Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
March 7, 2019
Thin Skin Mints: Conservative Columnist Wants to Boycott Girl Scout Cookies Because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won’t Tagalong
Stephen A. Crockett Jr.
44 minutes ago
Snowflakes on the right have reached a new low after a conservative columnist called for a boycott of Girl Scout Cookies because freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used to be a Girl Scout.
I. Wish. I. Was. Kidding.
According to the Hill, conservative Do-si-do, Jane Chastain published her boo-boo ass article on the World Net Daily, calling for a boycott of the popular cookies because the Girl Scouts today “are a far cry from those of my youth, which trained us to put God and country before everything else.
“Today, God in the Girl Scout promise has an asterisk, meaning the great I AM and His moral absolutes can be replaced by anything, including oneself,” Chastain wrote, the Hill reports.
She then went on to shame the organization whose motto is “building girls of courage, confidence, and character” for promoting Ocasio-Cortez as a successful alum of the group.
I would just like to note here that Ocasio-Cortez did the impossible, going from bartender to congresswoman and seems to incite a level of annoyance on the right not seen since a black senator from Chicago ran for president.
Even Ocasio-Cortez found the absurd article humorous.
In a post on Twitter Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez included a screenshot of Chastain’s article, writing, “Boycotting cookies that teach little girls leadership skills to own the libs, nice job,” with a thumbs up emoji, the Hill reports.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1103713942424219648
Ocasio-Cortez added in a follow-up tweet that she’s “extraordinarily proud of the role my constituents have played in helping to establish + support Troop 6000, the first-ever @girlscouts troop for girls experiencing homelessness.”
Conservative Columnist Wants to Boycott Girl Scout Cookies Because AOC Won't Tagalog
https://www.theroot.com/thin-skin-mints-conservative-columnist-wants-to-boycot-1833135517?utm_medium=socialflow&utm_source=theroot_facebook&fbclid=IwAR3bXxt2_k_N5bzpbi_9qdEGWJczC8Yj0lpuMew_BjDKtGjOXvGcE1WOD4sThin Skin Mints: Conservative Columnist Wants to Boycott Girl Scout Cookies Because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won’t Tagalong
Stephen A. Crockett Jr.
44 minutes ago
Snowflakes on the right have reached a new low after a conservative columnist called for a boycott of Girl Scout Cookies because freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used to be a Girl Scout.
I. Wish. I. Was. Kidding.
According to the Hill, conservative Do-si-do, Jane Chastain published her boo-boo ass article on the World Net Daily, calling for a boycott of the popular cookies because the Girl Scouts today “are a far cry from those of my youth, which trained us to put God and country before everything else.
“Today, God in the Girl Scout promise has an asterisk, meaning the great I AM and His moral absolutes can be replaced by anything, including oneself,” Chastain wrote, the Hill reports.
She then went on to shame the organization whose motto is “building girls of courage, confidence, and character” for promoting Ocasio-Cortez as a successful alum of the group.
“Before you decide to embrace an International Women’s Day celebration or buy the cookies, ask yourself, ‘Will the country be better off with more representatives like the young socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez?’,” Chastain said.
I would just like to note here that Ocasio-Cortez did the impossible, going from bartender to congresswoman and seems to incite a level of annoyance on the right not seen since a black senator from Chicago ran for president.
Even Ocasio-Cortez found the absurd article humorous.
In a post on Twitter Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez included a screenshot of Chastain’s article, writing, “Boycotting cookies that teach little girls leadership skills to own the libs, nice job,” with a thumbs up emoji, the Hill reports.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1103713942424219648
Ocasio-Cortez added in a follow-up tweet that she’s “extraordinarily proud of the role my constituents have played in helping to establish + support Troop 6000, the first-ever @girlscouts troop for girls experiencing homelessness.”
