You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (797)

PLAYS: (1580)

Peggy Noonan thinks she knows what's good for Democrats and that this Stupak-Pitts abortion amendment is somehow good for the party—but only in a “funny, little political way”. How quaint of you Peggy to be so completely dismissive of what the real life impact of that amendment passing would actually mean to the lives of women, especially those with low incomes that are the least capable of doing anything to fight back against what’s happening but most likely to be impacted by it.

Noonan had this bit of condescending wisdom to share with all of us on this weekend’s edition of The Chris Matthews Show.

Matthews: Peggy every four years the Democrats meet and write a platform and it says pro-choice, abortion rights, but you know a third of the Democratic people in this country, who vote Democrat are pro-life. Did they ever, ever have a plan here to bring them all together?—because that’s what they have to do.

Noonan: I don’t know if they had a plan but I’ll tell you in a purely political sense, for the Democratic Party to shake off for the first time in like 35 years the general understanding that they are the pro-choice and you cannot be pro-life and be in this party—it hurts the Democratic Party—everybody always said it hurt the Republicans to be pro-life. It hurt the Democrats to be rigidly pro-choice—to not let pro-life people speak at their conventions etc. In a funny, little political way this is a benefit to the Democratic Party that, that pro-life people have a serious place at the table at this moment. It’s good for them.

What’s pathetic is that religion is allowed to be used at all to get working people to vote against their own economic interests and that people don’t have the sense to see past that. And if Peggy Noonan thinks that it is acceptable to call any aspect of this debate “funny” or “little”, she needs to go read Digby’s post from last week-Goldilocks Was Betrayed:

In case you are wondering about the real life effects of playing cheap politics with pregnancy, read this. And this. Contra McGaskill and Tweety, who are misinformed about just about everything, this is actually a big deal. This amendment doesn't just punish Lord Saletan's little sluts. All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. Click those links for what that means in real life.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1496)

PLAYS: (3501)

Rachel Maddow runs down the list for us of C-Street family members who also voted for Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment yesterday. Nothing like having what amounts to a secretive religious cult making health care policy for women in the United States. As Rachel noted that list includes:

Rep. Bart Stupak D-MI
Rep. Joe Pitts R-PA
Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO
Rep. Mike McIntyre D-NC
Rep. John Tanner D-TN
Rep. Lincoln Davis D-TN
Rep. Dan Boren D-OK
Rep. Heath Shuler D-NC

Jeff Sharlet joined Rachel to discuss The C-Street Family's ever growing influence within the Democratic Party.

Maddow: What are Congressman Stupak and Congressman Pitts’ connections to C-Street and The Family? Is one of them more deeply involved than the other?

Sharlet: Yeah, well Congressman Pitts has been involved with The Family since 1976 and in the 1980’s he was instrumental in bringing anti-abortion politics into this kind of elite fundamentalism that until that point had been focused on economics and foreign affairs. Bart Stupak meanwhile has been living at C-Street since at least 2002 when he told the Los Angeles Times “we kind of don’t talk about what happens here”.

Maddow: Are there signs that The Family had anything to do with the Stupak-Pitts amendment? I mean this is quite a legislative coup that they’ve pulled off.

Sharlet: Well, you have to consider that Congressman Pitts is what The Family calls a core member. This is a little like being on the board of directors. You can go on line and find video of him talking about the objectives of the group is to create a god led government. He has worked over the years to prevent not only abortion but AIDS education overseas and so this has been a life-long project for him going back years and years and years. Stupak is a little bit newer to this issue and I think what you really have to question here is Pitts who’s been active in this for a long time and was bringing up these amendments I think in Stupak and his brother in The Family as it was called, found a Democrat to carry the issue for him.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1706)

PLAYS: (2227)

Dr. Nancy Snyderman sums up how a lot of us feel about this absolutely horrid Stupak amendment. No, it's not fair and it is outrageous. It's bad enough we've got one party that wants to keep women living in the 1950's. We don't need two. And we don't need the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops writing legislation for Democrats.

