been changed to Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). Contrary to Mr. Gingrich’s insinuations, more whites are on SNAP than African Americans. Here is some demographic information about SNAP recipients:

• Race/Ethnicity
• 35.7% of participants are white (non-Hispanic)
• 22% of participants are African-American (non-Hispanic)
• 10% of participants are Hispanic
• Age
• 47% of SNAP beneficiaries are under 18 years of age
• 8% of SNAP beneficiaries are 60 years of age or older
• Gender
• 56% of SNAP beneficiaries are women
• Single parents (usually a mother) headed more than half of all SNAP households with children
• Income
• 41% of recipients are part of a household with earned income (the “working poor”)
• 85.3% of SNAP households live in poverty

Image via ec.princeton.edu

The Washington Post‘s Rob Stein reports that the Food and Drug Administration is deciding whether to make Plan B emergency contraception (commonly referred to as the morning-after pill) available on drugstore shelves without a prescription.

Currently, Plan B is available without a prescription for those 17 years and older. However, the drug is kept behind the counter and customers must show an ID to prove their age. This is a barrier for women who are embarrassed or scared to discuss a private situation with a pharmacist or pharmacy technician who is a total stranger. It also requires the pharmacy to be open.

Women 16 and under are required to have a prescription from their doctor. This is also a barrier, given that emergency contraception is, as the name suggests, something one needs in an emergency. It is most effective if taken within 72 hours. Having to make a doctor’s appointment and find an open pharmacy to fill a prescription causes unnecessary delay. The local drugstore or supermarket is much more accessible.

The science shows that Plan B is safe and girls as young as 11 can safely follow the instructions. It is also worth repeating that Plan B is not the “abortion pill.” It is not an abortifacient. Confused? That’s because several anti-choice organizations deliberately spread this misinformation. Many who oppose making Plan B more accessible dredge up the same straw man used to oppose sex education – “if people know this is available then they’ll have sex!” Here are two rational responses to that concern:

1. People are already having sex; and
2. Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy says, “there is simply no evidence to suggest that making contraception available to teens encourages them to begin having sex, have sex at younger ages or have more sexual partners. Moreover, most of us would rather have sexually active teens use contraception than become pregnant.” [emphasis added]

There is no reason, other than ideological opposition, not to make this safe pregnancy-prevention drug available.

Learn more about emergency contraception (EC):

• Princeton University and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals: The Emergency Contraception Website
• The Center for Reproductive Rights: Emergency Contraception: An Important Component of Women’s Rights
• Planned Parenthood: The Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)
• NARAL: Emergency Contraception (EC): An Important and Underutilized Contraceptive Option

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had an excellent editorial recently. Echoing Shark-Fu’s previous ProgressWomen post, the editorial board called on abortion-restriction-happy Missouri legislators to pay at least as much attention to protecting infants and young children:

“Should it be the public policy of the state of Missouri to do as much to protect the lives of young children as it does for unborn children?…

“The questions are prompted by Post-Dispatch reporter Nancy Cambria’s emotional roller-coaster of a three-part series last week examining the tragic deaths of infants while under the supervision of child-care providers.

“Missouri lawmakers… over the over the past few years, have refused to pass very basic child-care regulations that would allow state or local officials to shut down illegal facilities or homes. …

“But if regulation is a necessary and good thing to save the lives of the unborn, why is regulation not a good thing to save living, breathing infants who are dying in unregulated day-care facilities all across our state every single year?

Read the full editorial HERE

Image via Wikimedia

Nancy Cambria - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle pledged this week to put two child care safety measures front and center in the next Missouri legislative session.

The comments came after a series by the Post-Dispatch detailing 45 mostly preventable deaths in Missouri child care facilities from 2007 through 2010. All but four occurred in unlicensed facilities with no state safety standards or inspections. Eight occurred in day cares where providers broke laws by caring for too many children without a required license.

Previously, the Legislature has failed to act on two bills that would enforce higher standards. Those bills — known as Nathan’s Law and Sam Pratt’s Law — have both been pushed by the parents of children who have died in care.