March 7, 2019
More in the Rider University newspaper: "Dean steps down from position due to religious beliefs" (The Rider News)
University dean resigns after school denies Chick-fil-A a location on campus
Such christian tolerance!
https://boingboing.net/2019/03/07/university-dean-resigns-after.html?fbclid=IwAR0_GLrKtzWFALwE_F6NLcdPXQq1MhA74dwtg_K0RtfLmwunYEmGiT58Qyg
/ David Pescovitz / 10:02 am Thu Mar 7, 2019
University dean resigns after school denies Chick-fil-A a location on campus
FROM THE BOING BOING SHOP
Cynthia Newman, dean of the college of business administration at Rider University in New Jersey, has resigned from that position after her school denied Chick-fil-A a campus location "based on the company's record widely perceived to be in opposition to the LGBTQ+ community." (Newman will continue as a tenured professor though.) According to the university administrators, Chick-fil-A's "corporate values have not sufficiently progressed enough to align with those of Rider."
I first suspected Newman stepped down because she loves Chick-fil-A's waffle fries so much, but she says she actually has "a problem with University leadership passing judgement on Chick-fil-A’s values which are reflective with the values of the Christian as well as other faiths.”
“I endeavor every day to do exactly what Chick-fil-A puts forward as its overarching corporate value: to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to me and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with me," Newman said in her resignation speech.
From CNN:
Newman wrote that she asked administrators to apologize for offending Christians, but ultimately decided to step down after the university stuck to its original stance.
"While we respect Dr. Newman's personal decision, we maintain that the decision about choosing an on-campus restaurant franchise was in no way a judgment on religious values," Kristine Brown, a spokeswoman for Rider University, said in a statement to CNN.
"Rather, our intention was to foster a sense of respect and belonging of all members of the campus community, including those who identify as LGBTQ+."
"While we respect Dr. Newman's personal decision, we maintain that the decision about choosing an on-campus restaurant franchise was in no way a judgment on religious values," Kristine Brown, a spokeswoman for Rider University, said in a statement to CNN.
"Rather, our intention was to foster a sense of respect and belonging of all members of the campus community, including those who identify as LGBTQ+."
More in the Rider University newspaper: "Dean steps down from position due to religious beliefs" (The Rider News)
March 7, 2019
Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, and Pals Accused of Sex-Trafficking Ring
A lawyer for one of Epstein’s victims claims he was part of sex-trafficking ring with Dershowitz and others—but the Harvard attorney says sealed documents will prove his innocence.
Kate Briquelet
03.06.19 8:23 PM ET
Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz was accused of involvement in billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring by an attorney for one of Epstein’s victims, who claimed in federal court on Wednesday that the release of sealed documents will prove it.
Paul Cassell, who represents Virginia Roberts Giuffre, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the testimony of other witnesses will show Dershowitz’s involvement in the alleged trafficking of “his close friend Jeffrey Epstein.”
“When all the records come out it will show that Epstein and [Epstein’s alleged madam Ghislaine] Maxwell were trafficking girls to the benefit of his friends, including Mr. Dershowitz,” Cassell said in oral arguments for a case filed by the Miami Herald to unseal a collection of court documents relating to Giuffre’s now settled lawsuit against Maxwell.
The hearing came nearly two weeks after a Florida judge ruled federal prosecutors violated the law when they inked a non-prosecution deal with Epstein in 2007—and concealed that agreement from more than 30 of Epstein’s victims. The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the secret deal, which was handled by Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, who was U.S. Attorney in Miami at the time.
Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, was one member of Epstein’s legal team that helped broker the unusual non-prosecution agreement.
For his part, Dershowitz and his lawyers are also requesting the court release the trove of documents to the public—but they say it’s in order to prove his innocence.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-alan-dershowitz-and-pals-accused-of-sex-trafficking-ring?ref=home
Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, and Pals Accused of Sex-Trafficking Ring
Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, and Pals Accused of Sex-Trafficking Ring
A lawyer for one of Epstein’s victims claims he was part of sex-trafficking ring with Dershowitz and others—but the Harvard attorney says sealed documents will prove his innocence.
Kate Briquelet
03.06.19 8:23 PM ET
Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz was accused of involvement in billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring by an attorney for one of Epstein’s victims, who claimed in federal court on Wednesday that the release of sealed documents will prove it.
Paul Cassell, who represents Virginia Roberts Giuffre, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the testimony of other witnesses will show Dershowitz’s involvement in the alleged trafficking of “his close friend Jeffrey Epstein.”
