When Republicans really screw the pooch and do something that hurts them with the electorate — and that happens a lot — they usually do one of two things: 1) blame the "media" or; 2) blame Democrats. And Wednesday night on Hardball, a Republican Congresswoman from Washington state picked option "2."

MATTHEWS: Let`s hear right now -- we have a couple points here. Congresswoman, what do you make of -- in Virginia -- by the way, Congresswoman, what do you make of the charge that Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, is making in her new fund-raising letter that there is, in fact, a war on women being waged by the Republicans?

RODGERS: The reality is, in 2010, the Republicans won the women`s vote. And the Democrats know that in order to win the presidency, in order to win the seats in the House and the Senate, that they have to scare women, that they have to win the women`s vote.

Damn those scary Democrats who are doing all those scary things like allowing employers to deny women birth control or mandating transvaginal ultrasounds or forcing women to watch abortions before they get one.

Oh wait — Republicans did all that. But Rodgers would have none of it.

RODGERS: The reality is, the Republicans won the women`s vote in 2010 and the Democrats know they have to win the women`s vote and that they are scared. These are scare tactics to scare women. And they have — they have often used the abortion...

MATTHEWS: Whose tactics are they? I`m just asking you, whose tactics are they? You say they`re Democratic tactics.

How did Democrats get Republicans legislators to make these proposals? How tricky are they, these Democrats? They get the Virginia legislature to bring up all this stuff on abortion. They get Santorum to talk up contraception. These Democrats are ventriloquists? How do they get the Republicans to say all this stuff? They are really masterful, I would say. I know I`m being sarcastic. But you know the evidence is a lot of right-wing social activists in your party are giving the Democrats catnip here, right? You`re admitting that.

MCMORRIS RODGERS: There are a lot of left-wing social activists that are also pushing their agenda in various legislators — legislatures, and here in Congress, the same thing.

Facepalm.

The Party of Personal Responsibility That Blames Everyone Else For Their Problems strikes again. Angry Black Lady has a brilliant but NSFW takedown here.

Republicans didn’t set out to have a war on women; they wanted a war on religion. Their intention was to march two Republican-created boogiemen into a battle that would make the War on Christmas cringe: ObamaCare and ObamaIsAMuslim. The Affordable Care Act stipulates birth control be included in insurance coverage instead of forcing women to pay out of pocket for such medications. This was the shot across the bow for the GOP to start their war. Republican sage, Congressman Darrell Issa, called a bunch of men of faith (yes, all men) to testify to Congress how the provision in the health care law regarding birth control would adversely affect them.

Then the right-wing echosphere spent the next week bouncing the sound bite: “This isn’t about contraception, this is about religious freedom.”

America’s right-wing: Afraid of Muslims, suspicious of Mormons, terrified of atheists and martyrs of religious freedom.

Republicans botched their war on religion with the word “slut.” Oh and by proposing laws against women getting equal pay, and a right to privacy or recourse if a doctor lies to them. The Chairman of the RNC, Reince Priebus, said the war on women is imaginary at the same moment Republican legislators around the country were introducing bills eroding women’s rights. So the war over what kind of war this was – religion or women – was lost by Republicans. Their best efforts to get a fruitful campaign about religious liberty backfired into a debate about gender equality.

To quote Rick Perry, “Oops.”

This party used to be better at getting traction with these wedge causes-they-call-wars. This has been their modus operandi to pummel artists, single mothers, monogamous gay couples, pot smokers, public employees and other subversives for decades: They create a fake crisis, say it will kill us all and then repeat it until our ears bleed.

How have they fumbled manufacturing a war on religion?! This is a John Carter level of a stink bomb: It’s totally formulaic – how can it fail?

Perhaps it’s just hard to convince Americans we are a Christian nation founded in religion with a tradition of religion in every facet of our lives from our money to our pledge of allegiance AND that faith is somehow being threatened. It’s like saying you’re the size of Goliath but everyone should view you as David.

Republicans really need a war on religion. Badly. A common foe would not only glaze over the fact their nominee is from a new sect distrusted by other sects – it would unite (they hope) all people of faith into their special brand of ultra-conservative gospel. A gospel that mega-church pastor, tax-free status enjoyer, Rick Warren, summed up nicely: “I don’t believe in wealth redistribution,” he said on the holiest of Easter Sundays on ABC’s This Week. Yes, when Jesus wasn’t hunting quail with his Glock sub-compact semi-auto – he was all over trickle down economics and scapegoating the poor for political gain.

A war on religion would give Republicans back their big tent. It would be a giant diverse group of people who would put faith in the Grand Old Party looking out for their eternal souls instead of just soulless corporations. All the hacking away at women’s rights, the social safety net and consumer protections would be given a pass under “religious freedom.”

