We here at BlogForArizona never miss the Buckmaster Show. We especially love the Blogger Beat!
Recall Arpaio
Stop Sheriff Arpaio from continuing to make Arizona the clown car of American states. Respect our state by removing America's craziest sheriff from office. Sign up, volunteer or donate for the recall today!
Mo Udall says, "I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside." Donate to BlogForArizona to help us keep an eye on the pricks inside the GOP caucuses controlling Arizona's politics. Or you could buy some of our keen swag."
It looks like the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), has a bit of a problem with his plan to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Arizona's 20-week abortion ban law today. Doh!Court Strikes Down Arizona 20-Week Abortion Ban:
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violated a woman's
constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus
is able to survive outside the womb. "Viability" of a fetus is
generally considered to start at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about
40 weeks.
Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even
earlier. Several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or
struck down by other courts.
Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel on the
San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violate a
long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe
v. Wade decision in 1973.
The judge wrote that "a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable."
Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012 after it was
approved by the Republican-led Legislature. Supporters said the law was
meant to protect the mother's health and prevent fetuses from feeling
pain. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional,
partly because of those concerns, but the 9th Circuit blocked the ban
from going into effect until it ruled.
Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn't technically a
law but rather a medical regulation because it allowed for doctors to
perform abortions in medical emergencies. Berzon rejected that reasoning
and deemed the legislation a law banning abortions before a fetus is
viable.
"The challenged Arizona statute's medical emergency exception does not
transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of
abortion procedure," Berzon wrote. "Allowing a physician to decide if
abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to
decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term."
Berzon was joined by judges Mary Schroeder and Andrew Kleinfeld.
Apparently "Mayor" of Washington, D.C. is no longer good enough for Franks. Not content with attempting to impose his anti-abortion crusade upon the women who live in the nation’s capital, Rep. Trent Franks now intends to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide with a bill to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks. Arizona Congressman Wants To Expand His DC Abortion Ban To Restrict Reproductive Rights Nationwide:
Franks, who invoked the illegal abortion provider Kermit Gosnell to justify his decision to re-introduce a 20-week abortion ban in DC, now says that Gosnell’s crimes have compelled him to amend his bill so it applies to women across the country.
The Arizona congressmember announced his decision to expand his bill on Friday.
Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) have emerged as a principal opponent of Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan. These fetus fetish anti-abortion extremists, who imagine abortion lurking in every bill in their fevered minds, have put forward specious claims that the Governor's plan will somehow "indirectly" provide funding for abortions, even though state and federal law has long prohibited such funding.
These radical extremists would rather see real live cancer patients and transplant patients in desperate need of AHCCCS healthcare coverage die, because they imagine a fictional fetus might somehow, someday be aborted. I fail to discern any "Christianity" in this position. WWJD?
[Gov.] Brewer’s office is preparing language, to be amended onto a separate
bill, that would ensure no federal expansion funding goes to health-care
providers that perform abortions.
The move is a response to lobbying from Cathi Herrod, president of
the Center for Arizona Policy, who says Medicaid expansion would
subsidize abortions — a claim that puts in a political vise
anti-abortion GOP lawmakers who back the governor’s proposal.
[Herrod first raised the abortion issue in late March in a letter to
Brewer, using an opinion from a Christian legal-defense organization to
argue that the draft Medicaid legislation should be amended to
disqualify the non-profit women’s health provider Planned Parenthood and
other abortion providers from receiving public money.]
“In response to some of the concerns raised by lawmakers, the
governor has been willing to revisit this issue,” Brewer spokesman
Matthew Benson said Tuesday. “It’s become clear that it would be
difficult to move forward with Medicaid restoration until some of these
legislative concerns about abortion are addressed.”
THE ISSUES ADMITTEDLY are not normally
the domain of a member of Congress. But D.C. residents who wanted to
discuss problems of city potholes, rat infestations and broken
streetlights with Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) were trying to make an
important point. If Mr. Franks is so interested in running the affairs
of District residents, as evidenced by his effort to restrict their abortion rights, then let him deal with all the other issues of local government.
No surprise that Mr. Franks locked his doors to last week’s protest by D.C. Vote and turned off his phones.
Nor is it any surprise that his noxious bill to restrict the
constitutional rights of women in the nation’s capital is likely to
advance. It’s pretty clear that the rights or wishes of D.C. residents
matter little on Capitol Hill, particularly to members of the House
Republican majority.
President Obama became the first sitting president ever to address a
Planned Parenthood event this morning, speaking at the health care
group's national conference.
From the Transcript of prepared remarks (excerpt):
[O]bviously this is a special national conference, because it’s been
nearly a hundred years since the first health clinic of what later would
become Planned Parenthood opened its doors to women in Brooklyn. And
for nearly a century now, one core principle has guided everything all
of you do -- that women should be allowed to make their own decisions
about their own health. (Applause.) It’s a simple principle.
So what I see in this audience, extraordinary doctors and nurses, and
advocates and staff who work tirelessly to keep the doors at health
centers all across the country going, then I'm reminded of those very
early efforts and all the strides that we've made in subsequent
decades. And I also think about the millions of mothers and daughters
and wives and sisters, friends and neighbors who walk through those
doors every year.
Somewhere there’s a woman who just received a new lease on life
because of a screening that you provided that helped catch her cancer in
time. Somewhere there’s a woman who’s breathing easier today because
of the support and counseling she got at her local Planned Parenthood
health clinic. Somewhere there’s a young woman starting a career who,
because of you, is able to decide for herself when she wants to start a
family. (Applause.)
One in five women in this country has turned to Planned Parenthood for
health care. One in five. (Applause.) And for many, Planned
Parenthood is their primary source of health care -- not just for
contraceptive care, but for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer
screenings and health counseling.
Mullah Cathi Herrod and the Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) are injecting their hysterical anti-abortion crusade against Planned Parenthood into the debate over Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan. . . because more ignorance and hysteria over "ObamaCare" is what is needed in this debate. This is a grand distraction straw-man for Tea-Publican extremists to oppose the Governor's plan.
One of the Legislature’s most powerful lobbying groups says Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid-expansion plan would subsidize abortions and is pushing for an amendment that complicates negotiations and threatens the proposal.
The Center for Arizona Policy is using an opinion from the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal-defense organization, to argue that the draft Medicaid legislation should be amended to disqualify the non-profit women’s health provider Planned Parenthood from receiving public money.
It’s the first in what is expected to be a long line of suggested changes to Brewer’s proposal to broaden eligibility for the state-federal health-insurance program for the poor and disabled, each with the potential to gain or lose votes for the governor’s top legislative priority with thousands of lives and billions of dollars at stake.
Democrats warn that piling on unrelated amendments could cost Brewer their support, and the governor still must find ways to win over Republicans.
The amendment suggested in a letter this week to Brewer from Cathi Herrod, the center’s president, is similar to a law signed by the governor last year to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit, and a federal judge put House Bill 2800 on hold in February. [Because Planned Parenthood is likely to succeed on the merits of its case in overturning the law.]
Ealier this month, the state of Arkansas passed the most restrictive abortion law in the nation -- a 12-week ban that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound.
Arkansas' action touched off a race to the bottom among Republican-controled state legislatures where the Christian Taliban is firmly in control.
The state of North Dakota passed two anti-abortion bills last week, one banning most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected,
something that can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy (before many women are even aware that they are pregnant).
Another measure would prohibit women from having the procedure because a
fetus has a genetic abnormalities, such as Down syndrome. Lawmakers urge governor to veto North Dakota abortion bills:
If the governor signs the measures, North Dakota would be the only state with those laws.
