The conservatives in this country will not be happy until the entire country has turned into the fabled days of the Wild West, a literal and figurative Tombstone (like most of their nostalgia, it is rarely based in fact). It is an odd psychology, this need to blame victims. It's the poor's fault that they haven't succeeded. Those who suffer from chronic diseases and want to rely on universal health care are purposely not taking care of themselves. Those seniors should have planned better for their retirement so that Social Security benefits can be cut, for the betterment of future generations. And rape victims should most definitely be armed to prevent sexual assault.

And so it was in this looking glass world that Democratic strategist and rape survivor Zerlina Maxwell entered this week, appearing on the Hannity show with a radical notion: rather than tell women to avoid being raped, how about we teach men not to rape?

This is not without precedent. In Vancouver, an anti-rape campaign, Don't Be That Guy, actually saw number of sexual assaults drop the following year by 10%. And for a party that claims to be all about "personal responsibility," this would seem to be the most logical tactic to take. But then, when has Hannity been about logic?

Absolutely, sometimes the rapist is the guy with a ski mask who jumps out of an alley. And no, he doesn’t care about learning to be a better person. But Hannity’s offhand remark that “evil exists in the world” reduces the experience of rape to one particular type – the violent stranger attack. Absolutely, we need to continue to empower women to avoid high-risk situations, to get themselves out of them when they’re in them and to defend themselves however they best see fit. But when rape is overwhelmingly an act perpetrated by men upon women, we also sure as hell need to stop thinking of it exclusively in terms of what women have to do to prevent it. We need to involve men and boys. We need to remember, as a revealing Reddit thread last year proved, that a rapist can be your friend or your boyfriend or your co-worker. We need to acknowledge that a rapist can be your husband. That, as chilling as it is to admit, as Maxwell says, “Those kids in Steubenville were average guys.”

Maxwell says, “I don’t want anybody to lecture a rape survivor about anything. And I don’t want anybody telling women that if you don’t wear a skirt or don’t drink at all you’re going to be safe. That is a lie.” What she wants instead is more training, more dialogue and a process that is much longer and harder, and infinitely subtler, than just telling women to get a gun or not wear high heels. Maxwell says, “I knew that [doing "Hannity"] was going to be hard, but I did it because I knew that I wasn’t speaking just for myself. I’m not alone. Clearly, what we’ve been doing isn’t working. We’re telling women to be afraid of the person in the bushes when it’s the person in your house. We need a reality check. We’re talking about the wrong things. We’re asking the wrong questions.”

And if you're a Fox News viewer (or a reader of Glenn Beck's The Blaze, which did an article as well), you are apparently also internalizing the wrong message, because what happened to Maxwell after this appearance just proves how far we have yet to go:

In the wake of her appearance, Maxwell was bombarded with harassing messages calling for her to be raped or murdered, often in explicitly racist terms.

Continue reading »

When she's not tweeting nonsense, Jedediah Bila is one of Fox News' favorite go-to "real feminists are Republicans" spokespersons. And while on "Fox & Friends" discussing why women are lazy, dependent dupes going to yet again vote for Democrats in November for the 142nd straight election, she did what she's paid to do.

BILA: Well I think historically, if you look back through all the elections throughout time, women have gone Democrat, they do lean Democrat. I think that's because in a large part the feminist movement has been telling women for a long time that Democrats are their alley [sic], ally, and somehow these big government policies have become their friend. They have sort of exchanged the values of self-sufficiency and autonomy in favor of government dependence. Instead of relying on men, now they're relying on government to be their big daddy or whatever you want to call it.

Yes, those devious feminists have tricked women into believing that the GOP is trying to destroy an organization committed to their health, wants them to submit to mandatory vaginal probing, seeks to criminalize abortion, even when the mother's life is threatened, thinks health insurance companies should be able to deny coverage of basic medications -- not to mention, is perfectly content to let women work for less pay.

So are women gullible or just stupid? Jedediah reports, you decide.

Excuse me, but who appointed the Catholic Bishops Gods and Guardians of All Things? As one who spent her time in the Girl Scouts along with her friends in elementary school all those years ago, I have only good things to say about them. While I wasn't exactly a master of cookie sales, I limped along in other areas, but certainly don't recall any outside groups having anything to say about our activities.

So could someone please explain to me how this is possible? Via Washington Post:

Long a lightning rod for conservative criticism, the Girl Scouts of the USA are now facing their highest-level challenge yet: An official inquiry by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

At issue are concerns about program materials that some Catholics find offensive, as well as assertions that the Scouts associate with other groups espousing stances that conflict with church teaching. The Scouts, who have numerous parish-sponsored troops, deny many of the claims and defend their alliances.

