April 24th, 2012
Rachel Maddow on the GOP's new normal; attempting to force victims of rape and incest to give birth to children conceived during such crimes.
Showing posts with label anti abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Arizona - The American Right's Insanity Incubator
April 4th, 2012
Admittedly, there is plenty of "conservative" crazy to go around.
In Florida, the push is on to drug test, well, pretty much everybody who works for state government provided that they are not legislators.
In Michigan, I am not making this up, the Republican Governor has just signed a law which seems to have been designed for the sole purpose of absolving the brother of that state's GOP party chair from responsibility in a multi-million dollar real estate boondoggle.
From coast to coast, the war on women rages, arguments that the poor should be taxed more are regarded as reasonable and, as Andrew Sullivan has examined HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, standard GOP talking points about the sitting President are so far removed from reality as to be the equivalent of fiction.
There's also the Ryan plan, a scheme so fantastical in its absurdity that it contains statements like this one on page 16:
Mitt Romney has called it "marvelous" to the delight of the President.
Yup, the right wing's whack-doodles are absolutely everywhere making their mischief like pooh-flinging monkeys on a coke binge.
But there really is no place like Arizona.
Sure, most GOP controlled state houses are trying to pass or have passed invasive new restrictions on a woman's right to choose. But none of them are like Arizona's H.B 2036. Not content to merely ape other transvaginal ultra sound mandates or impose new limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated, Arizona's GOP has inserted a provision which effectively alters the fabric of time.
Over at Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard explains:
You're pregnant when you're not, ladies. So there. Harlots.
Still, this is very nearly rational in comparison with any number of other initiatives the Arizona GOP has proposed.
Got employer covered health insurance? WELL, let's protect their right to fire you if you use birth control.
Let's link any environmental initiative, even one using private funds to cover governmental interests, to a vast conspiracy involving "one world government," the U.N., Bill Clinton and... whatever.
Let's force any woman who is struggling with the Constitutionally protected right to choose to view an abortive procedure first.
Just in time for the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, let's propose rather severe new penalties on civil disobedience.
Don't get me started on Joe Arpaio. Or Russell Pearce. It goes on and on and on with exemplars that boggle in comparison to almost any other so-called "Red State."
The state of Arizona has come to not only define, but also to predict establishment GOP extremism. They are the micro to the macro. If it's nuts, and it's happening there, it's also probably on its way to your state.
For the record, I used to love Arizona.
I once rode a horse in Monument Valley. It's one of my most treasured memories. I hoped at that time to capture the feeling, to be frank, that I thought John Wayne must have had in any of the many films he made there with the great John Ford directing.
It is a place of tremendous natural splendor. I also really liked the people I met when I was there.
But, that seems a lifetime ago.
Would I go back now?
Not a fucking chance unless I have to. I would as soon go to Kazakhstan and start loudly declaring myself to be American.
This is because it seems very nearly as dangerous to be one in either place.
Admittedly, there is plenty of "conservative" crazy to go around.
In Florida, the push is on to drug test, well, pretty much everybody who works for state government provided that they are not legislators.
In Michigan, I am not making this up, the Republican Governor has just signed a law which seems to have been designed for the sole purpose of absolving the brother of that state's GOP party chair from responsibility in a multi-million dollar real estate boondoggle.
From coast to coast, the war on women rages, arguments that the poor should be taxed more are regarded as reasonable and, as Andrew Sullivan has examined HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, standard GOP talking points about the sitting President are so far removed from reality as to be the equivalent of fiction.
There's also the Ryan plan, a scheme so fantastical in its absurdity that it contains statements like this one on page 16:
"The U.S. military is threatened by an uncontrolled debt burden that weakens America - but defense spending is not the driver of that burden." EMPHASIS MINERemember, this a "serious" and "non-political" document.
Mitt Romney has called it "marvelous" to the delight of the President.
Yup, the right wing's whack-doodles are absolutely everywhere making their mischief like pooh-flinging monkeys on a coke binge.
But there really is no place like Arizona.
Sure, most GOP controlled state houses are trying to pass or have passed invasive new restrictions on a woman's right to choose. But none of them are like Arizona's H.B 2036. Not content to merely ape other transvaginal ultra sound mandates or impose new limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated, Arizona's GOP has inserted a provision which effectively alters the fabric of time.
Over at Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard explains:
"Like the proposals before it, Arizona's legislation is modeled on the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" designed by the National Right to Life Committee. And like the other bills, it states that abortion would be banned 20 weeks into a pregnancy. But reproductive rights advocates point out that Arizona's law would actually be more restrictive than others, as the bill states that the gestational age of the fetus should be "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."