“When all the records come out it will show that Epstein and [Epstein’s alleged madam Ghislaine] Maxwell were trafficking girls to the benefit of his friends, including Mr. Dershowitz,” Cassell said in oral arguments for a case filed by the Miami Herald to unseal a collection of court documents relating to Giuffre’s now settled lawsuit against Maxwell.
The hearing came nearly two weeks after a Florida judge ruled federal prosecutors violated the law when they inked a non-prosecution deal with Epstein in 2007—and concealed that agreement from more than 30 of Epstein’s victims. The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the secret deal, which was handled by Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, who was U.S. Attorney in Miami at the time.
Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, was one member of Epstein’s legal team that helped broker the unusual non-prosecution agreement.
For his part, Dershowitz and his lawyers are also requesting the court release the trove of documents to the public—but they say it’s in order to prove his innocence.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-alan-dershowitz-and-pals-accused-of-sex-trafficking-ring?ref=home
March 7, 2019
Democrats Worry Targeting Trump Kids Could Backfire
Ugh. They're breaking and have broken the law, are part of his business and administration. This is a no-brainer imo. They are not underage children who don't know what they're doing. 
https://politicalwire.com/2019/03/07/democrats-worry-targeting-trump-kids-could-backfire/
Democrats Worry Targeting Trump Kids Could Backfire
March 7, 2019 at 6:58 am EST By Taegan Goddard
“House Democrats have already gone to war with President Donald Trump. But there’s one target they’re skittish of hitting too hard: his children,” Politico reports.
“In public and private, Democrats see potential pitfalls in dragging Trump’s adult children into their political squabbles with the president. So even as they ramp up their investigations into Trump, senior Democrats are reluctant to scrutinize Trump’s adult children too much as part of their sprawling probes into Trump’s administration, campaign and business empire.”
“Democrats, in fact, would prefer to let federal prosecutors handle the family while they take on the president themselves. Yet Trump’s family members — including Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner — are so deeply involved in his business and presidency that it likely would be impossible to take a completely hands-off approach.”
“In public and private, Democrats see potential pitfalls in dragging Trump’s adult children into their political squabbles with the president. So even as they ramp up their investigations into Trump, senior Democrats are reluctant to scrutinize Trump’s adult children too much as part of their sprawling probes into Trump’s administration, campaign and business empire.”
“Democrats, in fact, would prefer to let federal prosecutors handle the family while they take on the president themselves. Yet Trump’s family members — including Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner — are so deeply involved in his business and presidency that it likely would be impossible to take a completely hands-off approach.”
March 7, 2019
Embassy Staffers Say Jared Kushner Shut Them Out of Saudi Meetings
WTF are they cooking up? No legit security clearance, he should be grounded. 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/embassy-staffers-say-jared-kushner-shut-them-out-of-saudi-meetings?ref=home
Embassy Staffers Say Jared Kushner Shut Them Out of Saudi Meetings
When a member of the administration travels overseas, the embassy often helps coordinate the trip. Not when Jared Kushner meets his buddy MBS.
Erin Banco
03.07.19 4:49 AM ET
Officials and staffers in the U.S. embassy in Riyadh said they were not read in on the details of Jared Kushner’s trip to Saudi Arabia or the meetings he held with members of the country’s Royal Court last week. And that’s causing concern not only in the embassy but also among members of Congress, according to three individuals with direct knowledge of the matter.
On his trip to the Middle East, Kushner stopped in Riyadh. While there, he met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and King Salman to discuss U.S.-Saudi cooperation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and economic investment in the region, according to the White House.
But no one from the embassy in Riyadh was in the meetings, according to two sources. The State Department did have a senior official in attendance, but he was not part of the State Department team in Saudi. He is a senior member of the department focused on Iran, according to a source with direct knowledge of the official’s presence in Riyadh.
snip//
Lawmakers said they were concerned that the embassy in Riyadh did not have knowledge of what was discussed between Kushner, MBS and King Salman, pointing to the increasingly fragile relationship between the two countries following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Lawmakers are particularly interested in understanding the back and forth between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia regarding a potential nuclear deal.
The Daily Beast reported last week that the Trump administration is still actively working to make a deal to send U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and that American energy businesses are still hoping to cash in on Riyadh’s push for energy diversification.
Professional staff and officials in the administration said they are interested in the possible connection between efforts by private businesses to engage with Saudi Arabia on nuclear energy and the quiet, ongoing discussions between senior U.S. officials and Riyadh about a deal.
March 6, 2019
Alex Trebek announces he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer
By Sandra Gonzalez, CNN
Updated 5:32 PM ET, Wed March 6, 2019
(CNN)"Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek is hoping for a victory as he wages a battle against cancer.
The longtime game show host on Wednesday announced he's been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer in a video posted to the show's official YouTube account.
"Now, normally, the prognosis for this is not very encouraging, but I'm going to fight this. And I'm going to keep working and with the love and support of my family and friends -- and with the help of your prayers also -- I plan to beat the low survival rate statistics for this disease," he said.
Sony Pictures Television, which produces the show, did not immediately return CNN's request for comment.
Pancreatic cancer, on average and across all stages, has a 5-year survival rate of 9%, according to the American Cancer Society.
Trebek has hosted "Jeopardy" since 1984, when the show began airing daily in syndication.
He's known for his quick wit and sense of humor, which was on display in his announcement, despite the somber message at its center.
"Truth told, I have to [keep hosting] because under the terms of my contract, I have to host 'Jeopardy' for three more years," he joked. "So help me. Keep the faith, and we'll win. We'll get it done."
Alex Trebek announces he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/entertainment/alex-trebek-pancreatic-cancer/index.html?fbclid=IwAR23sAFJh15B3xxy2gPJVc855xCFWI9zUStp8dC-bZQCmBdus2S__G1UKYYAlex Trebek announces he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer
By Sandra Gonzalez, CNN
Updated 5:32 PM ET, Wed March 6, 2019
(CNN)"Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek is hoping for a victory as he wages a battle against cancer.
The longtime game show host on Wednesday announced he's been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer in a video posted to the show's official YouTube account.
"Now, normally, the prognosis for this is not very encouraging, but I'm going to fight this. And I'm going to keep working and with the love and support of my family and friends -- and with the help of your prayers also -- I plan to beat the low survival rate statistics for this disease," he said.
Sony Pictures Television, which produces the show, did not immediately return CNN's request for comment.
Pancreatic cancer, on average and across all stages, has a 5-year survival rate of 9%, according to the American Cancer Society.
Trebek has hosted "Jeopardy" since 1984, when the show began airing daily in syndication.
He's known for his quick wit and sense of humor, which was on display in his announcement, despite the somber message at its center.
"Truth told, I have to [keep hosting] because under the terms of my contract, I have to host 'Jeopardy' for three more years," he joked. "So help me. Keep the faith, and we'll win. We'll get it done."
March 6, 2019
Nielsen: Cages for kids are OK because they’re ‘larger’ than dog cages
By Emily Singer -
March 6, 2019
Nielsen said the chain-link pens DHS used to detain migrant children are different from dog cages because they are 'larger' and have 'room to sit, to stand, [and] lay down.'
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's Wednesday testimony on the Trump administration's child separation policy was an unmitigated disaster.
Nielsen showed up to the hearing, which was called by Democrats who now hold the House majority, completely unprepared and unable to defend the practice of ripping migrant children from their parents at the border.
In one truly jaw-dropping exchange with Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Nielsen tried and failed to explain why the facilities used to house some migrant children were any different from the kinds of cages dogs are kept in.
To Nielsen, apparently, the only thing differentiating the cages used to detain toddlers from the cages in a dog run is that they have toilets and are a little bigger.
Try as she might to defend the Trump administration's inhumane treatment families, Nielsen can only fail.
After all, she's trying to defend the indefensible.
Published with permission of The American Independent.
Nielsen: Cages for kids are OK because they're 'larger' than dog cages
https://shareblue.com/nielsen-cages-kids-family-separations-larger-dog-cages/?fbclid=IwAR1894kPAuaLNiof-qFdXP2HOMvEHailmXhZmKduH9pVa9U5oOQW47OH-44Nielsen: Cages for kids are OK because they’re ‘larger’ than dog cages
By Emily Singer -
March 6, 2019
Nielsen said the chain-link pens DHS used to detain migrant children are different from dog cages because they are 'larger' and have 'room to sit, to stand, [and] lay down.'
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's Wednesday testimony on the Trump administration's child separation policy was an unmitigated disaster.
Nielsen showed up to the hearing, which was called by Democrats who now hold the House majority, completely unprepared and unable to defend the practice of ripping migrant children from their parents at the border.
In one truly jaw-dropping exchange with Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Nielsen tried and failed to explain why the facilities used to house some migrant children were any different from the kinds of cages dogs are kept in.
"What is a chain-link fence, enclosed into a chamber on a concrete floor, represent to you — is that a cage?" Watson Coleman asked Nielsen.
"It's a detention space, ma'am, that, you know, has existed for decades," Nielsen replied.
Watson Coleman didn't stop there.
"Does it differ from the cages you put your dogs in when you let them stay outside, is it different?" Watson Coleman continued.
"Yes," Nielsen said.
"In what sense?" Coleman pressed.
That's when Nielsen dropped this doozy: "It's larger, it has facilities, it provides room to sit, to stand, to lay down."
"So did my dog's cage," Coleman replied.
"It's a detention space, ma'am, that, you know, has existed for decades," Nielsen replied.
Watson Coleman didn't stop there.
"Does it differ from the cages you put your dogs in when you let them stay outside, is it different?" Watson Coleman continued.
"Yes," Nielsen said.
"In what sense?" Coleman pressed.
That's when Nielsen dropped this doozy: "It's larger, it has facilities, it provides room to sit, to stand, to lay down."
"So did my dog's cage," Coleman replied.
To Nielsen, apparently, the only thing differentiating the cages used to detain toddlers from the cages in a dog run is that they have toilets and are a little bigger.
Try as she might to defend the Trump administration's inhumane treatment families, Nielsen can only fail.
After all, she's trying to defend the indefensible.
Published with permission of The American Independent.
March 6, 2019
Here’s How the Democratic Presidential Nomination Will Go
Paul Starr
March 6, 2019
A much-too-early scenario
Since the Democratic presidential nomination is wide open and will have more than a dozen serious candidates, it is foolhardy and premature to speculate about how the race will play out. So let’s be foolhardy and premature and do exactly that.
In the early polls—to which, of course, we should pay no attention whatsoever—Kamala Harris has broken out of the pack of new candidates and is running third, behind the two old guys with the widest name recognition, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, both of whose support may be soft.
That trio does make a certain degree of sense in terms of the party’s make-up. As an African American and child of immigrants (from Jamaica and India), Harris may win particularly strong support from people of color. Sanders’s biggest appeal is to white progressives and others who want to shake up the status quo, while Biden is the candidate of continuity, moderation, and familiarity, though he hasn’t yet said whether he’s running.
Leaping ahead, let’s say that three principal candidates emerge from the early primaries and that Harris is one of them, especially because California and the southern states vote in early March, which should give her a boost (assuming Stacey Abrams stays out of the race).
Sanders may have to duke it out with Elizabeth Warren because they appeal to many of the same voters. Both will also be expected to do well in New Hampshire, which has often given an edge to candidates from neighboring states. A recent national NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that being a “socialist” and “over 75” were the two characteristics respondents identified as least desirable in a presidential candidate. But Sanders has a devoted core following, which may be larger than Warren’s. So let’s suppose Sanders wins the battle in New Hampshire and other early states, forcing Warren to suspend her campaign. (I’ll come back to the opposite possibility later on.)
Let’s call the third main surviving candidate from the early primaries Candidate B. That could be Biden, or Beto, or Booker, or Brown, or even a candidate whose name somehow doesn’t begin with B like KloBuchar. Candidate B is by no means a conservative but is perceived as more moderate than Sanders or Harris. (If Candidate B is Sherrod Brown, that may not be true.) There could even be more than one Candidate B if a candidate who is running fourth or fifth decides to stay in the race because none of the top three is winning a majority of delegates.
snip//
Yes, you’re right, it’s way too early to engage in this kind of speculation. I should be using my time and yours more productively—don’t we all have more urgent things to do? Besides, it’s not as if the future of the world depended on the Democratic nomination.
Oh, wait … it does.
Here's How the Democratic Presidential Nomination Will Go
https://prospect.org/article/heres-how-democratic-presidential-nomination-will-goHere’s How the Democratic Presidential Nomination Will Go
Paul Starr
March 6, 2019
A much-too-early scenario
Since the Democratic presidential nomination is wide open and will have more than a dozen serious candidates, it is foolhardy and premature to speculate about how the race will play out. So let’s be foolhardy and premature and do exactly that.
In the early polls—to which, of course, we should pay no attention whatsoever—Kamala Harris has broken out of the pack of new candidates and is running third, behind the two old guys with the widest name recognition, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, both of whose support may be soft.
That trio does make a certain degree of sense in terms of the party’s make-up. As an African American and child of immigrants (from Jamaica and India), Harris may win particularly strong support from people of color. Sanders’s biggest appeal is to white progressives and others who want to shake up the status quo, while Biden is the candidate of continuity, moderation, and familiarity, though he hasn’t yet said whether he’s running.
Leaping ahead, let’s say that three principal candidates emerge from the early primaries and that Harris is one of them, especially because California and the southern states vote in early March, which should give her a boost (assuming Stacey Abrams stays out of the race).
Sanders may have to duke it out with Elizabeth Warren because they appeal to many of the same voters. Both will also be expected to do well in New Hampshire, which has often given an edge to candidates from neighboring states. A recent national NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that being a “socialist” and “over 75” were the two characteristics respondents identified as least desirable in a presidential candidate. But Sanders has a devoted core following, which may be larger than Warren’s. So let’s suppose Sanders wins the battle in New Hampshire and other early states, forcing Warren to suspend her campaign. (I’ll come back to the opposite possibility later on.)
Let’s call the third main surviving candidate from the early primaries Candidate B. That could be Biden, or Beto, or Booker, or Brown, or even a candidate whose name somehow doesn’t begin with B like KloBuchar. Candidate B is by no means a conservative but is perceived as more moderate than Sanders or Harris. (If Candidate B is Sherrod Brown, that may not be true.) There could even be more than one Candidate B if a candidate who is running fourth or fifth decides to stay in the race because none of the top three is winning a majority of delegates.
snip//
Yes, you’re right, it’s way too early to engage in this kind of speculation. I should be using my time and yours more productively—don’t we all have more urgent things to do? Besides, it’s not as if the future of the world depended on the Democratic nomination.
Oh, wait … it does.
March 6, 2019
The Biggest Consequence of Trump’s New Abortion Rule Won’t Be for Abortion
New restrictions on the Title X program may affect poor women’s access to other kinds of health care.
Olga Khazan
8:00 AM ET
In late February, the Trump administration dropped a new rule that has alarmed doctors’ groups and brought conservatives closer to achieving their long quest to defund Planned Parenthood.
Clinics that receive funds from the federal family-planning grant program Title X will no longer be able to perform abortions in the same space where they see other patients. Abortion and other health-care services will be required to be physically and financially separate entities. Title X participants will also no longer be able to refer patients to abortion providers, though they can mention abortion to their patients.
About 20 percent of Title X providers would potentially have to renovate their clinics to meet the new guidelines, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. It will likely cost each of these providers $20,000 to $40,000 to come into compliance with the physical-separation element of the new rule.
The move is seen as a blow to Planned Parenthood, which operates about 40 percent of the 4,000 Title X clinics in the country. In the past, restrictions on state or federal funding for the family-planning organization have caused clinics to shut down. Such a measure might conjure images of scores of Planned Parenthood clinics suddenly closing their doors. But the impacts of the rule are likely to be more subtle, and to mostly affect poor women’s access to medical services unrelated to abortions. (The rule won’t go into effect for at least 60 days, and it might be legally blocked altogether. Several states and organizations have already said they will sue.)
more...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/trumps-title-x-rule-change-planned-parenthood/584005/
The Biggest Consequence of Trump's New Abortion Rule Won't Be for Abortion
The Biggest Consequence of Trump’s New Abortion Rule Won’t Be for Abortion
New restrictions on the Title X program may affect poor women’s access to other kinds of health care.
Olga Khazan
8:00 AM ET
In late February, the Trump administration dropped a new rule that has alarmed doctors’ groups and brought conservatives closer to achieving their long quest to defund Planned Parenthood.
Clinics that receive funds from the federal family-planning grant program Title X will no longer be able to perform abortions in the same space where they see other patients. Abortion and other health-care services will be required to be physically and financially separate entities. Title X participants will also no longer be able to refer patients to abortion providers, though they can mention abortion to their patients.
About 20 percent of Title X providers would potentially have to renovate their clinics to meet the new guidelines, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. It will likely cost each of these providers $20,000 to $40,000 to come into compliance with the physical-separation element of the new rule.
The move is seen as a blow to Planned Parenthood, which operates about 40 percent of the 4,000 Title X clinics in the country. In the past, restrictions on state or federal funding for the family-planning organization have caused clinics to shut down. Such a measure might conjure images of scores of Planned Parenthood clinics suddenly closing their doors. But the impacts of the rule are likely to be more subtle, and to mostly affect poor women’s access to medical services unrelated to abortions. (The rule won’t go into effect for at least 60 days, and it might be legally blocked altogether. Several states and organizations have already said they will sue.)
more...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/trumps-title-x-rule-change-planned-parenthood/584005/
March 6, 2019
Posted on Tue, Mar 5th, 2019 by Jason Easley
House Democrats Are Saying All The Right Things To Scare Trump To Death
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) said that the purpose of the Democratic investigations is to gather evidence and build a case against Donald Trump.
https://twitter.com/politicususa/status/1103015031334191104
The House is conducting real investigations
For nearly a decade with Republicans in charge of the House, the American people saw a body that used conspiracy theories and Fox News as a basis for hearings and investigations. It has been nearly a decade since the American people saw the House functioning as it is supposed to function. There is an investigative process that must be followed for an investigation to have credibility.
House Republicans used to level accusations based on what they believed or thought they knew.
Democrats are going to go where the evidence and facts lead them. If the evidence leads to impeachment, that is what the House will do.
If it takes years of investigation, it takes years.
Democrats are willing to follow the process and do the right thing because they want to make sure that the evidence is solid, and if they decide to impeach, it will be facts, not partisan politics that guide their decision.
This is all being done the right way, why is why every single word that House Democrats are saying should strike fear into the White House and Trump.
House Democrats Are Saying All The Right Things To Scare Trump To Death
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/05/democrats-case-against-trump.htmlPosted on Tue, Mar 5th, 2019 by Jason Easley
House Democrats Are Saying All The Right Things To Scare Trump To Death
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) said that the purpose of the Democratic investigations is to gather evidence and build a case against Donald Trump.
Rep. Connolly said on MSNBC, “I don’t know if it’s really changing minds so much as being able to build a record of evidence that is compelling and the brings along the American people. Whether that leads to impeachment or not, that has to be a process. That has to be the end result of a process, not the beginning of a process. You may go to court or look at going to court to bring a criminal to trial. You still have to build a case. You don’t just decide in advance someone is a criminal, let’s put them away. And the president is entitled to due process, a fair process, and the American people are entitled to hear all the facts. Let’s remember the Cohen hearing was the first public hearing on this set of trump controversies. The first. There are more to follow.”
https://twitter.com/politicususa/status/1103015031334191104
The House is conducting real investigations
For nearly a decade with Republicans in charge of the House, the American people saw a body that used conspiracy theories and Fox News as a basis for hearings and investigations. It has been nearly a decade since the American people saw the House functioning as it is supposed to function. There is an investigative process that must be followed for an investigation to have credibility.
House Republicans used to level accusations based on what they believed or thought they knew.
Democrats are going to go where the evidence and facts lead them. If the evidence leads to impeachment, that is what the House will do.
If it takes years of investigation, it takes years.
Democrats are willing to follow the process and do the right thing because they want to make sure that the evidence is solid, and if they decide to impeach, it will be facts, not partisan politics that guide their decision.
This is all being done the right way, why is why every single word that House Democrats are saying should strike fear into the White House and Trump.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,106
