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
Novara
Novara's Journal
Novara's Journal
April 29, 2015
Three weeks ago, Kansas became the first state in the country to ban a specific type of second-trimester abortion procedure, after Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a so-called “dismemberment” ban in a closed-door ceremony. But Brownback isn’t stopping there.
According to a photo tweeted out by Brownback’s office, the governor was flanked by large photos of fetuses as he approved Senate Bill 95 at the beginning of April. A few days later, Oklahoma followed in Kansas’ footsteps and approved an identical measure. Perhaps seeking to solidify Kansas’ status as the first state to venture into this area, Brownback is now taking it a step further.
On Tuesday, the governor traveled to four different cities across Kansas to reenact the signing of SB 95 in public ceremonies that teenagers could attend. The events took place at a Catholic church education building and three Catholic high schools.
“I am profoundly disappointed that Governor Brownback has chosen to hold a publicity tour for this reprehensible law,” Julie Burkhart, an abortion provider who operates the South Wind Women’s Center and founded the political action committee Trust Women, said in a statement. “Reenacting this bill signing in front of children is not only a publicity stunt, but also spreads hate and disrespect.”
“Dismemberment” is not a medical term. The new laws seeking to outlaw this procedure are relying on evocative language to target the most common form of second-trimester abortion — a process known in the medical community as Dilation and Evacuation, or “D&E.” Burkhart’s organization is opposed to SB 95 because it prevents doctors from providing their patients with the best care available, and its vague language could end up making it too risky for doctors to offer any surgical abortion procedures whatsoever.
The tactic evokes a very similar fight that played out over a different type of abortion procedure called Intact Dilation & Extraction, or “D&X.” Abortion opponents dubbed that procedure “partial-birth abortion” — which, like “dismemberment,” is not a real medical term — and enacted a flurry of state laws to prevent it from being performed. Eventually, the issue made its way up to the Supreme Court, and the justices banned D&X procedures nationwide.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/28/3652255/brownback-re-signing-abortion-ban/
"Look, girls: this is how I take away your rights"
In Bizarre Stunt, Governor Pretends To Sign Extreme Abortion Ban For Group Of TeenagersThree weeks ago, Kansas became the first state in the country to ban a specific type of second-trimester abortion procedure, after Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a so-called “dismemberment” ban in a closed-door ceremony. But Brownback isn’t stopping there.
According to a photo tweeted out by Brownback’s office, the governor was flanked by large photos of fetuses as he approved Senate Bill 95 at the beginning of April. A few days later, Oklahoma followed in Kansas’ footsteps and approved an identical measure. Perhaps seeking to solidify Kansas’ status as the first state to venture into this area, Brownback is now taking it a step further.
On Tuesday, the governor traveled to four different cities across Kansas to reenact the signing of SB 95 in public ceremonies that teenagers could attend. The events took place at a Catholic church education building and three Catholic high schools.
“I am profoundly disappointed that Governor Brownback has chosen to hold a publicity tour for this reprehensible law,” Julie Burkhart, an abortion provider who operates the South Wind Women’s Center and founded the political action committee Trust Women, said in a statement. “Reenacting this bill signing in front of children is not only a publicity stunt, but also spreads hate and disrespect.”
“Dismemberment” is not a medical term. The new laws seeking to outlaw this procedure are relying on evocative language to target the most common form of second-trimester abortion — a process known in the medical community as Dilation and Evacuation, or “D&E.” Burkhart’s organization is opposed to SB 95 because it prevents doctors from providing their patients with the best care available, and its vague language could end up making it too risky for doctors to offer any surgical abortion procedures whatsoever.
The tactic evokes a very similar fight that played out over a different type of abortion procedure called Intact Dilation & Extraction, or “D&X.” Abortion opponents dubbed that procedure “partial-birth abortion” — which, like “dismemberment,” is not a real medical term — and enacted a flurry of state laws to prevent it from being performed. Eventually, the issue made its way up to the Supreme Court, and the justices banned D&X procedures nationwide.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/28/3652255/brownback-re-signing-abortion-ban/
April 28, 2015
Since I'm new I'm still finding my way around. Question:
Is there a "childfree by choice" group somewhere on DU? I did a search and although I can find a lot of posts asking the same question, I haven't found a group. Does one exist?
I understand it can turn into ranting about bad parenting (but that's why some of us are childfree!). Here's a parallel: I'm in the Atheists & Agnostics group and we sometimes snark a bit about the religious. And that's okay there. It's a safe place for it. So what would be the difference?
If there isn't a group already and I'm just unable to find it, how about creating a safe place for childfree people to post where they can let their hair down? And if the posts start straying from the purpose of the group (which we'd have to hammer out, yeah, I get that), then a person could be banned. Or something. However you guys usually work these things out.
If it can work with with A&A, why can't it work with the childfree? I'd love to find a place where I could discuss some of the issues.
April 28, 2015
<snip>
The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face. ..."
When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time-out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise" anymore than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point, tonight. Disrespect is. In this case disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
Nonviolence As Compliance - TA-NEHISI COATES
Nonviolence As Compliance<snip>
The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face. ..."
When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time-out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise" anymore than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point, tonight. Disrespect is. In this case disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
April 28, 2015
Last week, Rep. Kevin Calvey, R-Oklahoma City, got animated during debate on Senate Bill 548, which would provide 6 percent raises, paid from court fees, for Supreme Court justices and other appellate court judges and employees.
The bill ended up passing and returns to the Senate for final consideration.
Calvey is upset with court rulings that have gone against efforts to restrict abortions and said that withholding the pay increase would be effective in punishing the justices.
He loudly said that if he were not a Christian, he would go across the street to the state Supreme Court building, douse himself in gasoline and set himself on fire to “protest the evil in that building.”
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-threatens-to-set-himself-on-fire-over-abortion-issue/article/5414125
Can I watch?
Oklahoma lawmaker threatens to set himself on fire over abortion issueLast week, Rep. Kevin Calvey, R-Oklahoma City, got animated during debate on Senate Bill 548, which would provide 6 percent raises, paid from court fees, for Supreme Court justices and other appellate court judges and employees.
The bill ended up passing and returns to the Senate for final consideration.
Calvey is upset with court rulings that have gone against efforts to restrict abortions and said that withholding the pay increase would be effective in punishing the justices.
He loudly said that if he were not a Christian, he would go across the street to the state Supreme Court building, douse himself in gasoline and set himself on fire to “protest the evil in that building.”
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-threatens-to-set-himself-on-fire-over-abortion-issue/article/5414125
April 28, 2015
Jesse Singal at Science of Us highlights a new study about the value of having fun in public all by yourself. Studies in the Journal of Consumer Research showed that people are often afraid to partake in leisure activities solo, mostly because they fear others' assumptions “that they could not find friends to accompany them.” However, when authors Rebecca Ratner and Rebecca Hamilton encouraged college students—over protests—to visit an art museum alone, they found that the solo museum-goers had just as much fun as the people who brought friends.*
It's a small study but an intriguing one, and it hopefully will compel more of its kind. This particular research isn't about gender, but anecdotal evidence suggests that women feel this fear of going out by themselves more keenly than men do. Part of this is practical; being a woman alone in public often means men will bother you. But part of it is psychological, a fear that women are more likely to be judged as lonely if they're seen out by themselves. This fear that people will pity you if you are eating or otherwise doing fun things in public by yourself is so serious that Cressida Howard of Gloucestershire, England, created the Invite for a Bite website in 2012, so that strange women who otherwise might dine alone can find each other and instead sit together.
Doing stuff by yourself really isn't as scary or off-putting as you might think. I haven't been single in nearly a decade, but I've maintained my tendency to take off and do all sorts of things by myself without drafting my partner to join me. It helps if you have interests that your friends don't share—not having to worry if your companion is bored with your activity of choice more than makes up for the occasional pitying look you get from someone who assumes a woman alone must be a lonely woman.
One of the most important lessons you learn as a woman who likes to go about solo is that far fewer people are looking at you than you think. Women are socialized to feel as if we're on constant display, but I've learned over the years that most people are too busy with their own lives and concerns to pause quizzically over the woman who asks for a table for one. Plus, now that everyone has a smartphone, there's no reason to be bored because you have no one to talk to. Just stay off Facebook—you're cheating yourself out of your precious time alone.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/27/having_fun_in_public_women_should_do_it_too.html
A Woman Alone Is Not Necessarily a Lonely Woman
A Woman Alone Is Not Necessarily a Lonely WomanJesse Singal at Science of Us highlights a new study about the value of having fun in public all by yourself. Studies in the Journal of Consumer Research showed that people are often afraid to partake in leisure activities solo, mostly because they fear others' assumptions “that they could not find friends to accompany them.” However, when authors Rebecca Ratner and Rebecca Hamilton encouraged college students—over protests—to visit an art museum alone, they found that the solo museum-goers had just as much fun as the people who brought friends.*
It's a small study but an intriguing one, and it hopefully will compel more of its kind. This particular research isn't about gender, but anecdotal evidence suggests that women feel this fear of going out by themselves more keenly than men do. Part of this is practical; being a woman alone in public often means men will bother you. But part of it is psychological, a fear that women are more likely to be judged as lonely if they're seen out by themselves. This fear that people will pity you if you are eating or otherwise doing fun things in public by yourself is so serious that Cressida Howard of Gloucestershire, England, created the Invite for a Bite website in 2012, so that strange women who otherwise might dine alone can find each other and instead sit together.
Doing stuff by yourself really isn't as scary or off-putting as you might think. I haven't been single in nearly a decade, but I've maintained my tendency to take off and do all sorts of things by myself without drafting my partner to join me. It helps if you have interests that your friends don't share—not having to worry if your companion is bored with your activity of choice more than makes up for the occasional pitying look you get from someone who assumes a woman alone must be a lonely woman.
One of the most important lessons you learn as a woman who likes to go about solo is that far fewer people are looking at you than you think. Women are socialized to feel as if we're on constant display, but I've learned over the years that most people are too busy with their own lives and concerns to pause quizzically over the woman who asks for a table for one. Plus, now that everyone has a smartphone, there's no reason to be bored because you have no one to talk to. Just stay off Facebook—you're cheating yourself out of your precious time alone.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/27/having_fun_in_public_women_should_do_it_too.html
April 27, 2015
Drove home from Mom's Assisted Living Facility in tears today
Tears of frustration. I know she has Alzheimer's and she can't help it. I'm mostly frustrated and angry at myself for being irritated by four hours of complaining, because I know she won't live forever and when she's gone I am going to beat myself up pretty harshly for my irritation.
How in the hell did I ever manage to take care of her 24/7 by myself? After just a few hours the first thing I do when I get in my car is shut the windows and let out a primal scream until I am hoarse.
Wow. I guess I needed to get that off my chest.
April 27, 2015
The 2016 presidential campaign has really and truly started now, and already the religious pandering is getting silly. Despite wanting voters to think of him as a “libertarian” Rand Paul was recently bleating about how this country needs a religious revival, specifically “another Great Awakening.” Ted Cruz made a big fancy speech at Liberty University where he highlighted his defense of state promotion of religion, which he erroneously called “religious freedom,” even though having the state push faith on you is the opposite of that. Mike Huckabee claimed that Christians in the military are being persecuted. Marco Rubio is so desperate to be seen as a religious right savior that he spread himself out, claiming formally to be Catholic but attending a Bible-thumping holy roller church that believes in young earth creationism and demons. He’s also done his time as a Mormon, to cover all bases.
Looking over these men’s statements and histories, it’s clear that they’re plugged into the myth that defines the religious right. This myth is that America is fundamentally a religious nation and always has been, but it’s been hijacked by a minority of back-stabbing secularist elites---and that the country can be restored to its rightful Christian dominance by electing a Republican.
It’s a narrative that is fundamentally wrong. Yes, the majority of Americans identify technically as Christians, but a deeper look at how our people act, believe, and think shows that we’re not at all a “Christian nation,” but a largely secular nation that suffers a small but vocal minority of theocracy-minded conservatives. And not just that, but that the secular-minded majority is getting even bigger and more secular all the time.
Since many of the most prominent defenders of secularism are atheists, it’s easy to assume not only is secularism an atheist thing , but that it’s therefore only important to the 20 percent of Americans that are non-believers. But most people who believe in God are also basically secular. They don’t believe that religion should dictate public policy, for one thing. For another, they don’t really think religion should dictate their own lives. While most Americans are believers, that doesn’t mean that they believe that religion should have the power over our personal lives, our government policies, or our own consciences that the religious right believes it should.
Read more: http://www.alternet.org/belief/take-christian-right-americans-go-church-about-much-godless-europeans
Take That, Christian Right -- Americans Go to Church About As Much As Godless Europeans
Take That, Christian Right -- Americans Go to Church About As Much As Godless EuropeansThe 2016 presidential campaign has really and truly started now, and already the religious pandering is getting silly. Despite wanting voters to think of him as a “libertarian” Rand Paul was recently bleating about how this country needs a religious revival, specifically “another Great Awakening.” Ted Cruz made a big fancy speech at Liberty University where he highlighted his defense of state promotion of religion, which he erroneously called “religious freedom,” even though having the state push faith on you is the opposite of that. Mike Huckabee claimed that Christians in the military are being persecuted. Marco Rubio is so desperate to be seen as a religious right savior that he spread himself out, claiming formally to be Catholic but attending a Bible-thumping holy roller church that believes in young earth creationism and demons. He’s also done his time as a Mormon, to cover all bases.
Looking over these men’s statements and histories, it’s clear that they’re plugged into the myth that defines the religious right. This myth is that America is fundamentally a religious nation and always has been, but it’s been hijacked by a minority of back-stabbing secularist elites---and that the country can be restored to its rightful Christian dominance by electing a Republican.
It’s a narrative that is fundamentally wrong. Yes, the majority of Americans identify technically as Christians, but a deeper look at how our people act, believe, and think shows that we’re not at all a “Christian nation,” but a largely secular nation that suffers a small but vocal minority of theocracy-minded conservatives. And not just that, but that the secular-minded majority is getting even bigger and more secular all the time.
Since many of the most prominent defenders of secularism are atheists, it’s easy to assume not only is secularism an atheist thing , but that it’s therefore only important to the 20 percent of Americans that are non-believers. But most people who believe in God are also basically secular. They don’t believe that religion should dictate public policy, for one thing. For another, they don’t really think religion should dictate their own lives. While most Americans are believers, that doesn’t mean that they believe that religion should have the power over our personal lives, our government policies, or our own consciences that the religious right believes it should.
Read more: http://www.alternet.org/belief/take-christian-right-americans-go-church-about-much-godless-europeans
April 27, 2015
The 2016 presidential campaign has really and truly started now, and already the religious pandering is getting silly. Despite wanting voters to think of him as a “libertarian” Rand Paul was recently bleating about how this country needs a religious revival, specifically “another Great Awakening.” Ted Cruz made a big fancy speech at Liberty University where he highlighted his defense of state promotion of religion, which he erroneously called “religious freedom,” even though having the state push faith on you is the opposite of that. Mike Huckabee claimed that Christians in the military are being persecuted. Marco Rubio is so desperate to be seen as a religious right savior that he spread himself out, claiming formally to be Catholic but attending a Bible-thumping holy roller church that believes in young earth creationism and demons. He’s also done his time as a Mormon, to cover all bases.
Looking over these men’s statements and histories, it’s clear that they’re plugged into the myth that defines the religious right. This myth is that America is fundamentally a religious nation and always has been, but it’s been hijacked by a minority of back-stabbing secularist elites---and that the country can be restored to its rightful Christian dominance by electing a Republican.
It’s a narrative that is fundamentally wrong. Yes, the majority of Americans identify technically as Christians, but a deeper look at how our people act, believe, and think shows that we’re not at all a “Christian nation,” but a largely secular nation that suffers a small but vocal minority of theocracy-minded conservatives. And not just that, but that the secular-minded majority is getting even bigger and more secular all the time.
Since many of the most prominent defenders of secularism are atheists, it’s easy to assume not only is secularism an atheist thing , but that it’s therefore only important to the 20 percent of Americans that are non-believers. But most people who believe in God are also basically secular. They don’t believe that religion should dictate public policy, for one thing. For another, they don’t really think religion should dictate their own lives. While most Americans are believers, that doesn’t mean that they believe that religion should have the power over our personal lives, our government policies, or our own consciences that the religious right believes it should.
Read more: http://www.alternet.org/belief/take-christian-right-americans-go-church-about-much-godless-europeans
Take That, Christian Right -- Americans Go to Church About As Much As Godless Europeans
Take That, Christian Right -- Americans Go to Church About As Much As Godless EuropeansThe 2016 presidential campaign has really and truly started now, and already the religious pandering is getting silly. Despite wanting voters to think of him as a “libertarian” Rand Paul was recently bleating about how this country needs a religious revival, specifically “another Great Awakening.” Ted Cruz made a big fancy speech at Liberty University where he highlighted his defense of state promotion of religion, which he erroneously called “religious freedom,” even though having the state push faith on you is the opposite of that. Mike Huckabee claimed that Christians in the military are being persecuted. Marco Rubio is so desperate to be seen as a religious right savior that he spread himself out, claiming formally to be Catholic but attending a Bible-thumping holy roller church that believes in young earth creationism and demons. He’s also done his time as a Mormon, to cover all bases.
Looking over these men’s statements and histories, it’s clear that they’re plugged into the myth that defines the religious right. This myth is that America is fundamentally a religious nation and always has been, but it’s been hijacked by a minority of back-stabbing secularist elites---and that the country can be restored to its rightful Christian dominance by electing a Republican.
It’s a narrative that is fundamentally wrong. Yes, the majority of Americans identify technically as Christians, but a deeper look at how our people act, believe, and think shows that we’re not at all a “Christian nation,” but a largely secular nation that suffers a small but vocal minority of theocracy-minded conservatives. And not just that, but that the secular-minded majority is getting even bigger and more secular all the time.
Since many of the most prominent defenders of secularism are atheists, it’s easy to assume not only is secularism an atheist thing , but that it’s therefore only important to the 20 percent of Americans that are non-believers. But most people who believe in God are also basically secular. They don’t believe that religion should dictate public policy, for one thing. For another, they don’t really think religion should dictate their own lives. While most Americans are believers, that doesn’t mean that they believe that religion should have the power over our personal lives, our government policies, or our own consciences that the religious right believes it should.
Read more: http://www.alternet.org/belief/take-christian-right-americans-go-church-about-much-godless-europeans
rig[/img]
April 25, 2015
Daily news wrap-up on reproductive rights and feminist issues
Are you guys aware of this resource?
Your Nightly Need to Know - from A is For
I get it in my daily news feed and it has several daily links to the day's issues - mostly about reproductive rights, but often about feminist issues as well. It's a daily reminder of what we're up against and why we can't get complacent.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AMNumber of posts: 5,842