Try it: “This isn’t about toxic drinking water/corporate welfare/millionaire tax breaks – it’s about religious freedom!” It works for nearly everything.

This will all go perfectly if they find an enemy. One good enough, or bad enough as the case may be, to compel all Americans of faith to give up their petty differences and come together as Republicans. Since the GOP needs this war on religion to push through their ironically social Darwinist agenda – they’re not going to give up trying to create one.

What does a preemptive victim searching for a persecutor look like? It looks a lot like the Republicans’ “war on religion.”

Earlier this week, President Obama released a special message to Planned Parenthood and women. It didn't get a lot of attention in the mainstream at all, but it's important nevertheless. I confess to being so preoccupied with the Supreme Court arguments I let it get away from me.

Here's the transcript:

For you, and for most Americans, protecting women's health is a mission that stands above politics. And yet, over the past year, you've had to stand up to politicians who want to deny millions of women the care they rely on, and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.

Let's be clear here: Women are not an interest group.

They're mothers, and daughters, and sisters, and wives. They're half of this country. They're perfectly capable of making their own choices about their health.

So we're grateful that, through it all, you never forgot who you're fighting for: The woman with a new lease on life because a mammogram caught her cancer in time; the woman who can sleep easier at night because of a cervical cancer screening; the woman who is able to choose when to start a family, because she could afford contraception.

So when some professional politicians casually say that they'll "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, don't forget what they're really talking about: Eliminating the funding for preventive care that millions of women rely on, and leaving them to fend for themselves.

That's why, last year, when Republicans in Congress threatened to shut down the government unless we stopped funding Planned Parenthood, I had a simple answer: No.

But we know this debate is far from over. We must continue to send the message loud and clear: If you truly value families, you shouldn't play politics with a woman's health.

It's why I know that Planned Parenthood will continue providing care, no matter what. I know you'll never stop fighting to protect the healthcare and the choices that America's women deserve.

As long as I have the privilege of being your president, neither will I. Thanks.

Planned Parenthood appreciates the support, and if you want to show your appreciation, they have a petition here.

For the last several weeks, all eyes have been focused on the high-profile clash between Catholic bishops (if not their parishioners) and the Obama administration over mandated insurance coverage for contraception at their non-church institutions. But in cities and towns across the country, a second battlefront is jeopardizing access to essential reproductive care for millions of American women. As The New York Times and the New Republic each recently documented, the expansion of Catholic hospitals nationwide is putting women's reproductive care—and in some cases, their lives—at risk.

For over a hundred years, Catholic hospitals have been one of the cornerstones of the U.S. health system, providing care to tens of millions of Americans of all faiths, races, ethnicities and income levels. TNR's Jonathan Cohn explained just how big a role they play and the public support they enjoy in return:

Today, Catholic hospitals supply 15 percent of the nation's hospital beds, and Catholic hospital systems own 12 percent of the nation's community hospitals, which means, according to one popularly cited estimate, that about one in six Americans get treatment at a Catholic hospital at some point each year. We now depend upon Catholic hospitals to provide vital services--not just direct care of patients, but also the training of new doctors and assistance to the needy. In exchange, these institutions receive considerable public funding. In addition to the tax breaks to which all nonprofit institutions are entitled, Catholic hospitals also receive taxpayer dollars via public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as myriad federal programs that provide extra subsidies for such things as indigent care and medical research. (Older institutions also benefited from the 1946 Hill-Burton Act, which financed hospital construction for several decades.)

But increasingly, Cohn cautioned, "the dual mandates of these institutions—to heal the body and to nurture the spirit, to perform public functions but maintain private identities—are difficult to reconcile." For many communities, a Catholic facility is already the only choice. And with the accelerating trend of hospital mergers and partnerships, policies forbidding contraception, abortion and sterilization are becoming the norm at formerly public hospitals. In cities around America, the result is growing confusion for physicians and greater risk for their patients.

As The New York Times detailed, over just the last three years about 20 new partnerships combining stand-alone hospitals or smaller systems with larger, financially stronger Catholic institutions is adversely impacting the availability of common reproductive health care services. For example:

In Seattle, Swedish Health Services has offered elective abortions for decades. But the hospital agreed to stop when it joined forces this month with Providence Health & Services, one of the nation's largest Catholic systems.

And when Seton Healthcare Family in Texas, a unit of Ascension Health, began operating Austin's public Breckenridge hospital in 1995, it curbed reproductive health care services available to its patients:

In that case, Mr. [Charles] Barnett [of Ascension Health] says the system never agreed to provide services like elective abortions and sterilizations, and public officials and hospital administrators initially struggled to find a compromise. Although another system eventually offered sterilizations on a separate floor of the hospital, complete with a separate elevator, another hospital now provides those services.