Not to go all middle-school health on you, but that's not exactly the same as the actual date the egg and the sperm hooked up. Figuring out that exact point one became pregnant can be tricky. Most women ovulate about 14 or 15 days after their period starts, and women can usually get pregnant from sexual intercourse that occured anywhere between five days before ovulation and a day after it. Arizona's law would start the clock at a woman's last period—which means, in practice, that the law prohibits abortion later than 18 weeks after a woman actually becomes pregnant."Got that?
You're pregnant when you're not, ladies. So there. Harlots.
Still, this is very nearly rational in comparison with any number of other initiatives the Arizona GOP has proposed.
Got employer covered health insurance? WELL, let's protect their right to fire you if you use birth control.
Let's link any environmental initiative, even one using private funds to cover governmental interests, to a vast conspiracy involving "one world government," the U.N., Bill Clinton and... whatever.
Let's force any woman who is struggling with the Constitutionally protected right to choose to view an abortive procedure first.
Just in time for the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, let's propose rather severe new penalties on civil disobedience.
Don't get me started on Joe Arpaio. Or Russell Pearce. It goes on and on and on with exemplars that boggle in comparison to almost any other so-called "Red State."
The state of Arizona has come to not only define, but also to predict establishment GOP extremism. They are the micro to the macro. If it's nuts, and it's happening there, it's also probably on its way to your state.
For the record, I used to love Arizona.
I once rode a horse in Monument Valley. It's one of my most treasured memories. I hoped at that time to capture the feeling, to be frank, that I thought John Wayne must have had in any of the many films he made there with the great John Ford directing.
It is a place of tremendous natural splendor. I also really liked the people I met when I was there.
But, that seems a lifetime ago.
Would I go back now?
Not a fucking chance unless I have to. I would as soon go to Kazakhstan and start loudly declaring myself to be American.
This is because it seems very nearly as dangerous to be one in either place.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Komen Kerfuffle
Feb 7th, 2012
Of all the blow-ups in the GOP's ongoing war against women, nothing has been as spectacular as the reaction to the Susan B. Komen foundation pulling their grants to Planned Parenthood. Before cheering their apparent reversal, it's worth noting how small a victory this is.
Michael B Keegan wrote this weekend:
"I too am angry at Komen's decision to put right-wing ideology ahead of its purported public health mission. But our deeper anger should be directed at someone else: the Republicans in Congress and GOP leaders who consistently make the same choices involving many times more money, and many times more women's lives. The shock of the revelation of Komen's new policies only highlighted how numb many of us have become to the larger, unrelenting attacks on women's health by right-wing elected officials.
The grants to Planned Parenthood that Komen would have severed totaled $680,000 over the last year - a total that the organization thankfully made up in two days from contributions that have poured in in response to the Komen betrayal. Let's put that in perspective. Last year, the House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget - including about $75 million that would have gone to Planned Parenthood's preventative care and treatment programs for low-income women. Deciding that this plan wasn't disastrous enough, the House alsopassed an amendment to eliminate all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, an estimated total of$363 million, much of which goes to care for the Medicaid patients who make up almost half of Planned Parenthood's clientele. The amount that Komen would have cut from Planned Parenthood's women's healthcare was significant-- but the amount that House Republicans were prepared to cut was 500 times larger."
We should be glad that so many citizens spoke out and effected some change. But, the mission to destroy Planned Parenthood and other supports for millions of women is otherwise proceeding according to plan.
Of all the blow-ups in the GOP's ongoing war against women, nothing has been as spectacular as the reaction to the Susan B. Komen foundation pulling their grants to Planned Parenthood. Before cheering their apparent reversal, it's worth noting how small a victory this is.
Michael B Keegan wrote this weekend:
"I too am angry at Komen's decision to put right-wing ideology ahead of its purported public health mission. But our deeper anger should be directed at someone else: the Republicans in Congress and GOP leaders who consistently make the same choices involving many times more money, and many times more women's lives. The shock of the revelation of Komen's new policies only highlighted how numb many of us have become to the larger, unrelenting attacks on women's health by right-wing elected officials.
The grants to Planned Parenthood that Komen would have severed totaled $680,000 over the last year - a total that the organization thankfully made up in two days from contributions that have poured in in response to the Komen betrayal. Let's put that in perspective. Last year, the House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget - including about $75 million that would have gone to Planned Parenthood's preventative care and treatment programs for low-income women. Deciding that this plan wasn't disastrous enough, the House alsopassed an amendment to eliminate all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, an estimated total of$363 million, much of which goes to care for the Medicaid patients who make up almost half of Planned Parenthood's clientele. The amount that Komen would have cut from Planned Parenthood's women's healthcare was significant-- but the amount that House Republicans were prepared to cut was 500 times larger."
We should be glad that so many citizens spoke out and effected some change. But, the mission to destroy Planned Parenthood and other supports for millions of women is otherwise proceeding according to plan.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Santorum Could Take Iowa
Jan 3rd, 2012
Bear with me.
Jake Horowitz wrote a week ago:
"Back in 1975, Georgia's Democratic governor Jimmy Carter pulled off an upset to become president, and his surprise victory in the 1976 Iowa caucuses played a signficant role in his success. Carter went door-to-door and shook people's hands in order to sway Iowans' votes.
Today, this kind of in-person, on-the-groud campaigning is no longer a focus of the campaign, as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and televised presidential debates have taken precedence (debate viewership has been staggering this electoral cycle). Yet, with the race for this year's nomination still very much undecided, the momentum that a caucus victory provides remains important."
"The results will help to winnow down the field to the only legitimate contenders (bye bye Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry)."
With all due respect, his assumption that Santorum has no chance may be dead wrong. This is why actual campaigning still matters. Like Ron Paul, Santorum has a better ground game than most of his competition. Santorum is polling very strong right now and there is also something else at play;
Amanda Marcotte wrote yesterday that what truly defines the Iowa caucus this year is a single issue:
"To really understand Iowa, you need to understand the primacy of abortion as an issue to the Christian right. It’s baffling how little attention this gets, considering the tendency of all the candidates---and especially those whose numbers in Iowa, like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, eclipse what they can get in most other states---to make frequent statements about how they consider banning abortion to be a number one priority and the big issue of our time. Economic issues are confusing and the difference between candidates is too hazy to matter to the Republican base. Foreign policy doesn’t seem to matter that much at all to voters this year. But abortion is a nice, simple issue, and the candidates by and large seem to get what the media doesn’t: The more you pound the table and stereotype women who get abortions as heartless slatterns, the better you do in the polls."
If she is correct, and I believe that she is to a degree, Santorum just might win this thing. Bachmann's campaign is not only hopeless, but her paranoid accusations against former staffer Kent Sorenson might have handed her followers to the only other rabidly pro-choice candidate.
It could be the perfect storm.
As for the broader implications, anything that gets another few hundred thousand would-be voters to Google the word "Santorum" is fine with me.
Bear with me.
Jake Horowitz wrote a week ago:
"Back in 1975, Georgia's Democratic governor Jimmy Carter pulled off an upset to become president, and his surprise victory in the 1976 Iowa caucuses played a signficant role in his success. Carter went door-to-door and shook people's hands in order to sway Iowans' votes.
Today, this kind of in-person, on-the-groud campaigning is no longer a focus of the campaign, as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and televised presidential debates have taken precedence (debate viewership has been staggering this electoral cycle). Yet, with the race for this year's nomination still very much undecided, the momentum that a caucus victory provides remains important."
"The results will help to winnow down the field to the only legitimate contenders (bye bye Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry)."
With all due respect, his assumption that Santorum has no chance may be dead wrong. This is why actual campaigning still matters. Like Ron Paul, Santorum has a better ground game than most of his competition. Santorum is polling very strong right now and there is also something else at play;
Amanda Marcotte wrote yesterday that what truly defines the Iowa caucus this year is a single issue:
"To really understand Iowa, you need to understand the primacy of abortion as an issue to the Christian right. It’s baffling how little attention this gets, considering the tendency of all the candidates---and especially those whose numbers in Iowa, like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, eclipse what they can get in most other states---to make frequent statements about how they consider banning abortion to be a number one priority and the big issue of our time. Economic issues are confusing and the difference between candidates is too hazy to matter to the Republican base. Foreign policy doesn’t seem to matter that much at all to voters this year. But abortion is a nice, simple issue, and the candidates by and large seem to get what the media doesn’t: The more you pound the table and stereotype women who get abortions as heartless slatterns, the better you do in the polls."
If she is correct, and I believe that she is to a degree, Santorum just might win this thing. Bachmann's campaign is not only hopeless, but her paranoid accusations against former staffer Kent Sorenson might have handed her followers to the only other rabidly pro-choice candidate.
It could be the perfect storm.
As for the broader implications, anything that gets another few hundred thousand would-be voters to Google the word "Santorum" is fine with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