North
Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures
and GOP governors looking at abortion restrictions, ranging from
denying funding under the federal health care law to requiring women to
get an ultrasound and teenagers to get parental permission before having
abortions. Just days before North Dakota lawmakers approved the ban,
Arkansas instituted a 12-week ban that prohibits most abortions when a
fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound.
A
fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a
vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women
seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique. North
Dakota’s measure doesn’t specify how a fetal heartbeat would be
detected.
Rachel Maddow did a segment on Tuesday night about the GOP's new $10 million outreach to minority voters, in particular, to Hispanic voters.
The village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), addressed the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, "and on his way there he apparently stopped off at the Hispanic voter stereotype shop."
Clip:
Republicans have been losing both respect and votes of a group of people who already identify with many of our beliefs in family, and faith, and conservative values. Hispanics should be a natural and sizeable part of the Republican base. Defense of the unborn, defense of traditional marriage, are Republican issues that should resonate with Latinos.
As Maddow commented, "Should they? Why do you think that? You know if you actually look at the data, more than half of all Hispanics think that gay people should be allowed to marry. On abortion about two-thirds of Latinos think abortion should be legal. So your stereotypes about what Latino voters think, hey, turns out they're wrong. Also, they're stereotypes."
I have had a few thoughts about the idea and practicality of criminalizing and prosecuting abortion, as the GOP seems intent on doing recently. But, wow, this prosecutor discusses it more thoroughly and passionately than I could. Go read it. Here's a few samples:
This is what happens when we start second-guessing reproductive health decisions being made by pregnant girls and women. We wade into a thicket where, suddenly, lawyers and judges and police officers are making decisions that we are so incredibly ill-equipped to make. Where people like me end up telling pregnant women, “hey, what happened to you wasn’t horrifying enough for ME to allow YOU to terminate this pregnancy. Sorry. But remember, this is all part of God’s plan for you.”
...
So, personhood for a cluster of cells means that abortion could equal aggravated murder. Really, do Republicans want us prosecuting girls and women for the aggravated homicide of their zygotes? Is that the plan here? Do they actually want to impose the death penalty, or will life in prison be sufficient to satisfy their pathological need to punish women for the crime of being sexually active? Of course, if the woman is guilty, so is the man who facilitates her in procuring an abortion – boys, if you take your girlfriend to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, we’re going to imprison you both for murder. It’s called a “conspiracy.” In case you were wondering.
...
And all of this chatter and talk is offensive, it is demeaning, it is patronizing, and it is unconscionable. As someone who has worked with rape victims – including some who were pregnant, some who were children, and some who were pregnant children – for over a decade, I would strongly suggest that you all think a little harder about what you really want here and about what you are really proposing.
Amen.
I would just add one comment on the subject. The State should not be in the business of prosecuting people based on religious law. There is no secular consensus about the ethical or medical status of a foetus prior to viability outside of the mother's womb. Abortion activists want to shape the civil law to fit their purely religious conviction (which is of fairly recent vintage, btw) that a foetus, even a zygote, is a full human being with a 'soul', deserving of the same rights and protections as any other person.
Conservatives have a buzz-word for the practice of enforcing religious dogma by the state: Sharia Law. 'Personhood' laws, anti-abortion laws, and contraceptive bans are Christian Sharia Law, plain and simple. The religious right doesn't like Sharia Law because they don't like Islam. I don't like Sharia Law (of any religion) because I believe America is established as a purely secular state. In America, no religion gets to enforce it's dogma through the coersive power of the state.
I find it offensive and unacceptable, and down-right un-American, to prosecute someone criminally for violating someone else's religious convictions. Such use of civil law violates the establishment clause, in my view. The State cannot criminalize abortion or other reproductive technologies, in my view, without establishing de facto a particular religious conviction as the official state religion.
Only after a foetus is viable does the State have any rational, secular interest in relgulating or restricting abortion - that is fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade. There is no rational basis for the abortion and contraceptive laws conservatives want to enforce, other than enforcing their own narrow religious dogma on the rest of us.
I have three sisters who used to act out and sing along to this Leslie Gore classic, "You don't own me," when they were kids. This video brings back a lot of memories.
[S]ome of the women in video above include Carrie Brownstein, Lena
Dunham, Natasha Lyonne, and Miranda July. I think it’s a terrific use of
a brilliant and powerful recording/song. I’m a huge fan of girl pop and
this is definitely one of the classics.
* * *
“You Don’t Own Me,” which was released the year after The Feminine Mystique
was published, was a giant hit. It was one of Gore’s most popular
songs, second only to “It’s My Party” in sales. It climbed to number two
on the charts, right behind the Beatles’ “I Want to Hold Your Hand.”
This PSA details the GOP's war on women's rights and healthcare.
Republican Congressional candidate Col. Martha McSally says
she has been “fighting for women’s rights and women’s equality [her] whole
life.”
McSally is well known as the first woman combat pilot and
the Air Force officer who fought against a government rule requiring US service
women to wear Arab garb when they leave the base.
Does this make her a champion for women’s rights? Let’s look
beyond these headlines to answer that question.
More on McSally's stances on choice, women's health, equal pay, and the War on Women after the jump...
Choice
Although McSally bristles when called a “cookie
cutter” Republican candidate, her stances on women’s issues are in
lock-step with Congressional
War on Women stalwarts like Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul
Ryan and fellow Arizonan Jeff
Flake, who is running on the Republican ticket for US Senate against Dr.
Richard Carmona.
McSally’s
website says she believes in “the sanctity of every human life”. This
right-wing code for saying that she agrees with the Republican Party’s
anti-abortion platform. Ironically, small-government McSally
believes that the government should dictate when American women have children.
Not supporting a woman’s right to make decisions governing her own body is a deal
breaker for many women.
In a 2010 CBS News interview
about Sarah Palin, Katie Couric asked feminist icon Gloria Steinem if one could
be a “conservative feminist”—as
Palin claimed to be, despite her disagreement with traditional feminist views.
“Yes, you can be a feminist who says that you don’t agree
with abortion and wouldn’t have an abortion,” Steinem answered, “but you can’t
be a feminist who says that other women can’t [have an abortion] and [who] criminalizes
abortion. One in three American women needs an abortion at some time in her
life. To make that criminal and dangerous is not a feminist act.”
Women’s Health
In addition to her anti-choice stance, McSally is in the repeal-and-replace camp
when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--even declaring that she would
vote to strike down the ACA as one of her first acts in Congress. This also
reflects her anti-woman views.
The ACA includes many hard-fought benefits for women: coverage
for preventive services like mammograms and PAP smears; coverage for maternity
care—a benefit that McSally’s former boss Arizona Senator Jon Kyl
infamously mocked; coverage for
contraception and family planning—a benefit 98% of American women need at some
point in their lives; and an end to insurance
premium price discrimination against women.
Pay Equity
The first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law
as president was the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue employers
for wage discrimination. Historically, American women have made less than male
counterparts doing the same work. A 2010 study showed that American women earn
about 80
cents per every dollar earned by a male worker. This not only translates to
a smaller paycheck, but over a lifetime in the workforce, this results in a
significantly smaller retirement income. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt
Romney has declared that he would not have signed the fair pay act into law.
Where does McSally stand on equal pay for equal work? Who
knows? The “Jobs & Economic
Opportunities” paragraph on her website focuses on cutting corporate taxes
and regulations—with no mention of equal pay or workers’ rights.
“…You want to talk about a war on women? Walk in my shoes down
the streets of Kabul. Walk in my shoes down the streets of Riyadh; where women
have to be covered up. Where they’re stoned, where they’re honor killed if
they’ve been raped , where they can’t drive and they can’t travel without the
permission of a male relative.
That’s a war on women…”
To American women, McSally’s comment is a slap in
the face because it discounts dismisses our struggles here at home. Yes,
definitely, the way women are treated in Afghanistan and other fundamentalist
countries is deplorable. Women in more progressive countries are fighting for
the rights of our oppressed sisters around the world.
We are able to fight because of the rights and
freedoms we have won here at home—the right to free public education, the right
to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to control our own
bodies, the right to affordable healthcare for ourselves and our families, the
right to love and marry whomever we want.
McSally’s record and
public statements show that she is not a feminist and that she does not stand
with American women in our struggles.
P.S. I included a still life of my recipe box, my 1972 edition Betty Crocker Cookbook, a few kitchen knick-knacks, and my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe to show that you can be a feminist and still cook and own recipe cards.
The House Majority PAC is up with a closing ad in CD 1 against Jonathan "Payday" Paton entitled "Jonathan Paton - Why." Tthe House Majority PAC teamed up with Emily’s List (aka Women Vote!) to target Paton’s views on women’s healthcare.
Paton has been a consistent vote for the fetus fetish "culture warriors" at Center for Arizona Policy who want to criminalize abortion and subject women to second class citizen status to a fertilized egg.
Tea-Publican congressional candidate Vernon Parker (CD 9) has promised the "forced birth" culture warriors at Center for Arizona Policy that he would ban all abortions except in cases that would prevent the death of a mother. This abortion ban would not make any exception for cases of rape, incest or even when the health of the mother is endangered.
In response to Parker's extreme views on the issue of abortion rights, Kyrsten Sinema's campaign has released the following ad entitled "Vernon Parker, Tea Party Candidate."
Planned Parenthood Action Fund released a video entitled "Yes We Plan" on Tuesday, inspired by Will.i.am's 2008 Obama video "Yes We Can," urging voters to protect women's health issues by re-electing President Obama. The ad features Mary J. Blige, Julianne Moore, and Q-Tip.
Description of ad:
With so much at stake at this critical moment, our voices — and our votes — matter more than ever. And after everything President Obama has done to stand up for women in the past four years, it's time to speak, act, and vote.
The Democratic Super PAC, American Bridge, is running a new ad this week entitled "GOP's War on Women." Description of ad: From shutting down Planned Parenthood to "legitimate rape," GOP candidates are waging a war on women.
Willard "Mittens" Romney endorsed Tea-Publican extremist Richard Mourdock for the senate in indiana, and is standing by his man even after Mourdock said during a debate that a woman who gets pregnant by her rapist is
carrying a “gift from God” and thus must have the child.
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize
life is that gift from God,” he said. “And I think even when life begins
in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God
intended to happen.”
The Obama campaign is up with a new ad on the reproductive rights of women entitled "What He'll Do," in Romney's own words. Ad description:
Voiceover: "Which do you believe? What Mitt Romney's TV ads say about women or what Mitt Romney himself says:"
Mitt Romney: "Do I believe Supreme Court decisions should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes." "And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe v. Wade." "Hopefully reverse Roe v. Wade." "Overturn Roe v. Wade" "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." "I'll cut off funding to Planned Parenthood."
Voiceover: "No matter what Mitt Romney's ads say we know what he'll do."
On Monday, Willard "Mittens" Romney cut an ad in support of Indiana Tea-Publican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, one of the rare occasions a presidential candidate has endorsed a congressional candidate in an ad this election cycle. The media villager invention of "moderate Mitt" tied his campaign to one of the most far-right extremist Tea-Publican candidates running for Congress this year. I guess the media villagers must have missed it. Mitt Romney TV ad plugs Richard Mourdock in Indiana Senate race.
Mittens is now learning the hard way why presidential candidates do not tie their campaigns to down-ballot congressional races, especially such controversial candidates. On Tuesday night during a televised debate, Richard Mourdock had this to say. Indiana GOP Senate Hopeful Richard Mourdock Says God 'Intended' Rape Pregnancies:
Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock declared during a Tuesday night
U.S. Senate debate that a woman who gets pregnant by her rapist is
carrying a “gift from God” and thus must have the child.
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize
life is that gift from God,” he said. “And I think even when life begins
in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God
intended to happen.” Mourdock, who became visibly emotional while
speaking, supports abortion only to save a mother’s life, not in cases
of rape and incest.
* * *
Mourdock’s Democratic rival, Rep. Joe Donnelly, quickly entered the fray after Tuesday’s debate. “The God I believe in and the God I know most
Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen — ever. What
Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so
disrespectful to survivors of rape,” he said in a statement.
Mourdock harumphed and said his words were being taken out of context when tried to walk them back after the debate:
“God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does.
Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is
absurd and sick.”
More importantly, Team Romney that had made the mistake of embracing Mourdock on Monday quickly moved to disavow his debate statement:
“Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not
reflect his views,” said campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul. The
candidate supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, as well as to
save a mother’s life.
Well, that's what Mittens says now as he pretends to be "moderate Mitt" for the feckless media villagers who fall for that crap. He and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have supported the most extreme positions on abortion and women's access to contraception until the eleventh hour of the campaign.
The Obama campaign responds to Mitt Romney's flat-out lie
in his new ad that he has never supported banning all abortions with a new ad
entitled "Seen," which includes video of Mittens Romney saying he would be "delighted to sign" a
bill outlawing all abortion. Romney acts like he has never heard of those newfangled inventions like sound recordings and moving picture film and the "tee-vee" and the Internet. Description:
Voiceover: "Seen this from Mitt Romney? Then take a look at this:"
Anderson Cooper: "If
Roe v. Wade was overturned, Congress passed a federal ban on all
abortions, and it came to your desk -- would you sign it? 'Yes', or
'no?'"
Mitt Romney: "Let me say it: I'd be delighted to sign that bill."
Voiceover: "Banning all abortions?"
Mitt Romney: "I'd be delighted to sign that bill."
Voiceover: "Trying to mislead us? That's wrong. But ban all abortions? Only...if you vote for him."
Sens. Paula Aboud (D-LD 28) and Linda Lopez (D-LD 29) brought their Women Ignited Now (W.I.N.) rally to the Saguaro Eastside Democrats on Monday night.
Sen. Aboud recommended viewing online this video entitled “Vote,” directed by Steve Anderson, which was shown at the W.I.N. rallies around the state but for which there was not enough time to show at the SED meeting last night. Sen. Aboud recommended grassroots activism -- the "rule of 10" -- share this video with 10 of your friends and family, and pass it on.
If we do not stand up and defend the reproductive rights of women, the pro-life forced birth movement will take those rights away and reduce women to second class citizens under the Constitution.
We just heard Rep. Paul Ryan say during the vice presidential debate this week that he and Willard "Mittens" Romney intend to put the fundamental constitutional rights of women to life, liberty and property to a referendum vote (disguised as a ban on abortion and most forms of contraceptives). Fundamental constitutional rights are not subject to a vote -- that's what makes them fundamental constitutional rights. The minority is protected from tyranny by the majority.
A woman does not lose her constitutional rights to life, liberty and property at the moment of conception, reducing her to a second class citizen to her fertilized egg, and making her uterus "property of the state" subject to regulation.
Romney-Ryan promises to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with conservative activist judges who will rubberstamp their actions. Take this threat seriously.
I have told you about The troubling Tyler Mott, the Tea-Publican running for state senate in LD 9, but what about his running mate for the LD 9 House, the equally troubling Tea-Publican Ethan Orr aka "E.Orr," the former Young Democrat?
Republican Ethan Orr spent the first half of his life as a Democrat, volunteering for the party on political campaigns, including Bill Clinton’s first presidential run in 1992 and Eddie Basha’s run for Arizona governor in 1994.
So it’s no surprise that when he’s on the campaign trail for a House seat in north Tucson’s new Legislative District 9, one of the state’s most competitive districts, he can talk the talk that the moderate voters there want to hear.
* * *
Orr says he fashions himself after moderate Tucson Republicans like former Reps. Pete Hershberger and Toni Hellon, and he hopes to work with the southern Arizona Democratic delegation to pass legislation that can help the people and Tucson.
Yeah, not hardly. Hellon and Hershberger were not culture warriors for the far-right social agenda. And aren't they dismissed today as RINOs by the Tea-Publican Party?
Orr’s Democratic opponents, Victoria Steele and Mohur Sidhwa, say Orr’s moderate rhetoric is false advertising.
Orr takes a strong stance on several social issues, including abortion, saying it should be illegal in all cases except when the mother’s life is at risk. He said he doesn’t support making gay marriage legal, but doesn’t support a constitutional amendment against it either.
[Note: Arizona voters already enacted a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, Prop. 102 in 2008. Someone should ask him in upcoming debates how he voted on Prop. 102.]
Though he said he wouldn’t sponsor social bills himself, he said when it comes time to vote, he would vote with his party and his conscience.
E.Orr's stance on abortion means that he supports requiring forced birth for victims of rape and incest -- the life of the mother is his only exception. Someone should ask him in upcoming debates whether he believes in Rep. Todd Akin's (R-MO) "legitimate rape" theory which is prevalent among the anti-choice Christian right.
E.Orr says he will vote with his party on social issues. Well, the 20 week restrictions on abortion, waiting periods and forced ultra-sound, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and permitting employers religious institutions to opt-out of contraceptive coverage in employer-sponsored health insurance plans -- all bills advanced by Cathi Herrod and her Center for Arizona Policy -- were passed with near unanimous Tea-Publican support in the past legislature.
With the Republican Congress and the state legislatures (including Arizona's) passing anti-woman laws that ranged from the absurd to the vindictive, I can't understand why any woman in the US would vote Republican in this election.
None the less, the War on Women and the assault on women's reproductive rights continue-- at least in the religious right wing of the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party's platform includes strong pro-choice language. Consequently, at the recent Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, a small band of anti-abortion protesters demonstrated in front of the convention center daily. Mostly, the demonstrators were old white men (surprise, surprise), but on one particular day a handful of young women joined them (to lend some credibility?).
You might say that "the devil made me do it," but with video rolling, I engaged one of the protesters in a heated, street-level debate about abortion, choice, access to contraception, sex education, "legitimate rape", fetus personhood, the morning after pill, and forcing underage girls to have a rapist's baby.
Surprisingly, we found some consensus. We both believe...
- Abortion is a very difficult choice.
- Abortion should be a last resort, not a routine birth control method.
- Rape is rape, and there's no such thing as protection from pregnancy when a woman is raped.
- Abstinence only education is "unrealistic." Contraception and sex education should be provided to young girls in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy. She didn't want the contraception to be free, but she was somewhat more enlightened and reasonable than most Congressmen.
- Vaginal ultrasound should be an option, if the woman wants one. (On the tape, she seems incredulous when I tell her about some of the legislation that has passed.)
Of course, the big differences between us were that:
- I believe every woman should have the right to choose, and she wants the government to dictate what citizens do;
- She believes that a fetus is a person from the moment of contraception, and I don't. She also believes that "right to life" doesn't apply to "criminals". (So, the death penalty is OK, but not abortion.)
What I came away with is that much of the anti-woman legislation passed by Arizona and other states is too extreme even for a deeply religious woman who is vehemently opposed to abortion.
Let's take a trip in the hot tub time machine back to, oh I don't know, just a few weeks ago when Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionist Rep. Todd Akin scored an upset win in the GOP primary for the U.S. senate in Missouri. Akin gave an interview in which he said these now infamous words:
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
You may think this is crazy talk (it is) but this is an article of faith among the Pro Life Forced Birth movement.
Mr. Akin's comments started a firestorm of criticism for which nearly every Republican politician and organization immediately sought to distance themselves from his ignorant comments and to try and force him out of the race so that they could appoint someone in his stead. Karl Rove even joked about murdering him. Karl Rove Jokes About Murdering 'Legitimate Rape' Lawmaker Todd Akin ("If he's found mysteriously murdered, don't look for my whereabouts!").
Mr. Akin was not abandoned by his own Missouri Republican Party and other Christian Reconstructionists/Dominionists, most notably FAUX News host Mike Huckabee. Wednesday was the last day to replace Mr. Akin on the ballot, and surprise, he's officially on the ballot. Republicans are stuck with him as their candidate.
After calling on Akin to withdraw from his Senate race against Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill in Missouri, in the wake of his now-infamous "legitimate rape" comment, the National Republican Senatorial Committee now supports his candidacy and has reopened the door to spending on his behalf.
* * *
The Missouri Republican Party issued a statement of support. "Just like all of our GOP candidates elected in the August primary, the Missouri Republican Party stands behind Congressman Todd Akin in his race for United State Senate," state party chairman David Cole said.
The War on Women has been raging nationwide with Tea Party-controlled
state legislatures and governors signing into law multiple bills that
attack women’s rights, families, and social safety net programs.
At the recent Democratic National Convention (DNC), First Lady Michelle
Obama and other speakers at the DNC’s Women’s Caucus meeting repeatedly
stressed the themes of equal pay for equal work, access to care,
discrimination, choice, and the power of the women's vote. With several
standing ovations and chants of "fired up, ready to go" and
"four more years," the Women's Caucus had the feeling of an old time
tent revival.
Although the First Lady was the featured speaker, several guest
speakers warmed up the audience of approximately 400 women (and a handful of
men).
Tuesday's Arizona primary was a good day for women.
As we all know, the Arizona Legislature was on the forefront of the War on Women in the spring of 2012. Our legislators passed some of the country's most draconian laws restricting access to contraception, crippling Planned Parenthood, claiming that personhood begins before conception, and forcing women to submit to vaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Primary day was a good day for women because all eleven of the women candidates backed by the pro-choice group Arizona List won their races. The only way we can change Arizona's reactionary ways is to change our government in Phoenix. We're counting on these women to help us do that.
Social media was on fire yesterday, as Arizona Democratic candidates and their surrogates battled it out on Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail blasts.
Although Arizona voters have had nearly a month to complete early mail-in ballots, August 28 is primary election day, and there are several hotly contested Democratic primary races between Blue Dogs and progressives. Some common themes run through these races, most notably the environment, the economy, campaign financing, and women's issues. In addition, some Latino groups are using support for two controversial laws as a litmus test-- SB1070, the "papers please" anti-immigrant law, and HB2281, the law targeting Mexican American Studies (MAS).
In a year of unprecedented attacks on the rights of women in the US, an endorsement from the National Organization for Women (NOW) carries a lot of weight for us feminists because it tells us who are friends really are and who will stand up for women.
As usual, when there is a hot-button, righ-wing issue, Arizona leads the nut-case pack. The War on women was a fertile field for the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer.
Unfortunately, only a handful of Arizona politicians were at the forefront in the pushback against extremists on the right. Congressman Raul Grijalva (CD3), State Senator Kyrsten Sinema (currently running for Congress in CD9), and Dr. Richard Carmona (currently running for US Senate against Teapublican Congressman Jeff Flake) spoke up earlier and more consistently than any other Arizona politicians.
Who was endorsed by NOW is as interesting as who was not endorsed because it clearly reflects who didn't stand up for women (or who waited months until the outcry was so thunderous that they were forced to speak up.) For example, Blue Dog Congressional Dems Ron Barber (CD2), Matt Heinz (CD2), Amanda Aguirre (CD3), J. Manuel Arreguin (CD3), Andrei Cherny (CD9), and Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) are not on the NOW endorsement list, but neither are progressive-backed candidates like Dave Shapira (CD9) or Wenona Benally Baldenegro (CD1).
Jim Nintzel at the Tucson Weekly has already done an excellent job of reporting on this issue, so I hope that he will not mind that I repost his reporting at length here (kudos). Flake vs. Carmona on Abortion Rights | The Tucson Weekly:
Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s comments about "legtimate rape" and abortion have thrust the topic into the center of the nation’s political debate just one week before the Republican National Convention.
After a speech Tuesday afternoon at the Pima County Republican Club, Flake said that while he believes abortion should be illegal in most cases, he supports an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
“I have always, throughout my career, said that there should be exceptions for rape, for incest and for life of the mother, “ Flake said. “I’ve received a lot of criticism from groups on the right because my position wasn’t as they wanted it to be, but that’s been my position and I’m sticking with it.”
But the Arizona Democratic Party is reminding voters that Flake was one of 227 co-sponsors on the bill that Akin was discussing when he got into trouble this week.
That bill, H.R. 3, was designed to narrow the circumstances under which federal dollars could be used to pay for an abortion. Among other changes in federal law, it would have redefined “rape” to “forcible rape” in regards to an exemption to the Hyde amendment, which blocks the use of federal funding to terminate a pregnancy.
The Christian Science Monitor has a good run-down of the controversy regarding the bill here. The CSM noted:
The term “forcible rape” was never explicitly defined, but pro-abortion-rights forces presumed the bill would preclude federal funding for abortions of pregnancies resulting from a variety of rapes where force may not be involved, including date rape, statutory rape, the rape of a woman who had been drugged, and the rape of a mentally incompetent woman. The bill also restricts abortions in cases of incest to females who are minors.
Flake said Tuesday that he makes “no distinctions” between different forms of rape. [Then why did he cosponsor the original bill that included the "forcible rape" language?]
“’Forcible rape’ seems redundant to me,” Flake said. [Yeah, you say that now after all the blowback.]
CD 2 Republican congressional candidate Martha McSally has gotten kid-gloves treatment and a free pass from the local media villagers during this primary, running a below the radar campaign. She is an unknown quantity as a result. That is about to change after Tuesday's primary election.
The media villagers can start with a direct question about the hot-button issue of the week for Tea-Publicans going into their convention: "Where do you stand on the "legitimate rape" comments of Rep. Todd Akin running for the Senate in Missouri, and where do you stand on the "no exceptions" anti-abortion plank in the GOP platform?"
The media villagers should also ask her direct questions whether she will support Reps. Todd Akin and Paul Ryan's bill to redefine rape as "forced rape," an end-run around statutory rape laws and instances of emotional abuse and intimidation to limit access to abortions. And whether she will support Reps. Todd Akin and Paul Ryan's bill defining life as beginning at conception -- thus reducing an adult woman to second class citizen status to her fertilized egg.
Does McSally's views on "small government" mean a government small enough to declare her uterus property of the state and to dictate her access to contraception and abortion, and general reproductive health? The kid-gloves come off now.
Now, I know that the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, has told Tea-Publicans not to answer these questions, but you media villagers need to demand an answer and keep pressing. Don't accept the crap that Jesse Kelly pulled during his now infamous K-GUN 9 interview about support from an anti-immigration organization.
The Arizona Democratic Party issued this press release this week:
The Democratic National Committee unveils a new slogan -- the
"Romney-Ryan-Akin Platform for Women" -- in a video released overnight (below the fold). Women will remember in November.
As I posted the other day in The GOP war on women: define 'legitimate' rape, "Rep. Todd Akin's comment reflects the mainstream view of the majority of the Tea-Publican Caucus in Congress. Akin's ignorant comment is not the product of the lunatic ravings of a madman. But that is what the GOP would have you believe today as they attempt to distance themselves from Akin's ignorant comment and to throw him under the bus."
GOP campaign operatives are calling on Rep. Akin to exit the race and throw him under the bus for having the temerity to speak what the majority of the Tea-Publican Party actually believes. Rep. Akin should be the keynote speaker at the GOP convention.
He's a vehement anti-abortionist with a 12th-century (or perhaps Neanderthal) view of women's rights. His position on abortion happens to be shared by the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee, Paul Ryan.
So, why would Republicans have a problem with Akin claiming a woman's body can prevent pregnancy in the event of a "legitimate rape"?
Particularly because the party's platform, which will be considered at the upcoming Republican National Convention, includes an anti-abortion position that allows no exception for rape or incest.
It's a position shared just as vehemently by Arizona's Rep. Trent Franks, who tried to get a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation passed by Congress. The proposal included no exception for rape victims. (The bill failed.)
So, why then are top party officials trying to get Akin to withdraw from Missouri's U.S. Senate race?
And why are other Republicans trying to distance themselves from him? If Akin doesn't believe in allowing a woman to have an abortion, even if she's raped, then his view on how she gets pregnant really doesn't matter.
And if the party doesn't believe a woman should have the right to an abortion, even in the event of rape or incest, why should it be upset about Akin's comments?
Sounds, instead, like he could be a party spokesman.
LITTLE WONDER that Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee to represent Missouri in the U.S. Senate, is trying to back away from his comments about abortion and rape. So ignorant and offensive were his remarks that members of Mr. Akin’s own party, including its presidential standard-bearer, issued strong condemnations,enoug though it took them a while to get strong h. Mr. Akin was utterly unconvincing in explaining that he “misspoke.” It is scary that someone so ill-informed could hold elective office or have a chance of becoming a senator.
[Note to Editors: Have you actually met the members of Congress? Todd Akin is neither unique nor the most ill-informed and extreme member of Congress. There are more where he came from.]
The comments, first aired Sunday on St. Louis’s KTVI-TV, bear repeating, if only to underscore Mr. Akin’s alarming worldview. Responding to a question about whether he would ease his opposition to abortion to allow exceptions for women who have been raped, the six-term congressman said, “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
It’s idiotic, to borrow the phrase of GOP strategist Mike Murphy, to say — citing doctors, no less — that women’s bodies contain some hidden defenses that can kick in to prevent pregnancies. To suggest there are different categories of rape — some real and awful and others that are not — is loathsome. [See last paragraph of opinion below.] Even from someone who would liken student loans to Stage 3 cancer, as Mr. Akin once did, the comment was stunning in its stupidity and insensitivity.
At first, Mr. Akin issued a statement saying that he “misspoke” and his “off-the-cuff remarks” didn’t “reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.” The explanation was hard to square with the fact that opposition to abortion has been a core tenet of his time in office — the issue isn’t new to him, in other words — and that he expounded on his thoughts during a lengthy interview with KTVI’s Charles Jaco.
As calls mounted for him to withdraw from the Senate race and the National Republican Senatorial Committee announced it would not spend any money to help elect him, Mr. Akin apologized Monday on former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s radio show, calling his remarks “a very, very serious error.” Indeed.
In an interview with KTVI-TV on Sunday, the GOP Senate nominee was asked if he supported abortion in the case of rape.
"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."
I've been hugely entertained by the GOP primary between Flake and Cardon, but really I haven't seen much difference between them. Differences do exist, of course, and many Republicans can tell you all about them. Democrats generally won't be able to see a lick of difference.
But there is one subject on which there is a key difference between these two Republicans: abortion.
Mr. Flake and Mr. Cardon are clearly both opposed to abortion. But in today's GOP, Mr. Flake is 'soft' on abortion, and Mr. Cardon is a 'real' Republican.
The GOP has been moving sharply rightward on abortion lately. Opposing abortions even in the circumstance of rape or incest is now a very mainstream GOP position. Increasingly, the GOP orthodoxy is to force a victim of rape or incest to bear the child of the man who violated her.
This issue is basis of the clearest difference between these two rock-ribbed paleo-conservatives. Mr. Flake does not favor forcing the victims of rape or incest to bear the child, Mr. Cardon does.