Increasingly, the clashing requirements of the Catholic hospitals' public mission and religious tenets are putting patients, doctors and staff at risk. In 2007, physician Ramesh Raghavan wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association of his wife's experience. As Cohn explained the horrifying episode:

[Raghavan's wife], a woman, also pregnant with twins, whose pregnancy was failing, threatening infection that could jeopardize her ability to have future children and perhaps her life. Distraught, she and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy--only to learn the Catholic hospital would not perform the procedure.

A few years later, New Hampshire waitress Kathleen Prieskorn went to her doctor's office after a miscarriage—her second—began while she was three months pregnant. She quickly learned that her emergency was not one for which treatment would be available from her hospital's new operators:

Physicians at the hospital, which had recently merged with a Catholic health care system, told her they could not end the miscarriage with a uterine evacuation--the standard procedure--because the fetus still had a heartbeat. She had no insurance and no way to get to another hospital, so a doctor gave her $400 and put her in a cab to the closest available hospital, about 80 miles away. "During that trip, which seemed endless, I was not only devastated but terrified," Prieskorn recalled. "I knew that, if there were complications, I could lose my uterus--and maybe even my life."

Continue reading »

I agree that women are shocked and amazed that these issues are being brought up now. It's stunning to think that our children and grandchildren are going to have to fight for autonomy rights we took for granted, but at least the war on women doesn't appear to be paying off for the Republicans:

When the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey asked last summer which party should control Congress, a slim 46-42 percent plurality of women said it should be the Democrats.

But in a survey released Monday, compiling polling since the beginning of the year, that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats, according to polling by the team of Democratic pollster Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff. Fifty-one percent favored Democratic control; only 36 percent wanted to see the Republicans in charge.

Both sides have tried to shape the narrative in this battle for and about women. But many Republicans are beginning to wish they had never waded into what has become a heated conversation over contraception, who should have it and what it says about people who use it.

GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s campaign, said Republicans need to return to pocketbook and fiscal issues: “We know what works, and we need to get back to it.”

[...] Virginia state Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax) said the focus on abortion and contraception will turn many women — and men — away from the GOP.

“I think most women assumed that these were settled issues probably three decades ago and are aghast that it’s been reopened,” Howell said. “Almost half my e-mails ... are from men. And they’re speaking for their wives, their girlfriends, their daughters, and are very upset by what’s happening. Many of them say they have been Republicans but they’re not going to vote Republican in the future.”

Conservatives really wanted a fight about religious freedom. It appeared to be an easy win: Make an ObamaCare mandate that insurers cover birth control into a war on religion. The GOP, void of any ideas Obama hasn’t contaminated by agreeing with, finds itself in an election year frantically looking for a bold battle cry. That sweet hot button issue that can excite their party and (hopefully) win them the White House (or maybe the Senate).

Their old standbys have fallen flat: Iran, abortion, climate change, child labor laws, and even gay marriage don’t have the sparkle they once had for the Grand Old Party.

Republicans can’t seem to get excited about Mitt Romney as their ‘80s-teen-movie-smug-rich-guy-stock-character nominee. Worse yet, he’s Mormon, which makes evangelical leaders grumble. So having a common enemy is the best way to bring everyone together for the proverbial good fight: Freedom.

“It’s important for us to win this issue,” Speaker John Boehner told reporters last week. “Our government for 220 years has respected the religious views of the American people and for all of this time there’s been an exception for those churches and other groups to protect the religious beliefs that they believe in. And that’s being violated here.”

Is Boehner coming out against anti-Sharia laws?! Or is he just conveniently forgetting the government isn’t always so deferential to the pious? Mormons had to forsake polygamy to gain statehood, for one. In 1862 the then-General Ulysses S. Grant expelled Jews from his district of Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky. And there were plenty of states where you couldn’t hold public office if you didn’t swear to believe in God (as opposed to Allah, Buddha or a flying plate of spaghetti) until the Torcaso v. Watkins decision in 1961.

This whole charade of religious freedom collapsed under the girth of Rush Limbaugh. He pivoted what was supposed to be a church and state issue into snickering about young women having sex. For three days Limbaugh railed on law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified for congressional Democrats, calling her a prostitute and a slut for speaking in public about the need for birth control coverage. So the GOP was trying to take the high (read: holy) road and there was their mouthpiece driving them all off a cliff demanding Ms. Fluke post sex videos on the Internet.

Now here’s the thing: Even Rick Santorum who (oddly) thinks birth control leads to more teen pregnancies – who has previously said states should have the right to ban contraception – now tells Piers Morgan, “It should be available.” This was tempered with the now irrelevant point about religious freedom. But even the way-out, cringe-inducing, extremist-in-a-sweater-vest has to confess birth control should be available.