The article goes on to mention how the former chair of the House Standing Committee on Children and Families, Cynthia Davis, chose to have the committee address only abortion regulation. This narrow focus on regulating abortion came at the expense of ensuring the safety of children in child care settings, as Shark-Fu noted in her guest post earlier this week.

Not surprisingly, when asked for comment, Cynthia Davis doubled-down on her opposition to regulating home child care facilities:

“The problem is not that we don’t have enough laws, the problem is that parents need to be vigilant to make good decisions when they put their child in the care of another person,” she said Wednesday. Davis, who is running for lieutenant governor as a third-party candidate, warned that further regulation would drive up child care costs and erode parental control.

Davis conveniently ignores the fact that current laws make it nearly impossible for parents to find out if a child has died while in the care of a particular child care provider.

While I don’t think the Missouri General Assembly is going to stop passing legislation to further regulate abortion (already the most regulated medical procedure in the state), it is promising to see bipartisan support for common-sense regulations that will protect children and give parents peace of mind.    GO TO STORY

Missouri Capitol • Image via Wikipedia

Guest Post by Shark-Fu

Longtime readers know that I follow Missouri state politics. As a reproductive justice activist, I know which committees in the Missouri House are likely to excrete legislation designed to deny women access to reproductive healthcare under the guise of “protection” and which legislators are keen to pander to special interest groups who pump up their campaign coffers as they lead their devout flock of single-issue anti-choice voters to the polls.

One such committee is the Committee on Children and Families, where former State Representative Cynthia Davis once ruled and once said that the committee would super focus on abortion, hinting that all other issues could take a hike.

That disturbing focus on abortion came to mind when I read this piece this morning on STLtoday.com about the lack of regulations for home day care centers, the lack of enforcement for the few rules that exist, and the toll taken in children’s lives.

Abortion is the most regulated medical practice in Missouri. Every session there are new medically inaccurate bills introduced, each heavily laced with insults challenging women’s ability to think and make decisions. And I’ve often wondered about all other things that need additional regulation but go unaddressed…about the regular things every person could or would participate in that are never discussed under a dome determined not to trust women and eager to pass legislation proclaiming that lack of trust.

My heart sunk when I read the article about home day care centers and children who have died in care at sites that should have been shut down years ago, but for the lack of regulations and enforcement.

And my mind immediately went to that committee with the deceptive title.. the one that many Missourians probably think focuses on things like home day care providers and stuff like that… the one that spend an entire legislative session focused on generating legislation to pass more regulations for the most regulated medical practice in the state and gave a pass to hearing legislation that would have helped children and tightened day care regulations.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch piece on home day care abuses did not reference an earlier piece on Cynthia Davis and her abortion focus… a piece published May 2, 2010… a piece that begins with the following:

“Not long ago it was common to find lines of people waiting to testify before the Missouri House Standing Committee on Children and Families.

“Speakers addressed subjects as diverse as child immunizations, day care quality, child abuse, foster care, safety hazards, adoption and abortion.

And then went on to add:

“But advocates for children’s issues and day care safety have quietly grumbled that under Davis’ rule, a once vital committee charged with child and family issues has been so focused on abortion that it has avoided other important work.”

That May, Davis refused to hear “Sam Pratt’s Law,” a child care safety bill named in honor of an infant who died at an unlicensed home day care provider. The Post-Dispatch then sparked a discussion about legislation that would help protect children if only conservative legislators care for the born as much as they fear women.

Fast-forward to now, and the Post-Dispatch has published this article about home day care neglect, covering the death of Tyler Brody as a result of neglect at a day care.

Tyler died in July 2010, some two months after the 2010 legislative session ended.

Pause… consider… continue.

The most dangerous place for legislation protecting children and families is in a legislative body that believes women are dangerous and our bodies in need of regulation, everything else be damned.

The wrong priorities take their toll.

Not “if” but “when.”

This has been cross-posted from SharkFu’s blog, AngryBlackBitch