Who says the Center For Arizona Policy isn't good for anything? I would not have realized just how many GOP candidates for Federal office this year side with Mr. Cardon in forcing victims of rape and incest to carry the progeny of thier attackers to term without their candidate questionaire.
In fact, in most Congressional districts, Republicans don't have a choice about choice: they only have candidates who support forcing women to carry rape and incest pregnancies to term.
Indeed, most GOP candidates for State Legislature also support forcing victims of rape and incest to term as well, even in presumably competitive districts. I encourage any Republican who doesn't support such an extreme position to take a close look at the questionaire of your local candidates. You might be surprised.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has issued an injunction against implementation of Arizona’s precedent-challenging “fetal pain” abortion ban, that was scheduled to take effect today. Appeals court blocks Arizona's 20-week abortion ban:
With the injunction in place, the restrictions in the Mother's Health and Safety Act (sic) cannot be enforced until the San Francisco-based appeals court hears the case, likely in late October or early November, and issues a ruling. A court decision could take weeks, if not months.
The law, which would make abortions illegal 20 weeks after a woman's last menstruation, is based on the concept of fetal pain. Arizona lawmakers this spring justified the abortion ban by citing evidence that they say proves fetuses feel pain at the 20th week after gestation.
The bill passed with strong Republican support, and Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law, saying it "recognizes the precious life of the pre-born baby."
But the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of three abortion doctors in federal court, arguing the law is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court, they argued, has established that abortions are illegal at the point a fetus becomes viable. That is generally between the 22nd and 24th weeks of pregnancy, according to medical experts and abortion clinics.
On Monday, conservative activist U.S. District Court Judge James Teilborg upheld the law, triggering the request for a preliminary injunction. For those of you unfamiliar with Judge Teilborg, Molly Redden at The New Republic explains in Angry at the Arizona Abortion Ruling? Blame Democrats Too.:
At first blush, the players who facilitated the ruling—the uncompromising, rightwing governor who signed the bill; the ultra-conservative general assembly members who shepherded it to passage; and the recalcitrant judge, who was moved by his personal passions to defy well-established abortion law—exhibit a familiar scenario: Conservative dominance of the courts has, once again, thwarted a cherished Democratic objective.
The evidence? Well, several agencies have been engaging in way too productive and cordial relations with the Muslim Brotherhood of late, doncha know? Can't have anything to do with the Brotherhood playing a major role in the new government of Egypt... no, gotta be a conspiracy.
Here's the letter. Make of it's cracked ranting what you will and weep for the passing of seriousness and discernment in our elected public officials of the GOP brand.
The latest salvo in the War on Women came Friday when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill denying funds for non-abortion services provided to poor women by Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
To express their extreme displeasure-- putting it politely here-- women nationwide demonstrated against the War on Women last Saturday. Approximately 200-300 women participated in the Phoenix event, held on the lawn of the state capitol.
As activist and blogger Diane D'Angelo says in this video clip, "Complacency is not an option."
With Arizona having become a primary front in the GOP's War on Women, it seems to me there is a possible means to make the GOP pay at the polls this November for their aggression against the rights and health of half the population.
The GOP supermajority in the AZ legislature has passed several anti-women laws that do not reflect the values and opinions of the majority of Arizonans, especially those of Arizona's women. Among them are the widely-reported and controversial new restriction on abortions after 20 weeks, the defunding of Planned Parenthood in Arizona, and the ability for employers to opt out of funding birth control for their female employees if they have a "moral objection" to use of contraceptives. Not all these bills have been signed into law by Governor Breweras as of this writing, but unless they get imesheshed in the Governor's childish veto tantrum over the budget, they almost certainly will be.
This presents Democrats, and any voters who do not want the government's fingers in every woman's vagina, an opportunity to turn the tables and make the GOP radicals pay at the polls.
Here in Arizona, as in many states created in the Progressive era, the voters have preserved to themselves the right of recall and referedum. Most people are familiar with the recall as a tool for removing an office-holder who has behaved poorly in office, such as former Senate President Russell Pearce. But the Arizona Constitution also allows specific legislative enactments to be referred to the ballot for approval or rejection by voters, essentially allowing voters to recall a law they don't like.
One normally sees Initiatives referred to the ballot by citizens groups (or by special interests) by petition, or by the legislature itself (generally for amendments to the Constitution), but if enough voters don't like a law that has been passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor, a petition can be circulated to refer it to the ballot, as well. Even better, whereas Initiaitve petitions require 10% of voters to sign, a referendum of a legislative enactment only requires 5% to sign.
These provisions make it relatively easy for citizens to place the aforementioned anti-woman laws on the ballot this November. It would require some organization, some (wo)man-power, and some money, to circulate the petitions and to clarify the issues for voters, but it could be easily be done by the Democratic party and groups dedicated to women's health and reproductive rights.
Why would we want to do this? Because the GOP has screwed itself with America's women this election cycle. Women are breaking for Democrats in record numbers. Even many conservative women are offended and angry about the bombardment of anti-woman legislation coming out of GOP controlled state legislatures and the GOP caucus in Congress. Polling confirms that the GOP has stepped out on a limb and handed us a saw: it's incumbent upon us to oblige them.
By placing these extremist laws on the ballot for referendum, we will drive record numbers of women to the polls to spit in the GOP's eye. The GOP has proven quite adept at using ballot initiatives and legislative referenda to energize their base and drive them to the polls. Now we can return the favor.
You might ask, "Doesn't this idea risk a backlash by driving ultra-conservatives to the polls to support these radical anti-woman laws?" You bet it does. But we who respect women, not to mention women themselves, far outnumber them. Such a referendum will surely inspire both opponents and supporters to have their votes counted on these laws - but who will speak louder? I have no doubt who would prevail.
Such a shellacking at the polls would prove convincingly that there is no political advantage to radical conservatives forcing their views on society through anti-woman legislation. It would demonstrate that they will always lose in the court of wider public opinion, and pay a heavy price at the polls - thereby acting as a deterent to conservatives giving their anti-woman constituents jollies with discriminatory legislation in the future.
This fall, we can give the GOP a shellacking with a brush they fashioned themselves. We can increase the odds of victory in Arizona for Obama and Carmona. We can give Democratic candidates a leg up all the way down the ticket. But we must act decisively and soon.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this idea. Please distribute this posting widely among your social circles. This idea deserves some wider debate and consideration.
In 2010 and 2011, the Arizona Legislature led the way for crazy extremist laws against immigrants and brown people in general.
Changing their focus slightly, the Arizona Legislature decided to victimize women during the 2012 session. Not to be left out of the nationwide War on Women, legislators proposed multiple bills that would limit abortion services, mandate vaginal ultrasound exams, legislate personhood, deny insurance benefits for contraception, and put them at the forefront in repressive legislation. There was such public outcry against some of the Lege's wackier, more invasive ideas that not all of their bills have made it to the governor's desk.
Here is a partial list of Arizona's heavy-handed contributions to the War on Women.
The Lege passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed the "Mother's Health and Safety Act" (HB2036) which limits abortion and requires a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound so the woman can view the fetus before aborting it.
HB2036 also legislates the beginning of life and says that pregnancy begins before intercourse. (This should be nicknamed the Virgin Birth Bill. Check out Stephen Colbert's take on Arizona's "pre-life" law.)
The Lege also sent HB2625 to Brewer. That bill would allow employers to drop insurance coverage for contraception.
Not to be outdone by the states, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign continues to drive women voters away with outrageous statements like it's OK for women to earn less than men, and he and his wife Ann have waffled back and forth-- now infamously-- on working mothers.
