Via Huffington Post:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) urged state lawmakers Tuesday to pass more restrictions on abortion, and proclaimed that his end goal is to outlaw the procedure entirely.

"To be clear, my goal, and the goal of many of those joining me here today, is to make abortion, at any stage, a thing of the past," Perry said at a press conference organized by Texas Right to Life. "While Roe v. Wade prevents us from taking that step, it does allow states to do some things to protect life if they can show there is a compelling state interest. I don’t think there is any issue that better fits the definition of 'compelling state interest' than preventing the suffering of our state’s unborn."

Perry has already signed several bills into law that make it more difficult for women to access abortion services, including a mandatory ultrasound law and a bill that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state's subsidized women's health program. On Tuesday, he urged legislators to pass a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, which is two to four weeks earlier in a pregnancy than the fetus would be considered viable outside the womb.

"Last session, we passed, and I’m proud to say I signed, a law that prohibits abortion without the mother first having a sonogram, because we believe that unborn children deserve the respect of recognition before their lives are tragically cut short," Perry said. "This session, I’m calling on the legislature to strengthen our ban on the procedure, prohibiting abortion at the point a baby can feel the pain of being killed. We have an obligation to end that kind of cruelty."

See, it's only cruel when the child is unborn. Rick Perry sees no cruelty in denying that child food or a roof over its head or a decent education or health care. Because once the child is born, it's no longer Perry's concern.

Love the fetus; hate the child. What a bumper sticker motto to have.

Man, the traditional media really wants their consumers to believe that this horse race is neck and neck and the just overwhelming misogyny in the words and actions of the Republican Party isn't hurting them with women.

Because, it's all about jobs and the economy to the Republican Party, completely eliding the fact to these 'small government' fetishists who actively want the government getting into women's uteri, that this is absolutely an economic and jobs-related issue for women. Being unable to control when a woman has a child will play a major role in her economic future: what education she can complete, what jobs she can apply for, how much she will get paid, whether she and her child can break through multi-generational poverty cycles.

But that doesn't help the narrative that the tradmed wants to perpetuate that this is a close race and that the gender gap has closed for Mitt Romney, at best, an arguable position, though you wouldn't know that from the confident assertions made by David Gregory and Chuck Todd.

Carly Fiorina, speaking officially as a Romney spokesperson, had the unenviable job of trying to distinguish Romney from the crazies in his party. Now Gregory is game to let her, but it's a hard row to hoe when you consider that Romney hasn't pulled his ad for Mourdock. Fiorina bemoans the "bad timing" of Mourdock's statement, which begs the question left unasked by Gregory, when exactly would have been a good time to say that a pregnancy as a result of rape is God's will? But more importantly, as Rachel Maddow points out, it's hard to disavow the crazy extremism when Romney put crazy extremist Paul Ryan on his ticket:

MS. MADDOW: Right. But then, he picked Paul Ryan. They have the fight over forced ultrasounds, the government telling you that you need to have a medically unnecessary procedure at the order of the state regardless of what you want and regardless of what your doctor says. And then he picked a guy, who picked a forced ultrasound bill for the country, Paul Ryan was onboard with that. Paul Ryan was a cosponsor with Todd Akin with bill to redefine rape. Paul Ryan was a cosponsor with bill to have personhood federally, which would not only ban all abortion it would ban in vitro fertilization. It would ban most hormonal forms of birth control. If you wanted to avoid this fight, don’t put Paul Ryan on the ticket. There’s a reason that Paul Ryan has been in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina…

(Cross talk)

GREGORY: And the Republican platform talked about you should be able to do in vitro fertilization. That was in the Republican platform…

Oops...Rachel Maddow has hit on an uncomfortable spot for Romney's campaign. For all his alleged moderation, he chose one of the most extreme pro-life members in Congress for his running mate. Time for David Gregory to throw this conversation to Chuck Todd to direct back to the economy, a much safer discussion.

All I can say is that at this point, if women are voting for Romney, they ought to be willing to let their GOP flag fly free. I'm thinking this one is appropriate:

Just sayin'...

DOWNLOADS: (147)

PLAYS: (1699)

Embed

I think there can be no question that the real Barack Obama stood up in Tuesday night's debate. If anyone thinks he didn't present a fierce argument for why he should be elected, I suggest watching the whole thing again. But in this particular segment, Barack Obama came out blazing with reasons why voters should think carefully about who they'll mark as their choice in the Presidential race. In the process, he gave Mitt Romney a whole new name.

But you should pay attention to this campaign because Governor Romney has made some commitments as well, and I suspect he will keep those, too. When members of the Republican Congress say we’re going to sign a no tax pledge so that we don’t ask a dime from millionaires and billionaires to reduce our deficit so we can still invest in education and helping kids go to college, he said me too.

