The debate grew heated, and Deputy House Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert (R) even suggested that women undergo abortions to maintain their “lifestyle.” He later apologized for his remarks:

“Abortion is a sad and deeply serious occurrence,’’ Gilbert said in a statement. “Individuals on both sides of this issue agree that it is tragic for all involved. I recognize that few women undergo the procedure lightly. It leaves scars, both mental and physical, that can last forever. I regret that my comments earlier today on the House floor were insensitive to that reality.’’

Gilbert, who opposes abortion rights, shocked opponents of a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion when he said: “In the vast majority of these cases, these are matters of lifestyle convenience.”

The state Senate already approved the ultrasound bill, so now it goes to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who has already said he will approve the measure.

But two studies have already shown that ultrasounds do not influence women’s decisions on abortions. It is unclear if the GOP-controlled Senate will also approve the personhood measure. Last year, when Democrats controlled the Senate, they voted down a similar measure.

I think strongly that teen pregnancy and young people having babies when they are not emotionally, financially, or otherwise equipped to take care of them, is kind of glorified in our media right now. You know, things like Secret Life [of an American Teenager] and Juno and Knocked Up – even if they pretend to deal with abortion, the movies don’t even say the word “abortion.” It’s something that over a third of American women are going to decide to have to do in their lives. But people are so terrified that no one will discuss the reality of it — not no one, but very few popular entertainments, even when they say they’re dealing with this issue, they don’t, and won’t. It’s frustrating to me.

I don’t think Buffy should have a baby. I don’t think Buffy can take care of a baby. I agree with Buffy. It’s a very difficult decision for her, but she made a decision that so many people make and it’s such a hot button issue with Planned Parenthood under constant threat and attack right now. A woman’s right to choose is under attack as much as it’s ever been, and that’s a terrible and dangerous thing for this country. I don’t usually get soap box-y with this, but the thing about Buffy is all she’s going through is what women go through, and what nobody making a speech, holding up a placard, or making a movie is willing to say.

This is honestly one of the messaging issues I struggle most with. I defy anyone to read Adrian Nicole Leblanc’s Random Family and think that we shouldn’t provide more support for teenaged mothers. I may find it inexplicable that a 14-year-old would want to get pregnant or that a 16- or 17-year-old would want to derail their education by having a child and raising it herself, but for the sake of that teenager’s kids, I want her to have access to plenty of WIC, subsidized daycare, and health insurance. And I think it’s repulsive that anyone thinks we should start the process of trying to prevent teenagers from getting pregnant by making it harder for their children to grow up with adequate access to food, clothing, medical care and safe child care.

But that does leave a messaging window that requires a greater precision: it’s not easy to glamorize abstinence for a mass audience, but it is possible to talk up good grades and the opportunities that college, travel, and career bring along with them. We need pop culture to stand up not just for the right to choose, but to emphasize all the adventures you can have if you finish your education and find a fulfilling job. And those adventures don’t only have to include killing vampires.

Hellfire and brimstone in the palm of your hand.

Now Right Wing Watch reports that Siri may well have an evil twin sister in the form of Iris, the popular app for Verizon’s Android:

Iris – Siri spelled backwards – is the popular electronic assistant available for Android phones. It’s been downloaded over 1 million times and is powered by ChaCha, the Internet’s “leading answers service with more than a billion questions answered.” In other words, Iris may be a knockoff, but it’s no joke.

That’s why we were surprised when we saw the Family Research Council crowing about the Android being “as pro-life as they come” and watched their video…Iris’ answers are drawn from ChaCha, which provided a string of anti-choice answers to our questions:

Anti-abortion activists are celebrating the discovery of a kindred electronic ideologue. But Right Wing Watch notes that Iris doesn’t give such dogmatic answers to other controversial questions. For instance, “Iris failed to quote scripture in response to questions about adultery, birth control, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, and eating shellfish (which are an ‘abomination before the Lord).”

Of course, Romney’s past support for the right to choose has been well documented, but Romney’s connection to Planned Parenthood has been largely overlooked.

Mitt and Ann Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts in 1994, and Ann wrote a $150 check to the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, various news outlets reported. “They were both there, and I remember very well chatting with both of them, and talking about his support for the pro-choice agenda,” Nicki Nichols Gamble, the president of the League told ABC News in 2007.