FOX News-- well known for covering multiple wars, like the War on Christmas-- is still in heavy denial mode that the War on Women exists. As a result, they are digging themselves in deeper. In this clip, one FOX commentator said women are equal because they have the right to shop. In response, Young Turks Commentator Ana Kasparian says, "F*ck you" to FOX.
To voice our collective outrage with the actions of Teapublican legislatures and bone-headed GOP politicians, in general, women in Arizona and across the country will be demonstrating this coming Saturday, April 28, against the War on Women. The Arizona demonstration will be appropriately located on the lawn of the State Capitol Building, beginning at 10 a.m. Be there.
I remember the days when the only place a young, sinlgle woman could buy affordable birth control pills-- without being judged or lectured-- was Planned Parenthood.
I remember riding the Columbus city bus for an hour and a half each way to go to the near east side clinic-- to the ghetto. I remember the dark, dingy waiting room packed with young black women, little kids, and college students like me-- all waiting for a free exam and contraception.
I remember those days before Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the US.
I remember women in my dorm-- crying when they found out they were pregnant. Most of them scraped together the money to fly to New York City or drive to Detroit to have abortions because those were the only places in the US where that service was offered. I even drove a friend to Detroit... a somber, desparate journey.
We don't want to go back to that time
... a time when women had to deal with the circumstances of an unwanted pregnancy without a full aray of choices.
... a time when only wealthy women had the right to choose what is best for themselves, their bodies, and their families.
Here are two eye-opening stories about how choice is being whittled away by political and religious leaders.
No longer just a punchline from Blazing Saddles-- "Where are all the women at?" became a rallying cry for feminists across the country when a male-dominated Congressional committee refused to allow women to testify about insurance coverage for birth control.
Two Congresswomen-- Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes (D-DC)--walked out of the committee hearings because no women were included in the list of wittnesses dominated by male religious leaders. Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif) made the now-infamous decision to block Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke from testifying and labeled her an "inappropriate" wittness.
That fateful day in February, the Republican Party's latest barrage in the War on Women unfolded.
What began as political grandstanding on contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act, snowballed into dozens of invasive, crackpot bills proposed by Republican Legislatures across the country. Requiring women to submit to (and pay for) vaginal ultrasound examinations prior to having an abortion, requiring women to watch an abortion before having one, giving employers the right to deny insurance coverage for contraception based upon any vague "moral" grounds, giving employers the right to question female employees about their contraception usage, defunding Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform abortions... the list goes on.
Couple these bills with the Bible-thumping piety from all of the Republican Presidential candidates, most notably Rick Santorum, and you have a bare-knuckle fist fight over women's health, contraception, and choice.
Two months into this latest round in the War on Women, the Republican attack on the country's largest voting block has resulted in an 18-point lead by President Obama among women voters. Obama leads R2publican challenger Mitt Romney 2:1 with women under 50.
On the local level, Republican candidates for CD8 (former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district) have all jumped on the anti-woman bandwagon--ironically, even Martha McSally. In a recent Arizona Public Media televised debate, candidates Frank Antenori, Jesse Kelly, Dave Sitton, and McSally all agreed that contraception should not be covered by insurance, that a fetus' life sacred (unlike the lives of people they would bomb), and that women don't have the right to choose. Senatorial candidate, right-to-lifer, and current Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake--a hardened Teapublican--voted for the Blunt Ammendment which would have vastly expanded conscience exemptions to birth control coverage.
As for the Democrats, Senatorial candidate and former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona has been the most outspoken critic of the Republcan's wrongheaded fight against women's health. In a commentary on the Huffington Post, Carmona wrote, "A recent push to block women from getting access to contraception shows the Arizona legislature is not operating from an evidence-based or reality-based point of view."
Congressman Raul Grijalva and Phoenix-area State Senator and Congressional candidate Kyrsten Sinema also have made strong statements, attacking the Republicans' War on Women.
In my opinion, the political upshot of the War on Women will be a rebirth of the feminist movement. You can see it on facebook and Twitter; social media has fueled the outrage. Prime examples are the backlash against Rush Limbaugh for his slutty comments about Fluke (and resultant loss of advertisers) and the flood of bad publicity targeting the Komen Foundation when it tried to defund Planned Parenthood (and the resultant fundraising loss to Koman and boon to PP).
You can also see it in the nationwide Unite Against the War on Women movement, which is organizing women and protest marches across the country on April 28-- including a march in Phoenix. Although the Republicans wanted to frame the anti-abortion and anti-contraception debate as a fight for religious freedom, it is all too obvious a continuation of their long-standing War on Women. They can't put this genie back in the bottle.
I thought the Republicans in this state had some guts, at least. They know what they believe and watch out if you won't believe it, too.
But in introducing the nation's most restrictive abortion law, the best they can do to punish a doctor who - by thier reckoning - has committed murder most foul is charge him with a class 1 misdemeanor? Seriously?
A class 1 is the same class as simple assault, or a DUI. The most that doctor would be looking at is 6 months in jail (and that full sentence would be VERY unusual) and a $2500 fine. Hardly a fit punishment for murder.
Look, if you really want to impose your religious beliefs on society through the secular criminal laws, do it right. Abortion is murder, right? Charge the doctor with murder for performing an abortion after 20 weeks.
Hell, for that matter, the Christian Talibani believe life begins at fertilization, so why this 20 weeks bullshit? Come on guys, let's really test the current abortion laws and make all abortions murder.
But let's be real for moment. HB 2036, the bill that restricts abortions (in lots of ways, not just penalizing doctors who do them after 20 weeks), is not about saving babies lives. If that were the case, this weak tea compromise to charge doctors who murder them with misdemeanors would not even be considered. This bill is really just about restricting the health and reproductive choices of the women carrying those fetuses.
The shilly-shallying penalty for killing a baby in this bill gives the game away. Either the sponsors don't really believe that these fetuses are legally and morally actual persons, or they are merely using moralistic anti-abortion rhetoric to cover their real intent: to burden and restrict women's rights to as acute a degree as they think they can get away with.
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
As usual, all agendas are subject to change without notice
This is the last week that bills can be heard in committee at the AZ lege, though exceptions can (and probably will) be made. As a result, most committee agendas are incredibly long, and there are a few strike-everything amendments of note as legislators try to salvage their pet bills (or to be more blunt, the pet bills of their favored lobbyists).
The highlight (so to speak) of the week isn't a matter going before a standing committee, it's Tuesday's meeting of the House Ethics Committee where they will consider the ethics complaint filed against Rep. Daniel Patterson. Patterson is facing assault charges related to a domestic violence incident with his now ex-girlfriend.
In regular committee work...
- Ways and Means is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR1. On the agenda: many tax-related proposals, included SB1257, creating a tax credit for donations to charter schools; also, a striker to SB1195 that would remove the requirement in AZ law that "non-profit" organizations that sell donated used cars here have been in operation in AZ for at least five years. The striker is from Rep. Jack Harper (R-Fly by Night). Of course.
- Energy and Natural Resources is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR4.
- Education is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR3. On the agenda: SB1061, Sen. Rich Crandall's scheme to end the school lunch program for poor students in Arizona. Based on the already revised agenda, there was a striker proposed for this bill, and while the striker has been withdrawn from consideration, Crandall's measure has not.
- Banking and Insurance is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR5. The agenda is short (for now), but it includes a striker to SB1036. I'm not quite sure what the real effect of this would be, but it has something to do with eye medical care insurance coverage. Given that this is the Arizona legislature, it's probably bad for Arizonans and good for insurance companies.
- Government is meeting Tuesday at 2 p.m in HHR4. On the agenda: SB1433, a bill aimed at disbanding the police department in Hildale and Colorado City, which is less a police department and more a private militia for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). FLDS may lay claim to being a "fundamentalist" sect of the Mormon Church but it's more like a personal cult serving Warren Jeffs.