When they said we’re going to cut Planned Parenthood funding, he said me too.

When he said we’re going to repeal Obamacare, firsts thing I’m going to de, do spite the fact that it’s the same health care plan that he passed in Massachusetts and is working well, he said me too.

That is not the kind of leadership you need but you should expect that those are promises he is going to keep, and the choice in this election is going to be whose promises are going to be more likely to help you in your life make sure your kids can go to college, make sure that you are getting a good paying job, making sure that Medicare and Social Security will be there for you.

Later in the debate, Mitt Romney was asked about the differences he might have with George W. Bush. His answer was vague and mushy, but the president's wasn't. Here's how he summed it up:

Continue reading »

There seems to be no end to the depths right wingers will go to try and smear Planned Parenthood, and it seems they've settled on a strategy, this time employing the anti-Planned Parenthood group Live Action. Live Action tried to sting Planned Parenthood back in April by attempting to trap them into admitting they perform sex-selective abortions. It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

Via Huffington Post:

"She showed up unannounced at our office on a Wednesday, claiming that she wanted to make a sizeable contribution to our electoral efforts. That raised a red flag right away," said Beth Shipp, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She said NARAL sent lower-level staffers from its development team to meet with the woman at a Caribou Coffee in Washington, D.C., on October 5 because it was a "high-trafficked public place."

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president for communications at PPAF, said the woman raised PPAF's suspicions by asking "kooky questions" about abortion policy that a donor would not normally ask. "We're focused on birth control and protecting Roe v. Wade and making sure your boss can't take away insurance coverage, and she's digging on these very obscure policy topics," Laguens said. "That was an alert."

PPAF became so suspicious of the woman that they set up a second meeting with her to get a better image of her face on the security camera. When the woman returned, the security guard asked for her identification, and she presented a Costco ID that listed her name as "Wendy Wilmowski." Laguens said PPAF was then able to confirm that Wilmowski was working with Live Action and that the website listed on her business card was a hoax.

"[Live Action has] a history of hoax videos, but now they've added that they will even impersonate a medical provider and mislead people out in the world with this fake website," Laguens said.

Let's not even laugh too hard at the fact that the photo ID this woman produced was a Costco card. I don't think you can use a Costco card to vote, but for purposes of this story, that's probably not relevant.

No, what matters here is that they went in to Planned Parenthood with the express intent to set them up in order to smear them. Fortunately, their targets were smarter than the average bear, but that doesn't mean they aren't concerned. They are.

None of the organizations are worried that the people with whom Wilmowski met on their donor teams said anything that could be used against them, but they did express concern that Live Action would heavily edit the videos before releasing them to the public as it has done in the past.

This where I take a moment to remind everyone that Mitt Romney, current head of the Republican party and candidate for President, profited from the business of disposing of legally aborted fetuses. You might think that would bother some people enough to stand down on Planned Parenthood, but no.

I guess if Republicans can't win on ideas, they'll try to win by framing an organization helping women get access to health care. Seems like a shady way to try and win an election, but it wouldn't be the first time. I think we should call on Mitt Romney to denounce these techniques and stop relying on dirty tricks to win.

After his feisty debate performance, Joe Biden hit the campaign trail today, hammering Republicans on their controlling, cynical, sexist attitudes toward women.

He didn't pull any punches, either. He called them out for imposing their private views on women, and was very specific about the shape of the U.S. Supreme Court if Romney wins this election. This, by the way, is what should give every progressive, Democrat, liberal or independent a reason to vote for Obama -- the idea of having Mitt Romney nominate the next two Supreme Court justices is the kind of nightmare we really don't need to have.

At the end, he really gets passionate about his anger over VAWA being held hostage, too. It's like Biden took all his energy and anger out and is putting it where it can do the most good. More like this, please.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (421)

PLAYS: (1845)

Embed

Joe Biden not only showed Paul Ryan as the Galtian fool that he his, he showed viewers just how extreme Paul Ryan is, and he used women's health as the contrast. Martha Raddatz asked a question of both candidates relating specifically to their Catholic faith, and how that shapes their view on abortion rights for women. Here's Paul Ryan's response (not on the video):

That's why -- those are the reasons why I'm pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don't agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.

Joe Biden had a response to that, which is at the beginning of this video:

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I'm not going to interfere with that.

He goes on to rebut Ryan's lie about the infringement on religious freedom, and then hits the truth about the danger of a Romney-Ryan administration, particularly with regard to the shape of the United States Supreme Court. Ryan's extreme views come through loud and clear here:

Continue reading »

Jedediah Bila is a professional wingnut who makes the rounds on Fox & Friends, Hannity, Fox Business and Glenn Beck's glorified YouTube channel. And her twitter feed is full of nonsensical little rants like this.