Affordability is accessibility. If it’s out of your price range – it’s out of your grasp. It doesn’t matter if the pill is offered over-the-counter or in vending machines – if you can’t afford it – you can’t have it. Fluke’s testimony was not about the legality or morality of contraception – it was about students not being about to shell out over $1,000 a year for a medication in addition to purchasing medical insurance.

If Republicans admit they think birth control should be available – that means they believe it should be within price range.

The conservative talking point on health care reform was summed up by Rep. Virginia Foxx: “There are no Americans who don't have healthcare," adding, "Everybody in this country has access to healthcare." In other words: Everyone has access to cake!

We don’t say everyone accused of a crime has access to a lawyer without providing one. We don’t say everyone has access to police protection but charge more than anyone can pay. We don’t say every child has access to education but require an outrageous tuition. Access is not abstract … unless you’re a Republican lawmaker.

No, when you’re a Republican “access” gets muddied with whatever sham controversy they hope will help them. This week it’s basic health care services for women.

After bleeding sponsors for the past couple of days it seems Rush Limbaugh has taken stock of what he said last week and issued a "statement." I call it a statement and not an apology because it really isn't much of an apology. Here's the full text.

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Let's take this apart a little bit. We begin with "illustrated the absurd with absurdity..." This is the excuse he always uses for whatever he says. He is an entertainer, entertaining. Yes, because it's so entertaining to suggest that hungry children dumpster-dive for their dinner. Or to call those hungry children "waifs and serfs dependent on the state." Or saying he hopes President Obama fails.

Har-dee-har-har, Rushbo. It's not funny, nor was it intended to be funny. Not even a little bit.

On to the second paragraph, which is where he shows plainly that he did not intend a real, true apology. By framing contraception as something for a "social activity," he endeavors to minimize and trivialize women's health needs. Yes, contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, for married and single women. But Sandra Fluke's testimony very specifically pointed to other uses for it, including treatment of PCOS (an incredibly debilitating condition), endometriosis, pelvic inflammation, ovarian cysts, and other conditions specific to women. Further, some women use it to actually regulate their cycles so they can become pregnant. Some young women use it to treat acne!

These are not social. These are not recreational. These are serious health issues. They matter, and they should be covered as part of health insurance that provides basic benefits. Rush Limbaugh intentionally tried to frame this as a debate about sex when it was never a debate about sex. He did it, and Fox News picked up the banner and marched forward with it to the point where now the "slut" meme has been echoed all over the Internet by the far-right wing.

I wonder, would he find it a joking matter if cholesterol medications were removed from a list of basic benefits? Or heart stents? Or blood thinners? They aren't optional for someone who is at risk of a heart attack.

His attack on a private citizen named Sandra Fluke was reprehensible, but the real damage done is the misinformation he spread about why contraception is a health issue, why it should be deemed a basic benefit in any health insurance policy, and why women should have affordable access to it.

Continue reading »

[h/t David]
Well, good for Ms. "Demon Sheep" Carly Fiorina. At last, someone from the Republican Party faithful has broken the palpable silence on Leader Limbaugh's hideous remarks. Speaking to CBS News, Fiorina denounced his comments about law student Sandra Fluke as "incendiary" and "insulting."

It's a start. But where is Meg Whitman? She's sending big money off to the Republican party but has nothing to say about the de facto leader of her party trashing a law student as a "slut," or calling for her to make sex tapes to prove she needs contraceptives? Really?

And what of Sarah Palin, who should really be furious that her Fearless Leader called her daughter a slut and contraceptive payments "thievery"? Bristol, after all, could have saved Palin some embarrassment if she'd bothered to use birth control back in 2008. I'm betting that Alaska-paid health insurance helped Bristol (and Sarah) out with the expenses of her baby's birth, but of course, that's not thievery. Right?

Continue reading »

I had sworn never to do another Rush Limbaugh post. Never say never. Here is the coward called Rush Limbaugh attacking law student Sandra Fluke for testifying about the cost of contraception. And here is what that lowlife scum had to say about her:

LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.

OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back.

Rick Santorum's SuperPAC, funded largely by that good ole boy Foster Friess, jumped right on it. They actually sent a mailer out quoting Limbaugh to raise money. Just. Wow.

For the record, here is what she actually said about the cost:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

House Democrats are calling on Republicans to condemn his remarks. If Santorum is any indication, they won't.

Please feel free to rant on my behalf. He has made me so angry I can't even find the words to say much that would be safe for work.

Sometimes, the wingnut stupid is so strong, it burns.