Note: That bill may be held until a special meeting of the Government committee on Thursday at 8 a.m in HHR4.
- Environment is meeting Tuesday at 2 p.m. in HHR5.
- Military Affairs and Public Safety is meeting Wednesday at 8 a.m. in HHR3. One of the long agendas (which is, perhaps, the reason for the early start). Includes: SB1083, establishing and funding the Arizona Special Missions Unit, an anti-immigrant vigilante force under the direct control of the governor. No word on what shade of brown the shirts of their uniforms will be. The agenda also includes an indicator of the real priorites of the Republicans in the lege - a striker to SB1302 that would require a county to protect private property that the property owner states is subject to harm due to wildfire-related soil erosion.
- Health and Human Services is meeting Wednesday at 9 a.m. in HHR4.
- Commerce is meeting Wednesday at 9 a.m. in HHR5.
- Higher Education, Innovation and Reform is meeting Wednesday at 10 a.m in HHR1.
- Appropriations is meeting Wednesday at 2 p.m. in HHR1. On the agenda: SB1104, appropriating funding for a commission that is designated to oversee the building of a border fence; and SB1275, creating another artificially low limitation on state spending and imposing specific requirements for implementing any spending that exceeds that limit.
- Transportation is meeting Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR3.
- Technology and Infrastructure is meeting Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR1.
- Judiciary is meeting Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR4. Short agenda, all bad: a striker to SB1087, turning it into a guns on campus bill; SB1311, expanding the jurisdiction of justice courts in civil matters (from Sen. Frank Antenori. Somebody close to him went forum shopping and found that he couldn't file before the friendliest judge because that judge was a JP and the matter had a value greater than a justice court can hear; and SB1359, a "tort reform" bill masquerading as an anti-choice bill. Has constitutional issues.
- Agriculture and Water is meeting Thursday at 9 a.m. in HHR5. On the agenda: a striker to SB1118 with the subject of "forest, historical and preservation funds". No text available as yet.
- Ways and Means is holding a special meeting on Thursday at 2 p.m. in HHR1. On the agenda: SB1301, establishing yet another tax credit for big business; SB1337, a move by Maricopa County Republicans to mess with Pima County's Rio Nuevo facilities district. Again.
...On the Senate side of the Capitol -
- Natural Resources and Transportation is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in SHR109.
- Judiciary is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in SHR1. The agenda is long, but makes up for that by being utterly horrible: HB2457, allowing hunters to carry any variety of "legal" weapon, so long as only weapons that are authorized for use while hunting are used to take game (wink, wink); a striker to HB2461, a very broadly written measure regarding online impersonation (from Sen. Ron "The South Will Rise Again!" Gould); HB2457, allowing the defendant in a wrongful death, personal injury, or destruction of private property lawsuit to introduce evidence that a plaintiff will receive other benefits related to the death/injury/damage in order to reduce the defendant's financial liability; a striker to HB2557, relating to "health; disability benefits; subgragation" (no text available as yet); HB2625, allowing employers affiliated with religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptives in the health insurance they provide to employees; HB2719, barring gun-free zones around schools; a striker to HB2775, repealing energy efficiency standards for new pool pumps.
- Education is meeting Monday at 2 p.m. in SHR3. Long agenda, the worst item being HB2770, barring institutions of higher education from basing certain adminstratives decisions regarding a faculty member (like hiring, firing, tenure) on the faculty member's religious beliefs. Not bad in concept, but this measure is so broadly written that it protects poor and unqualified instructors, who can just cite "religious belief" to protect themselves and to force schools to hire them and give them tenure.
- Veterans, Military, and Government Affairs is meeting Tuesday at 2 p.m. in SHR3.
- Banking and Insurance is meeting Tuesday at 2 p.m. in SHR3. The agenda contains HB2664, which would change law to presume that a bill showing a credit card debt proves the existence of a debt, and put the burden on the alleged debtor to prove otherwise. Such a bad bill that even many Rs are against it, but Rep. Jeff Dial (R-LD20) is fronting this one for the debt collectors lobby.
- Appropriations is meeting Tuesday at 2 p.m. in SHR109. Long and ugly agenda. The one new measure is a striker to HB2071 making it a Class 1 misdemeanor to not cooperate/engage in passive resistance when a law enforcement officer is attempting to effect an arrest. From Sen Don "Tequila" Shooter. While it certainly affects all protesters, my guess is that this one is targeted specifically at Occupy protesters in particular.
- Government Reform is meeting Wednesday at 8 a.m. in SHR1. The agenda includes a striker to HB2503, subject "product liability" (no text available yet); HB2789, requiring that all rules passed by the Arizona Corporation Commission be approved by the lege before being implemented (some "minor" constitutional issues with this one); HB2807, making the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission subject to the state's Open Meeting Law (yes, the Rs are still pissed that the AIRC was actually independent this time around).
- Commerce and Energy is meeting Wednesday at 9 a.m. in SHR109. Includes a striker to HB2601, subject "filing; wage claims". No text available as yet, but I think this will become a measure to force applicants for unemployment insurance to submit to drug testing.
- Water, Land Use, and Rural Development is meeting Wednesday at 2 p.m. in SHR3.
- Public Safety and Human Services is meeting Wednesday at 10 a.m. in SHR3.
- Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform is meeting Wednesday at 2 p.m. in SHR1. The agenda contains HB2800, barring any kind of public family planning funds from going to Planned Parenthood.
- Finance is meeting Thursday at 8:30 a.m. in SHR1. Long agenda, and it's getting late; I'll look at it closer Tuesday evening.
- Border Security, Federalism, and States' Sovereignty is meeting Thursday at 9 a.m. Another in a long line of Sylvia Allen's dog-whistle agendas. Also will examine it more closely on Tuesday.
The Arizona Senate passed SB 1359 on a party-line vote. The bill makes doctors immune from civil liability for negligent actions or omissions that lead to what is sometimes called "wrongful birth" or "wrongful life" med-mal suits.
Sometimes parents have to make the terrible decision not to bring a child to term because of severe medical issues that would grossly impair the child's quality of life, impose a short life of suffering on the child, or create an unsupportable financial burden on the parents. Usually, those parents can rely on their doctor giving them all the relevant information they need to make such a wrenching choice.
But the radical anti-abortionists in control of Arizona government think that, should a doctor make a mistake and fail to communicate that critical information, there should be no possibility of financial compensation for those parents, or the child.
That suits their myopic goal of doing everything conceivable to burden a woman's right to control her own reproduction, but it only really harms those children, whom they are pretending to care about, and their parents.
The AZ GOP fails to consider the extreme financial hardship imposed by the birth of a severely ill or disabled child. Preventing civil liability from attaching in these cases, only ensures that those children will not get the help and support they need - often for the rest of their lives.
This bill isn't about preventing abortions; there is no way it will prevent even a single abortion, since it exempts intentional or grossly negligent actions or omissions. Doctors won't be allowed to lie to patients in order to trick them into not having an abortion and get away with it under this bill.
So what is this bill about, if not preventing abortions? It's about the money -- specifically, not giving any to the parents of profoundly sick kids who need that financial compensation to provide for those kids' needs. All it does is save med-mal insurers a few bucks. It's just another cruel example of how those who label themselves 'pro-life' seem to lose interest in the quality of those lives after birth. It demonstrates clearly that frequently those who claim to be moved by faith are actually moved by the deep pockets of their financial backers.
When deciding who to send to Congress this year, remember that Ron Gould and Frank Antenori both voted for this deeply cynical bill to deny financial compensation to parents of profoundly disabled kids in the name of anti-abortion zealotry, and to line the pockets of insurance companies that want to profit at their expense.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
BforAZ Merchandise:
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Recent Comments