Now, the contraception debate we had in this country -- touched off by Bila's homeboy El Rushbo calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" -- wasn't about the government "paying for everyone's birth control." It was, in fact, about whether the federal government can regulate private insurance plans. But wingnuts can't win that argument, so they lie about it.

Anyway, what I want to know is this: does Jedediah Bila have an insurance policy that covers her contraception, and if so, does she refuse the coverage and pay for it out of pocket?

I'm guessing no.

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 »

In Catholic masses all over this country, priests are injecting politics into their sermons, condemning the Obama administration for the new Health and Human Services regulations that religious institutions must offer contraceptive benefits to its members. It doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of the benefit, mind you. But this new regulation acknowledges that there are some who may work in a Catholic hospital who may not have the same stricture against contraceptives and want it to be part of their health services. But that's perhaps a too nuanced view:

The Catholic Church reacted strongly Friday to a White House defense of new rules that will force many religious employers to provide contraception to their workers in government-mandated health insurance plans.

"The White House information about this is a combination of misleading and wrong," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He said the bishops would "pursue every legal mandate available to them to bring an end to this mandate. That means legislation, litigation and public advocacy. All options are on the table."

The new regulations were announced last month by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of an effort to guarantee that women receive free "preventive" healthcare services, including cervical cancer screening, breast pumps — and contraception. They require employers to include those services in their employee health insurance plans by August.

Religious institutions can qualify for an exemption if the services violate their beliefs, but not if they employ large numbers of people who do not share those beliefs. [..]

In a blog post Wednesday, the White House responded that the new rules won't force anyone to buy contraceptives. Cecilia Muñoz, director of the Domestic Policy Council, wrote: "Over half of Americans already live in the 28 states that require insurance companies [to] cover contraception." These include such large states as California and New York, she said.

The Catholic bishops shot back Friday, saying it was misleading to say that no one would be forced to "buy" contraceptives, because everyone who contributes to an insurance plan will be paying a portion of the subsidy that provides for free contraception.

Alex Castellanos and David Brooks are only too happy to pick up the bishops' mantle and further the meme that this is a solid shot across the bow of religious liberty in Obama's war on religion. How nice of them to legitimize Newt Gingrich that way. Rachel Maddow and Xavier Becerra try gamely to point out that refusing contraceptive benefits in the twenty first century is beyond ridiculous, but of course, host David Gregory gives Alex Castellanos the last word.

Out of curiosity, are the bishops equally against ED drugs like Viagra? Why do I hear no denouncing of working against "God's plan" there? The reality is that despite the church's teachings, as much as 98 percent of Catholics admit to using contraception. Would that the church elders focus their efforts on dealing honestly with issues that are in line with the priorities of their members: poverty and social justice, labor unions, climate change and dealing honestly and ethically with their own sex scandals rather than plunge into politicking within homilies on Bizarro World accusations of violations of religious freedom.

Worth reading: Bishop should not insert politics into Mass

I'm still scratching my head over why Jim DeMint is even the tiniest bit concerned about women discussing -- yes, talking about -- abortion with their health professionals. But DeMint is not only concerned, he's going to do something about it, which is why he introduced a bill banning it.

Via Think Progress:

Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers, has jumped on the bandwagon by sneaking a radical anti-abortion amendment onto a completely unrelated piece of legislation. DeMint’s amendment would ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet:

Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.

Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said DeMint is essentially mandating “an abortion-only version of Skype.” She points out that a woman with high-risk pregnancy talking to her doctor through video conferencing would have to somehow switch to a separate communications system if abortion came up at all. “It is impractical, ridiculous, and, most importantly, bad for women in rural or remote areas who would not be able to discuss the full set of options with their doctor,” Keenan said.

Basically, if this stupid bill were to actually have a prayer of passing, which it doesn't, women could not use ordinary online channels to communicate with their doctor about their reproductive health. To me that raises all kinds of problems. Who owns the Internet? Who owns the pipes? If a woman communicated via her iPhone to her doctor's iPhone, how would the government have any right to know what they discussed, given that AT&T, Verizon and soon, Sprint, own that air? Moreover, how does a small government conservative reconcile this with big government insertion into women's lives?

I realize that Big Government attitudes arise around the abortion debate from social conservatives, but the construction of this particular measure exceeds even the usual lunatic levels. Is DeMint just wasting time with this bill, or does he plan to use it as some kind of leverage to do other harm to women?

I wonder if DeMint has read The Handmaid's Tale. It would explain his vision for the world he wants to live in.