The inquiry coincides with the Scouts’ 100th anniversary celebrations and follows a chain of other controversies.

Earlier this year, legislators in Indiana and Alaska publicly called the Scouts into question, and the organization was berated in a series aired by a Catholic broadcast network. Last year, the Scouts angered some conservatives by accepting into a Colorado troop a 7-year-old transgender child who was born a boy but was being raised as a girl.

Some of the concerns raised by Catholic critics are recycled complaints that have been denied by the Girl Scouts’ head office repeatedly and categorically. It says it has no partnership with Planned Parenthood, and does not take positions on sexuality, birth control and abortion.

“It’s been hard to get the message out there as to what is true when distortions get repeated over and over,” said Gladys Padro-Soler, the Girl Scouts’ director of inclusive membership strategies.

In other instances, the scouts have modified materials that drew complaints — for example, dropping some references to playwright Josefina Lopez because one of her plays, “Simply Maria,” was viewed by critics as mocking the Catholic faith.

The new inquiry will be conducted by the bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into the Scouts’ ”possible problematic relationships with other organizations” and various “problematic” program materials, according to a letter sent by the committee chairman, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne, Ind., to his fellow bishops.

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.

I was really surprised at this column by E.J. I was raised Catholic too, but I'm outraged at the Church's hostility towards contraception and I didn't think he bought into this narrative. And let's be honest E.J, many pro-lifers will not vote or support Obama anyway so why should this matter to him or any progressive Catholic? Why should the president do any more for them than the Democratic Party already has?

Obama’s breach of faith over contraceptive ruling

All religions live in the U.S. and must honor our laws. What's being offered is not illegal. How many times are women and progressives supposed to kowtow to the religious right? It's infuriating and I grew up Catholic.

Digby writes:

Tell me again why I'm supposed to care that "progressive" Catholics are unhappy that president Obama mandated that Catholic institutions that employ people who are not members of the faith have to provide birth control coverage under the health care law? I'm hearing they feel "betrayed."

Welcome to our world folks. Now you know what it felt like for the rest of us when the administration made a deal with the Church to give abortion coverage pariah status in the health care law and treat it as though it is something so dirty that decent people wouldn't even want their money to touch the money of those who bought this dirty coverage. It wasn't pleasant.

I don't pretend to understand why progressive Catholics, who I'm told practice birth control at similar rates to non-Catholics, are upset that the government is mandating low cost coverage for everyone—for something they personally practice. That sort of hypocrisy is simply beyond the ken of a heathen like myself. But as a political matter, the*President made the right decision. Pro-choice progressive women have been shafted over and over again on reproductive issues and to enable this growing anti-birth control crusade to gain traction at the hands of a Democratic president would have been a true betrayal of epic proportions. Keep in mind that Democratic women outnumber Democratic men by nearly 10 points.

I feel betrayed by a religion that taught me only how to be a better person when I attended in the '60s and '70s. I'm so sick and tired of these hypocrites telling women what they can and cannot do.

Today, 1 in 3 women has trouble affording birth control. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the industrialized world, and studies show that women who plan their pregnancies are likely to be healthier, seek prenatal care, and have healthier children.

Given all of this, shouldn't the question be why a group of mostly men—bishops or otherwise—need an extra-extra special exemption from prioritizing the health of women? Sadly, this is no freak occurrence. When the Obama administration made the misguided decision not to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter, the debate focused exclusively on the way he—"as a father"—viewed the idea of 11-year-old girls getting Plan B with their pack of gum. The overwhelming majority of young women who were simply trying to avoid pregnancy or abortion, both far more risky than Plan B, were ignored. And when a collection of almost all men pushed the "Bart Stupak amendment," holding health reform they supposedly supported hostage for the sake of inroads on their anti-choice agenda, the actual impact their amendment would have on women was virtually absent, as news coverage lionized these men's dedication to their consciences.

Shouldn't we ask why women's health, our ability to control our lives and bodies and careers, is such a popular political football? Is it because the women who actually are affected have no voice in our political system?

Bart Stupak got run out of office for supporting these people. They are not interested in facts or freedoms. We do not live in a monarchy where men are the lords and women are the chamber maids. Dionne's instincts have been compromised by the same propaganda as so many Americans have been over the years. It's really sad.

Alan Grayson's new ad, "The Facts", lays Dan Webster's ugly record on women's out for all to see:

This year's crop of Senate candidates is filled with knuckle-draggers, but among House candidates, Dan Webster simply takes the cake. And it's sticking, too- you can Google "Dan Webster misogyny" and it's everywhere.