Snyderman: Kelly I must admit this one caught me by surprise because I thought the public option was going to be the real rallying cry for Saturday. Because the Hyde amendment was in place over the summer we kept saying no federal money spent on abortions, and then the Stupak came in, really tightening the chance for a woman’s right to choose. Clarify for me.

O’Donnell: Yes, this issue has been bubbling under the surface for quite a while now and those who have strong views about abortion rights have been paying attention but you’re right, more generally we’ve been focused on the public option. What this would do is restrict the ability to have insurance coverage pay for abortion services. Now looking at the House plan it would create a public option and a market place that they call the exchange which would basically be a menu of insurance plans that people could choose from and if any of those plans take federal money or if as an individual you receive federal subsidies you would not be able to get abortion coverage. One alternative is to be able to purchase what they call a rider, an extra sort of mini-insurance plan specifically targeted for covering abortion services. But women, especially on the progressive side really stood up against that and said that would really require women to anticipate someday having the need for an abortion and they really strongly oppose that. But this amendment passed.

Why? Well certainly it had Republican support because you have a stronger abortion opposition on the Republicans side, but among Democrats there is a group that really feels strongly about abortion rights as well and they wanted to make very clear that no federal money could in any way be traced to abortion services and they had a lot of pressure from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who wanted to see health care pass but wanted to be certain that no federal money would be in any way connected with to the potential for abortion services. So this really became a hot-button issue over the weekend and as you mentioned the Hyde amendment which goes back thirty years, which prohibits federal money being used for abortion with the exception of rape, incest or life of the mother, this now brings it into the issue of insurance coverage and even private plans if people get help from the government to pay for that insurance, they would be subject to this new rule.

Snyderman: Kelly, you know what I find so infuriating about this? I mean, absolutely infuriating? And this isn't about being pro-choice or pro-abortion or any of the hot button lingo. We know women pay more for insurance than men. We know women are restricted in the states. And now it's basically, if you're a 50 year old woman and you're in a monogamous relationship you suddenly find yourself pregnant, you better know that have an abortion rider in order to access health care that you thought you had? It is one more pressure on women. I mean, I'm surprised that frankly there isn't more outrage over the fact that ...this isn't fair!

O'Donnell: What you're voicing is what woman after woman on the Democrat side, the progressive side of the party, said on the House floor. They came out one after another, speaking in very strong terms against this amendment. The amendment did pass despite their objections. And they really said it puts, as you describe it so pressure on women to anticipate a need for something that is a very difficult personal experience—there are a lot moral implications. It's not an easy situation for any woman and to now ask them to plan ahead for the potential and to buy an extra policy, those who oppose this amendment say that is simply too much. Nancy.

Snyderman: A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous—just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much.

And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system. Before I blow my top, time to turn to Monica Novotny at the news desk. Monica, get me out of here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (56)

PLAYS: (85)

Clair McCaskill appeared on Morning Joe today to talk about the health care bill that just passed the House and what's next for the Senate. When asked to respond to Rachel Maddow’s comments on Meet the Press that the Stupak amendment is a poison pill that will lose a lot of support for Democrats by women if the amendment is not taken out in conference, Clair McCaskill said this.

McCaskill: Well, I am not sure that it is. Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. but we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has any coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government. The vast majority of America are going to continue to get their insurance at the workplace just like they do now.

And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill, and frankly, once again, this is an example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate.

Since when does “moderate” have to mean anti-choice? Here’s McCaskill’s contact information if you’re as unhappy about this as I am.

Apparently some House progressives aren't going to stand for this as well as Sam Stein reports at the Huffington Post:

If, indeed, the Stupak language makes it into the Senate bill, it would be a major blow to pro-choice advocates. It would also seemingly ensure that the restrictions on abortion access would survive conference committee with the House and end up in the final piece of legislation. If that is the case it sets up a major showdown, once again, in the people's chamber. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), for one, has insisted she and 40 additional colleagues will oppose any final bill that includes the Stupak amendment.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette told The Washington Post. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

Update: Well what do you know. Looks like Sen. McCaskill may be having a change of heart from this morning.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (132)

PLAYS: (793)

George Carlin from Back in Town, 1996. Very funny and definitely not safe for work.

h/t Mikeovhell

Consortiumnews: On the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it’s worth reflecting on how even a mildly competent U.S. President might have prevented the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people and drove the United States into a spasm of revenge that has wasted untold blood and treasure.

The Reid Report: The next target for the red-baiting right: Valerie Jarret ( and the REAL Frank Marshall Davis)

Pensito Review: Because Joe Wilson is your pre-existing condition

Bitch Ph.D.: The Stakes

DownWithTyranny!: Teabaggery isn't just about South Carolina Republicans

Paul Hipp: A song celebrating our ranking in the World Health Organiztion's list of world health systems. "We're Number 37!"

This graphic speaks to the violence that comes out of the anti-choice movement, doesn't it? Especially when these extremists perceive they are losing the arguments. America solidly rejected their views with this last election.

1993-1998: 7 incidents under Pres. Clinton

1999-2008: 0 incidents under George Bush

2009- : 1 incident under President Obama

Check out the list of violence and murder carried out Via NAF:

Anti-abortion extremists perpetrated an unprecedented level of violence in 1993 with the first murder of an abortion provider. Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed by a zealot in Pensacola, FL. Since that time, anti-abortion extremists have murdered or attempted to murder numerous other individuals who were involved in reproductive health care...read on.

It's just going to get much worse, folks -- especially with nuts like Beck and O'Reilly stoking the flames of the militia mentality and the anti-women's rights causes. We already had a man shoot three police officers in the head because he was afraid Obama wanted to take his guns.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1116)

PLAYS: (2861)

(h/t Scarce for video)

Following the brutal slaying of Dr. George Tiller, Operation Rescue released this statement:

“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”

And now the group's leader, Randall Terry has released this Rally the troops video to all anti-choice advocates. In the above video he calls President Obama and pro-choice politicians child killers, and proclaims Dr. Tiller to be a mass murderer, who "reaped what he sowed," but voices regrets that the slain doctor wasn't able to "get things right with his maker" and that it was unfortunate that he didn't get a "trial of a jury of his peers and to have a proper execution."

This is one sick, twisted individual. To deny that hateful propaganda like this could incite someone to violence, is just plain dilusional.

I found this clip this morning and thought I'd share it here at C&L. The clip is from 1990 when a much younger Rush Limbaugh got owned by the studio audience during his very brief career in television. The crowd eventually becomes so incensed by his nasty attacks on women that he can't get a word in edgewise and they are forced to clear the studio in order for Rush to actually finish the segment.

Rush has challenged President Obama to a debate, but only because he knows there isn't a hope in hell it will ever happen. He knows he wouldn't stand a chance, but that's not going to stop him from rallying his ignorant minions. He cares nothing for his party, this nation or its people, he's out for power,money and fame -- much like the party he now leads.

If you've ever wondered why cowards like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and those of their ilk never debate anyone of any substance, watching this clip will help you understand. When exposed to the average American, hate merchants and propagandists like Rush don't stand a chance.

el Rashbo hasn't changed much in the past twenty years and neither has the GOP. I wouldn't advise the president to lower himself to debate this idiot, but in my heart of hearts...oh, nevermind!

Isn't this the part where someone invariably explains how much better off Iraqis are than they'd be under Saddam Hussein?

Iraqi police say attackers have decapitated the leader of the women's league of the Kurdish Communist Party.

A police officer says gunmen on Thursday stormed the Kirkuk home of Nahla Hussein al-Shaly and shot and beheaded her.

The city of Kirkuk lies 180 miles north of Baghdad. The officer who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Party spokesman Azad Gahareeb says the 37-year-old al-Shaly may have been targeted because she promoted women's rights. He says the married mother of two was alone in the house when she was attacked.