That year, the Boston Globe published this photo, which purportedly shows Romney at the fundraiser:

During his successful race for Governor of Massachusetts 2002, Romney also signed a pro-choice pledge organized by Planned Parenthood.

See Think Progress’ full rundown of Mitt Romney’s evolving attitudes towards abortion.

Karen Handel

Handel has been at the center of the firestorm surrounding the organization’s unpopular decision to sever ties with Planned Parenthood — a decision that was reversed just a few days later following a massive backlash from supporters and its own employees.

In her resignation letter, Handel openly acknowledges her integral role in formulating the policy designed to cut off Planned Parenthood funding. Just a few days ago, Komen founder and president Nancy Brinker claimed, “Let me just tell you for the record that Karen did not have anything to do with this decision.”

Handel does not specifically defend the rules she pushed through, but decries the charity’s decision to reverse course, arguing that the proper procedure was followed:

We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization.

At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization.

Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy.

The idea that Komen wanted to stop funding cancer screenings for poor women to distance itself from controversy is particularly ironic, given that their decision accomplished just the opposite. The organization’s popularity has plummeted and they are already struggling to lure back donors.

Handel not only has a long anti-choice history, but pledged to eliminate grants for Planned Parenthood to provide breast and cervical cancer screenings when she ran for governor of Georgia in 2010.

In the letter, Handel declines any severance package, which will allow her to speak openly about her differences with Komen.

Santorum warned that the United States could follow the way of the Netherlands, where, he (incorrectly) claimed euthaniasia represts “10 percent of all deaths.” He also bemoaned women’s access to safe and legal abortion services:

Look at what’s happened just in our tolerance for abortion. Fifty years ago…60 years ago, people who did abortions were in the shadows, people who were considered really bad doctors. Now, abortion is something to that is just accepted. [...] This is the erosion. And it happens in the medical profession. It happened very fast. And I think Obamacare will lead us down that road.

Watch the video from Right Wing Watch:

Of course, Santorum’s nostalgia for a time before doctors could legally perform abortions was also a time when women regularly died or were seriously injured by illegal procedures. Roughly 50 percent of all maternal deaths in the first half of the 20th century were from illegal abortions, and an estimated 160 to 260 women died each year in the 1950s and 1960s from illegal abortions. But for Santorum, the fact that women no longer face those dangers is a sign of what harm can come from health care reform, right along with fake death panels and false warnings about euthanasia.

The poll also showed that Komen’s brand took a big hit in the controversy. A majority of all Americans, 53 percent, opposed Komen’s decision, while just 38 percent supported it. 49 percent said it made them less likely to support Komen financially in the future.

Today, Ad Age further reveals that, throughout the controversy, Fleischer has personally advised Komen CEO Nancy Brinker on how to handle the Planned Parenthood issue:

Former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who had previously been brought in by Komen to assist with an executive search for a senior VP-communications, provided informal advice. “When Nancy called me, I gave her my two cents worth,” he said via email. Ogilvy is Komen’s corporate and issues firm on retainer and was helming the issue as of Feb. 3.

But on Friday, Fleischer told ThinkProgress he had no involvement in the crisis communications effort. In an email sent to ThinkProgress after the publication of our story, Fleischer claimed our entire report was “inaccurate,” “unfair,” and “simply false” because it created the implication that he was involved with Komen’s strategy in recent days. An excerpt from Fleischer’s email:

Interviewing people for a job in December, none of whom were hired, is entirely separate from helping guide Komen’s strategy in February. The problem is fundamental – you have misleadingly connected two unrelated events.

Today, ThinkProgress asked Fleischer to explain his email now that he’s acknowledged he personally advised Komen’s CEO on Planned Parenthood strategy in January and February. Fleischer now claims that he was not involved in strategy because he did not participate “in any meetings or on any conference calls.”

As for why he objected to ThinkProgress’ initial report — which now appears to have understated the true scope of his inovlvement — Fleischer said it failed to get the “emphasis right.”

Fleischer, who retains a host of influential political and sports clients, makes his money as head of a private consulting company which markets itself as being able to “successfully deal with the media.” Fleischer appears motivated to minimize his connection to the Komen Foundation at a time when they suffered what is widely regarded as one of the biggest public relations disasters of all time.

As a fierce partisan and longtime critic of Planned Parenthood, Fleischer’s involvement also complicates Komen’s efforts to restore their reputation as an apolitical cancer charity.

MORGAN: But it’s a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped — and I accept it’s a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them –

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I’m seven months pregnant and I don’t want to have anything to do with it, it’s a little bit different story.

But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical — there’s no medical and there’s no legal evidence of a pregnancy –

Watch it:

Unfortunately, the Texas Congressman has a long history of dismissing women’s claims of sexual harassment. In his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul suggested that victims of sexual harassment should simply quit their jobs, writing, “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.” (HT: C&L)

Rick Tyler is Gingrich's former communications director who now runs his SuperPAC.

Last night, Gingrich’s most prominent surrogate, former Communications Director Rick Tyler, went on the offensive during an MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow and the Rev. Al Sharpton when asked about his candidate’s racial rhetoric. He accused the anchors of “race-baiting,” and claimed Democrats are hurting African-Americans:

TYLER: It’s baloney. MSNBC ought to get off this race-baiting kick…The Republican Party was founded by Abraham Lincoln…this was started as a civil rights party. If you go back to the 1856 Democratic platform it’s a racist platform…The Democratic Party — you can ask Al Sharpton about that, I think he would agree that the Democrats have failed in the public schools with the African-Americans. They abort their babies. They’ve done nothing to lift them out of poverty.

Watch it:

Sharpton retorted that it was Gingrich who was making race an issue in the campaign by singling out minorities for excoriation in his speeches.

Tyler resigned over Gingrich’s infamous Greek cruise, but has reemerged as the head of his Sheldon Aldelson-funded SuperPAC, Winning Our Future.

“If pregnant women should have to get an ultrasound before having an abortion, men should have to undergo additional medical procedures before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction,” she noted, and introduced an amendment to Vogel’s bill requiring that men “undergo a digital rectal exam” for pills like Viagra:

On Monday Howell expressed her disdain for legislation requiring the ultrasound by proposing an amendment she described as a simple matter of fairness. Her amendment said that before being treated for erectile dysfunction, a man would have to undergo a digital rectal exam and a cardiac stress test.

“We should just have a little gender equity here,” Howell said.

Vogel argued that “erectile dysfunction, in this context, is different from pregnancy,” and the “gender equity” amendment failed in a 21 to 19 vote mostly along party lines. Vogel’s ultrasound bill will receive a final vote today, and is expected to clear the full Senate.

Aware that such measures are a blatant attempt to obstruct and intimidate women from considering their constitutional right to an abortion, Howell pointed out that the ultrasound is also “adding to the cost” and “opening up [women] to emotional blackmail.”

Downton Abbey spends much of its time exploring changing roles in a world at war, particularly for women. But this week’s episode, one of the best in the season, seemed to me to be particularly good at exploring what choices were and weren’t available to these women we’ve come to know and care about so much, and the way the people around them conspire to limit their choices, ostensibly for their own good. It’s fitting that the episode began with images of Daisy and Mary bound by fate rather than choice as Matthew and William are terribly injured in France. “Someone walked over my grave,” a suddenly stricken Daisy tells Mrs. Patmore, and Mary drops a cup of tea in the drawing room, telling the family startled by her loss of composure that “I suddenly felt terribly cold.”

I wrote two weeks ago that it was awful to see Daisy trapped into marriage by everyone at Downton’s sense of her own good. This week, everyone conspires to make William’s dying wish to wed her before his death come true. “He was happy to think they were true!” Mrs. Patmore says of the lies she encouraged Daisy to tell. Daisy isn’t the only one whose true consent is not considered particularly important. When the vicar worries about a gravely injured William’s ability to truly express his intentions, a riled-up Violet, who’s already taken on the medical establishment and the military, takes him to task. “Can I remind you, William Mason has served our family well? At the last, he saved the life if not the health of my son’s heir,” she lays down the law. “You cannot imagine that we would allow you to prevent this to happen…You living is Lord Grantham’s gift. Your house is on Lord Grantham’s land…I hope you can find some way to overcome your scruples.” In the end, it’s really only William who is thinking of Daisy’s ability to have choices, even if they’re choices after he’s gone, when he says that they should marry so she can have his pension after his death. “It won’t be much, but I’ll know you have something to fall back on,” William tells Daisy, becoming truly worthy of her love, or at least her affection. Seeing Ethel and Jane’s plights in a world without a man, that’s no small thing to leave Daisy, who lacks both those women’s force of personality.

While Daisy’s getting railroaded into a wedding, Lavinia’s being denied the one she badly wants. It’s striking that Dr. Clarkson takes Lord Grantham aside to inform him not just as Lord Grantham says, “You mean there can be no children?” but that there can be “no anything.” The continuation of the family line takes precedence over any individual woman’s happiness. And once again, a man makes decisions that he insists are for a woman’s own good. “I love you so much for saying it,” Matthew tells Lavinia when she insists that despite his paralysis, she wants to be with him. “But there’s something else that may not have occurred to you. We can never be properly married…It’s not important now. But it will be. And it should be.” It’s a terrible knot: there’s something admirable in Matthew insisting that Lavinia has a right to sexual happiness. But it’s dreadfully paternalistic in him making that decision for her despite the fact that she isn’t allowed to have the life experience that would give her the knowledge to weigh all the elements of her choice. “I couldn’t marry her now. I couldn’t marry any woman,” Matthew tells Mary later, revealing the challenge may be less his concern for Lavinia’s well-being than his own self-loathing. “And if they just wanted to be with you?” Mary asks, cleaning up his vomit and tending him with a solicitousness that would have been impossible when we first met her. “On any terms?” “It’s nothing,” Mary tells Isobel of her nursing when Isobel finally arrives at Matthew’s bedside. “Sybil’s the nurse in the family.” But Isobel knows something important has occurred. “It’s the very opposite of nothing,” Isboel insists, referring less to Mary’s specific actions and more to her arrival into being the kind of person who can truly think wisely about her own and other’s happinesses.

Evidence of that inequality between men and women is everywhere. The Major can refuse to acknowledge his child with Ethel and reap nothing but the disapproval of Mrs. Hughes: his ability to choose comes at the price of a double cost to her, the inability to do anything but have the baby, and the choices that event robs her of in the future. As much as Vera Bates is totally the worst, Sir Richard’s manipulation of her is a stark reminder of what happens when the advantages of gender are multiplied by the advantages of money and class (Violet, of course, is a reminder that those same factors can erase the gender gap). And Branson’s continuing to insist that everything rests with Sybil, without really acknowledging the costs she faces, telling her ” Sometimes a hard sacrifice must be made for a future that’s worth having. That’s all I’m saying. It’s up to you.” Would that it were. Would that it may be.

But one North Carolina Republican believes that as a country we’ve grown soft since banning public hangings and is calling for them to reinstated as a deterrent to crime. If Rep. Larry Pittman had his way, “abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers” would be first in line for the gallows:

Republican Rep. Larry Pittman, who was appointed to the District 82 House seat in October, expressed his views in an email sent Wednesday to every member of the General Assembly. [...]

“We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner,” Pittman wrote in the email. “If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.”

As ThinkProgress reported, last year Republicans in South Carolina, Nebraska, and Iowa pushed legislation that would essentially legalize the murder of abortion providers. Such radical sentiments have been echoed by prominent conservatives like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who said during his 2004 campaign, “I favor the death penalty for abortionists.”

In Save the Date, Sarah (Lizzy Caplan) runs a bookstore but hopes to make a living from her illustrations (drawn by graphic novelist Jeffrey Brown, who wrote the script with Egan Reich and director Michael Mohan). As the movie opens, she’s moving in with long-term boyfriend Kevin (Geoffrey Arend), who’s half of a band with Andrew (Martin Starr, the man in movies who does the most to hide his sexiness), who is engaged to Sarah’s sister Beth (Alison Brie, playing a grown-up Annie from Community). Commitment-shy and career-insecure, Sarah breaks up with and moves out on Kevin when he impulsively proposes to her, then jumps into a new relationship with lovelorn bookstore customer Jonathan (Mark Webber) while trying to deal with helping an increasingly anxious Beth plan her wedding.

None of this is incredibly new territory, but all of the relationships have a specificity that works. Beth and Sarah are clearly playing out long-established scripts as they move through a series of swiftly-unfolding big events. “I’m waiting for marriage,” Sarah jokes to Beth as they drive her stuff to Kevin’s place. “I thought you didn’t believe in marriage,” Beth ventures, torn between being excited about the prospect of her sister joining her on the road to marriage and nerves about whether Sarah can handle the commitment. “I don’t,” Sarah deadpans, “So I’m going to die a virg.” After her breakup with Kevin, Sarah tells Beth, “All I want is to get food that’s really bad for us and for you to give me a lot of sympathy.” But Beth, who disapproves of Sarah’s flightiness, is hesitant. “I’ll get really bad food,” she compromises. “But I’m not giving you sympathy.” Similarly, Andrew and Kevin are friends of long-enough standing that Andrew can muse to Kevin, “Do you think she and Beth are the same at sex?”

And as Sarah gets to know Jonathan, their conversations have a nice tinge of nerves and wonder. “I stalk your friend quietly. Because it’s a bookstore,” Jonathan jokes to Beth as he works up the courage to talk to her at the concert where Kevin proposes. Later, as they get to know each other, Jonathan explains to Sarah that he wants to be marine biologist that “I know there isn’t an ocean in Kansas City. And that’s why I became totally obsessed with it. And waves are amazing.” “It’s just so cool that you care so much about something,” Sarah tells him, recognizing in Jonathan the shared risk of having a dream that could disappoint you if it doesn’t come true. It’s a nice movement that feels of the recession and the generation without being bogged down by it.

Similarly, the movie isn’t afraid to make drama out of human decency and indecency without going over the top. When Kevin confronts Jonathan over his relationship with Sarah, Jonathan says mildly, “If I were you, I wouldn’t have done this, but I’d have been really upset…I want you to know I’m entirely sympathetic to your situation.” “Dude,” Kevin tells him. “I’m just pissed you don’t suck.” Those emotions are big enough.

The one place the movie steps wrong, and that I think male writers and directors tend to get wrong frequently, is in a surprise pregnancy plotline. I understand that continuing pregnancies is a way of keeping a plot going, and of upping the emotional impact of a relationship. But there’s something kind of odd about when male writers think women will be less than careful about birth control. Being uncertain about the state of your career or indecisive about committing to a relationship doesn’t automatically being careless about birth control, be it the Pill, an IUD, or simply regular condom use. And I’m not sure why those two things seem to go together, whether here or in Knocked Up. If anything, if you’re worried about your future, that seems like a time that the well-educated, upper-middle class heroines in these movies would be particularly careful about getting pregnant. At least Save the Date, unlike Knocked Up, has the courage to at least utter the word abortion. But a movie that’s realistic and tender and smart about sex and pleasure seems like it could have been more thoughtful and internally consistent when it comes to sex and reproduction.

ROMNEY: Then of course there’s the assault on religion….now he’s gone forward and said that religious institutions, universities, hospitals and so forth, religious institutions have to provide free contraceptives to all their employees, even if that religious institution is opposed to the use of contraception, as in the case of the Catholic Church. Even in that regard, fighting to eliminate the conscience clause for health care workers who wish not to provide abortion services or contraceptives in their workplace, in their hospital for instance. It’s an assault on religion unlike anything we have seen.

There’s been an assault on marriage. I think he is very aggressively trying to pave the path to same-sex marriage. I would unlike this president defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Listen:

In reality, health care workers can still follow their consciences and avoid prescribing contraception or assisting in abortion services. Federal regulations contain clear provisions in three separate laws shielding federally-funded health care providers’ right of conscience. For instance, the 1976 Church Amendment “prevents the government (as a condition of a federal grant) from requiring health care providers or institutions to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization procedures against their moral or religious convictions,” the Coats Amendment of 1996 prohibits the government from “discriminating” against medical residency programs or other entities that lose accreditation because they fail to provide or require training in abortion services” and the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment of 2004 “forbids federal, state and local governments from requiring any individual or institutional provider or payer to perform, provide, refer for, or pay for an abortion.”

Even the new Affordable Care Act regulations, which require institutions to offer reproductive health care services without additional co-pays, include a narrow religious exemption. Houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt from the provision, while religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule. Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost.

In fact, marriage equality laws that allow gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil marriages provide similar conscience protections for religious institutions, exempting houses of worship and their leaders from recognizing same-sex relationships.

– PERSONHOOD: The Virginia General Assembly’s very first bill, House Bill 1, is a “personhood” measure that defines life as beginning at conception and would essentially outlaw abortions. Modeling it on Mississippi’s failed measure, Virginia Republicans threaten to outlaw birth control and in vitro fertilization for couples trying to have a baby. Anti-choice activists hope to push similar measures in at least 11 other states, including Ohio and Kansas.

– RACE-BASED ABORTIONS: Following in Arizona’s footsteps, Florida Republicans introduced a bill that would “require abortion providers to sign an affidavit stating they’re not performing the procedure because the woman did not want a child of a particular gender or race.” Despite a complete lack of evidence, they insist that minority women are seeking abortions, or have a higher abortion rate in their communities, because they loathe the race of the fetus.

– FETAL PAIN: Florida Republicans are simultaneously pushing a bill that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks based on the unfounded idea that fetuses can feel pain. “They suck their thumbs,” said state sponsor Rep. Daniel Davis (R). “They get hiccups. They get excited when their mom talks. They feel pain.” The medical community, however, insists that it is highly unlikely the fetus registers pain as its brain is not developed enough. U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced the same measure to ban post-20 week abortions for women in Washington, D.C in order to protect a fetus from “the agonizing process of being aborted.”

– HEARTBEAT BILL: While a more radical heartbeat bill is slowly proceeding in Ohio, another kind of “heartbeat” bill is also gaining a foothold in the Oklahoma legislature. State Sen. Dan Newberry (R) and state Rep. Pam Peterson (R) filed companion measures that “require abortion providers to use a fetal heart rate monitor on the fetus of a woman who is at least eight weeks pregnant and make the heartbeat of the unborn child audible before an abortion is performed.” The heartbeat can often be detected as early as “six to seven weeks,” before a women even knows she is pregnant.

House GOP Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) are also pushing their own anti-abortion bills in Congress. Duncan’s bill would “require abortion providers to obtain written certification from a woman seeking an abortion, then to wait 24 hours after that certification before performing the abortion.” Jordan’s bill would “require women seeking an abortion to be given the chance to view an ultrasound of their unborn child before obtaining the abortion.”

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)

Despite the fact that the new rule maintains a religious exemption for religious institutions and non-profits, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act to ensure that all providers can back out of contraception coverage if they claim religious objection. Promoting his bill on the Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, Fortenberry decried Obama’s decision as “a bailout for Planned Parenthood” that is “politically and ideologically driven” because, somehow, birth control “is unrelated to the basic needs of health care”:

FORTENBERRY: Fundamentally, I believe this is a bailout for Planned Parenthood because what it does is provide a number of electives that are now free and it is ideologically and politically driven because it is unrelated to the basic needs of health care, most of which is driven by the onset of chronic illness — that’s about 74 to 75 percent of where the costs come from. So if we were serious about trying to get underneath the underlying factors that are driving up health care costs and really worry about prevention, we’d focus on health and wellness and chronic disease prevention. That just leads me to conclude that this was politically and ideologically driven...It’s a bailout for Planned Parenthood, it’s a direct subsidy to the abortion industry, who is entangled with these services, that’s their political agenda.

Listen here:

As Right Wing Watch notes, contraception actually plays a vital role in a woman’s reproductive health. Increased access to birth control helps reduce the number of abortions because it helps prevent the leading cause of abortions: unwanted pregnancies. But as one study noted, greater access to birth control in the U.S. “has been hampered by barriers including costs, lack of provider training, and misconceptions held by both patients and providers.”

Obama’s decision to ensure greater access is about ensuring women can manage their own reproductive health. It is not a “bailout” of Planned Parenthood, which focuses 97 percent of its work on services for “health and wellness and chronic disease prevention.” The only “politically and ideologically driven” act here is Fortenberry’s outrage.