Blue America, as of this post, is just $1,861 short of our $50,000 goal on our page for Alan Grayson. I just chipped in simply because my 3-year-old niece and the rest of my family are taking a vacation to Disney World in Grayson's district after the election, and Republicans represented that area in Congress for over 25 years before Grayson got there, and I refuse to see my niece grow up under the kinds of laws Congressman Dan Webster would try to enact.

If you're with me, help keep him out.

This is good news, because public policy is far too often made by men who are oblivious of the effect on women:

In his latest gesture on women's issues, President Obama signed an executive order this afternoon creating a White House Council on Women and Girls.

“The purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy,” Obama said in a statement. “My administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people. I am confident that Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen will guide the Council wisely as its members address these important issues.”

The council, the White House says, "will provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families."

It will be led by close Obama adviser and friend Valerie Jarrett.

"I sign this order not just as president, but also as a son, a grandson, a husband and a father, because growing up, I saw my mother put herself through school to follow her passion for helping others," Obama said. "But I also saw how she struggled to raise me and my sister on her own, worrying about how she would pay the bills, educate herself and provide for us."

He said he signed the order (read it here) to honor all the women who came before him, such as his grandmother who was a bank vice president but was denied promotions because of her gender. He and said the fight for gender equality is far from over, citing pay disparities, domestic violence, and the relatively few women in Congress and in the executive offices of major companies.

"I think we need to take a hard look at where we're falling short, and who we're leaving out, and what that means for the prosperity and the vitality of our nation," said Obama, who as part of International Women's History Month also last week with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton jointly announced a new post of ambassador at large for women's issues around the world.

This new legislation is so disgusting that I'm surprised Bush didn't try to get this passed at the beginning of his second term. It's no shock that the right-wing freaks always target women with their extreme anti-choice agenda. Now they are trying to set back the medical world 200 years.

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”

Medicine should be religion free in America. Have you ever wondered why they don't ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?

From a press release:

In light of reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women and families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent the HHS rule from going into effect. The proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. The proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.

"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most.

The House is also introducing legislation to fight this too.

DeGette and Slaughter Introduce Legislation to Stop HHS Rule

Here's what John McCain said last night in his debate with Barack Obama about how he feels about providing an exception on late-term abortions considering the health or life of the mother:

He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

I'm just a doofy guy, but it sure doesn't seem like smart politics to be dismissing so blithely the very real concerns women have about their health when it comes to reproductive decisions. That's not "extreme pro-abortion," last I checked -- it's "normal human being."

Even that bastion of sensitivity, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, spotted this:

I believe that it was a big mistake by John McCain tonight with regards to abortion rights. If it was his goal to win over the Hillary voter, or younger women in Florida or South East Pennsylvania, then what he said is not going to help him.

You can’t belittle the health exception with regard to abortion. You can’t say the exception is “only her possible death.” The health exception is in Roe V. Wade and characterizing it in a diminutive way is going to lose a lot of pro-choice women.

More insightful, as always, was Rachel Maddow:

I think the line that someone is going to regret, one that will resonate and will hurt McCain the most is when McCain ridiculed the idea that the life of the mother should be a concern in the abortion debate.

Women everywhere will reflect on that – that they’ll be forced by the government to carry to term and give birth. This will be seared on women’s minds: the government is not going to excuse you, short of death, from giving birth. It’s the extreme [anti]-abortion position.

Why exactly did he select Sarah Palin as his running mate? It sure as hell wasn't for the Hillary voters ...

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Liberal media, my Aunt Fanny. McCain campaign proxy Carly Fiorina keeps pushing the Clinton PUMA meme as a way to reinforce for those women voters why they should vote for John McCain. Sadly, George Stephanopoulos -- who, as a former member of the Clinton administration really ought to know better -- lets her get away with it. Note that every time Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill tries to make a point, Stephanopoulos interrupts to give Fiorina the rebuttal.

And proving that while they absolutely cannot govern, Republicans are masters at campaigning, as McCaskill tries over and over again to show that McCain's own record belies his stated support for women's issues (a patronizing concept in and of itself--these are everyone's issues), Fiorina goes personal against Obama himself, while providing herself the alibi that Obama has gone negative despite his rhetoric of hope. And Stephanopoulos doesn't bat an eye, nor ask Fiorina to rebut the specific legislation that McCaskill brings up.

The final indignity? After Fiorina spins that really, she and McCaskill agree that women vote on issues and that's why they're going to vote for McCain, Stephanopoulos cuts off the interview with a Rovian let's "end on that point of agreement." Point of agreement, really? How about corporately-pushed-low-info-voter propaganda, George?

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »