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
July 10, 2015
Three Senate Republicans, including vulnerable incumbent Mark Kirk of Illinois, helped Democrats advance a repeal of the so-called global gag rule that restricts U.S. funding to humanitarian organizations that provide abortions.
In a Senate Appropriations Committee markup Thursday, Kirk and GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) joined the left to approve an amendment to the State Department spending bill that would lift the restriction, which has been a mainstay for Republicans since the Reagan administration in the 1980s.
It’s not surprising that Kirk was among the trio tacking to the middle: He’s been called the most vulnerable Senator up for reelection, and he’s running neck-and-neck with Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). Murkowski, who was booted in her last primary by a conservative but won in an surprising write-in campaign, is also up in 2016. Collins has a reputation for being perhaps the most centrist member of the caucus, though her seat is considered safe.
The amendment was adopted 17-13.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-senators-join-democrats-lift-abortion-gag-rule-repeal-119919.html#ixzz3fU5d7vTB
<snip>
The conservative-backed global gag rule essentially bars U.S. financial aid stipulated for contraception and family planning services, to any organization that performs or advises women about abortions — even if the U.S. money is not used for those items specifically. The rule is currently suspended by an executive order from President Barack Obama, but the Shaheen amendment repeals it permanently.
The amendment would, however, continue a prohibition on U.S. funding being used to perform abortions. Health agencies would have to use their own money for those types of services.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-senators-join-democrats-lift-abortion-gag-rule-repeal-119919.html#ixzz3fU5OcWix
GOP senators join Dems to lift abortion 'gag rule'
GOP senators join Dems to lift abortion 'gag rule'Three Senate Republicans, including vulnerable incumbent Mark Kirk of Illinois, helped Democrats advance a repeal of the so-called global gag rule that restricts U.S. funding to humanitarian organizations that provide abortions.
In a Senate Appropriations Committee markup Thursday, Kirk and GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) joined the left to approve an amendment to the State Department spending bill that would lift the restriction, which has been a mainstay for Republicans since the Reagan administration in the 1980s.
It’s not surprising that Kirk was among the trio tacking to the middle: He’s been called the most vulnerable Senator up for reelection, and he’s running neck-and-neck with Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). Murkowski, who was booted in her last primary by a conservative but won in an surprising write-in campaign, is also up in 2016. Collins has a reputation for being perhaps the most centrist member of the caucus, though her seat is considered safe.
The amendment was adopted 17-13.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-senators-join-democrats-lift-abortion-gag-rule-repeal-119919.html#ixzz3fU5d7vTB
<snip>
The conservative-backed global gag rule essentially bars U.S. financial aid stipulated for contraception and family planning services, to any organization that performs or advises women about abortions — even if the U.S. money is not used for those items specifically. The rule is currently suspended by an executive order from President Barack Obama, but the Shaheen amendment repeals it permanently.
The amendment would, however, continue a prohibition on U.S. funding being used to perform abortions. Health agencies would have to use their own money for those types of services.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-senators-join-democrats-lift-abortion-gag-rule-repeal-119919.html#ixzz3fU5OcWix
July 9, 2015
House Democrats proposed bold pro-abortion rights legislation on Wednesday that has no chance of passing in the GOP-controlled chamber, but highlights the massive gulf between the two parties on the hot-button issue.
The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, or the EACH Woman Act, would guarantee abortion coverage for all Medicaid recipients and women who receive health insurance through the federal government. The bill, authored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and co-sponsored by more than 60 House Democrats, would repeal the decades-long ban on abortion insurance coverage for U.S. federal employees, military servicewomen, Peace Corps volunteers and those who are insured through the Indian Health Service. It would also prevent state legislatures from interfering with the private insurance market and banning insurers from covering abortion.
Specifically, the bill would overturn the Hyde Amendment, a policy rider that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except if a pregnancy arises from incest or rape. Anti-abortion politicians have been attaching the rider to important pieces of legislation each year since 1976, and it disproportionately affects minority and low-income women.
"Make no mistake-- these lawmakers really do want to ban abortions altogether," Lee said at a press conference on Wednesday. "Since they can't, they employ these very devious and underhanded tactics to push abortion care out of reach for women who are really just struggling to just make ends meet, and that's just wrong. Politicians have no business interfering with a woman's private reproductive health decisions."
When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, 86 percent of private insurance companies covered abortion. This meant that most women who purchased private insurance plans or received health coverage through their private sector jobs had abortion coverage, while Medicaid recipients and federal employees did not. But the passage of Obamacare seemed to alert Republican lawmakers to the fact that abortion was being covered in insurance plans, and more than 20 GOP-led state legislatures have since passed laws banning private insurance companies from covering abortion.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/abortion-insurance-coverage_n_7753564.html
Dems Propose 'Historic' Abortion Rights Legislation
Dems Propose 'Historic' Abortion Rights LegislationHouse Democrats proposed bold pro-abortion rights legislation on Wednesday that has no chance of passing in the GOP-controlled chamber, but highlights the massive gulf between the two parties on the hot-button issue.
The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, or the EACH Woman Act, would guarantee abortion coverage for all Medicaid recipients and women who receive health insurance through the federal government. The bill, authored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and co-sponsored by more than 60 House Democrats, would repeal the decades-long ban on abortion insurance coverage for U.S. federal employees, military servicewomen, Peace Corps volunteers and those who are insured through the Indian Health Service. It would also prevent state legislatures from interfering with the private insurance market and banning insurers from covering abortion.
Specifically, the bill would overturn the Hyde Amendment, a policy rider that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except if a pregnancy arises from incest or rape. Anti-abortion politicians have been attaching the rider to important pieces of legislation each year since 1976, and it disproportionately affects minority and low-income women.
"Make no mistake-- these lawmakers really do want to ban abortions altogether," Lee said at a press conference on Wednesday. "Since they can't, they employ these very devious and underhanded tactics to push abortion care out of reach for women who are really just struggling to just make ends meet, and that's just wrong. Politicians have no business interfering with a woman's private reproductive health decisions."
When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, 86 percent of private insurance companies covered abortion. This meant that most women who purchased private insurance plans or received health coverage through their private sector jobs had abortion coverage, while Medicaid recipients and federal employees did not. But the passage of Obamacare seemed to alert Republican lawmakers to the fact that abortion was being covered in insurance plans, and more than 20 GOP-led state legislatures have since passed laws banning private insurance companies from covering abortion.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/abortion-insurance-coverage_n_7753564.html
July 8, 2015
On Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy report on the smashing success of a six-year plan to offer long-acting contraception, such as implants or the IUD, free of charge to any low-income woman or teen who wanted them. Funded by outside donors, the program has been a tremendous success, lowering the teen birth rate by 40 percent between 2009 to 2013. The abortion rate for teenagers fell by 42 percent.
“There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school,” Sabrina Tavernise writes. The program is credited with helping a huge number of young women wait until they're a little older to have children, giving them time to finish their education and get a foothold in the working world first.
I've been touting this program for awhile now, but unfortunately, the money has run out. The hope was that the state legislature would help the young women of Colorado to live better, more economically successful lives by voting to fund the program itself. However, the Republican-run legislature decided against it. The official reason: The program is redundant now that Obamacare offers “free” birth control.
That excuse has some holes in it, starting with the fact that Obamacare does not offer free birth control. Obamacare requires that insurance plans cover birth control without a copay, but you either have to buy the insurance or earn it as an employment benefit in order to get that coverage. A lot of the women and girls who are eligible for the Colorado program don't have insurance. There's additional obstacles for teens who want the IUD. “Advocates also worry that teenagers — who can get the devices at clinics confidentially — may be less likely to get the devices through their parents’ insurance,” Tavernise writes.
The real issue here is that opponents of accessible birth control want to keep sex dangerous, in the hope that danger will discourage girls and women from having sex. This was clear in the debate over the program's funding. “I hear the stories of young girls who are engaged, very prematurely, in sexual activity, and I see firsthand the devastation that happens to them,” Republican state Rep. Kathleen Conti argued. “I'm not accrediting this directly to this program, but I'm saying, while we may be preventing an unwanted pregnancy, at the same time, what are the emotional consequences that could be coming up on the other side?”
Colorado isn't the only state where people are anxious that IUDs might be just too good at preventing teen pregnancy. As Media Matters reported today, controversy is flaring over a Seattle program that allows teen girls to get IUDs and implants from a school-based health center. Fox News' coverage of called long-acting contraception “invasive birth control” while host Jedediah Bila called it “an overreach in schools.” Breitbart scared readers about “serious side effects” and warned that the IUDs are “free of charge and free of parental consent.”
Interestingly, a talking point in both the Townhall and Fox News coverage was that it's outrageous that kids can't buy sodas at school but they can get IUDs. What is this world coming to when we try to help our kids avoid sugary crap and unwanted pregnancies? Next you're going to tell me that we also want them to wash their hands and wear seatbelts.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/07/free_iud_programs_for_teens_work_why_are_so_many_conservatives_against_them.html
Free IUD Programs Work. Why Are Conservatives Opposed To Them?
Free IUD Programs Work. Why Are Conservatives Opposed To Them?On Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy report on the smashing success of a six-year plan to offer long-acting contraception, such as implants or the IUD, free of charge to any low-income woman or teen who wanted them. Funded by outside donors, the program has been a tremendous success, lowering the teen birth rate by 40 percent between 2009 to 2013. The abortion rate for teenagers fell by 42 percent.
“There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school,” Sabrina Tavernise writes. The program is credited with helping a huge number of young women wait until they're a little older to have children, giving them time to finish their education and get a foothold in the working world first.
I've been touting this program for awhile now, but unfortunately, the money has run out. The hope was that the state legislature would help the young women of Colorado to live better, more economically successful lives by voting to fund the program itself. However, the Republican-run legislature decided against it. The official reason: The program is redundant now that Obamacare offers “free” birth control.
That excuse has some holes in it, starting with the fact that Obamacare does not offer free birth control. Obamacare requires that insurance plans cover birth control without a copay, but you either have to buy the insurance or earn it as an employment benefit in order to get that coverage. A lot of the women and girls who are eligible for the Colorado program don't have insurance. There's additional obstacles for teens who want the IUD. “Advocates also worry that teenagers — who can get the devices at clinics confidentially — may be less likely to get the devices through their parents’ insurance,” Tavernise writes.
The real issue here is that opponents of accessible birth control want to keep sex dangerous, in the hope that danger will discourage girls and women from having sex. This was clear in the debate over the program's funding. “I hear the stories of young girls who are engaged, very prematurely, in sexual activity, and I see firsthand the devastation that happens to them,” Republican state Rep. Kathleen Conti argued. “I'm not accrediting this directly to this program, but I'm saying, while we may be preventing an unwanted pregnancy, at the same time, what are the emotional consequences that could be coming up on the other side?”
Colorado isn't the only state where people are anxious that IUDs might be just too good at preventing teen pregnancy. As Media Matters reported today, controversy is flaring over a Seattle program that allows teen girls to get IUDs and implants from a school-based health center. Fox News' coverage of called long-acting contraception “invasive birth control” while host Jedediah Bila called it “an overreach in schools.” Breitbart scared readers about “serious side effects” and warned that the IUDs are “free of charge and free of parental consent.”
Interestingly, a talking point in both the Townhall and Fox News coverage was that it's outrageous that kids can't buy sodas at school but they can get IUDs. What is this world coming to when we try to help our kids avoid sugary crap and unwanted pregnancies? Next you're going to tell me that we also want them to wash their hands and wear seatbelts.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/07/free_iud_programs_for_teens_work_why_are_so_many_conservatives_against_them.html
July 7, 2015
<snip>
While abortion and same-sex marriage are both about constitutional and human rights, they are culturally distinct. Same-sex marriage is framed as an issue of love, commitment and normalcy. Abortion, on the other hand, is about sexual activity, reproduction, and bodily autonomy. As The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt put it a few weeks ago, marriage equality is about love and abortion is about sex.
Marriage is about inclusion, about committing to your partner in a traditional, government-sanctioned way. Though many people have varying marital arrangements (not all marriages are monogamous), we think of marriage as a responsible, inevitable choice. The opposite is true for abortion. You can’t help who you love, but you can help whether or not you have sex, we think. Women who have abortions are framed as lazy, lascivious and irresponsible: “If you didn’t want to get pregnant, you shouldn’t have had sex.” We easily isolate women who have had abortions, rather than see ourselves in them.
Marriage is a public act; it is declaring your partnership and commitment to the government and the public. Abortion is the opposite of a public act. Abortion is, according to the Supreme Court, about privacy. It is about an individual woman’s right to privacy and personal bodily autonomy. As such, abortion then becomes an individualized issue, despite the fact that one in three women in America will have an abortion in her reproductive lifetime. It may be incredibly common, but abortion is relegated to the shadows. We don’t talk about abortion at the dinner table, but we do talk about our relationships and spouses.
It’s also worth noting the kinds of cases that liberals have been “winning” this term at the Supreme Court. Some of these cases were based on the flimsiest of terms, like the transparently cynical King v. Burwell that hoped four words taken out of context could unravel health care for millions of Americans. Some, like the squashed threat to the Fair Housing Act, were predicated on the wrongheaded assumption that systemic racism is over and therefore, discriminatory housing practices no longer exist. These are the kinds of the cases that the Supreme Court decided to take on. While it’s heartening to come out with a win in some of these critical cases, the bar has been set depressingly low.
For now, safe abortion clinics in Texas and Mississippi are still open. That’s worth celebrating. But just one day after the Supreme Court allowed those clinics to stay open, Governor Kasich signed Ohio’s budget into law, containing more egregious abortion restrictions designed to close safe clinics. This is a national crisis, one that will continue to wage until the Supreme Court either puts a stop to it, or abortion opponents close every safe clinic in America.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-abortion-is-losing-gay-marriage
Why Abortion Is Losing While Gay Marriage Is Winning
Why Abortion Is Losing While Gay Marriage Is Winning<snip>
While abortion and same-sex marriage are both about constitutional and human rights, they are culturally distinct. Same-sex marriage is framed as an issue of love, commitment and normalcy. Abortion, on the other hand, is about sexual activity, reproduction, and bodily autonomy. As The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt put it a few weeks ago, marriage equality is about love and abortion is about sex.
Marriage is about inclusion, about committing to your partner in a traditional, government-sanctioned way. Though many people have varying marital arrangements (not all marriages are monogamous), we think of marriage as a responsible, inevitable choice. The opposite is true for abortion. You can’t help who you love, but you can help whether or not you have sex, we think. Women who have abortions are framed as lazy, lascivious and irresponsible: “If you didn’t want to get pregnant, you shouldn’t have had sex.” We easily isolate women who have had abortions, rather than see ourselves in them.
Marriage is a public act; it is declaring your partnership and commitment to the government and the public. Abortion is the opposite of a public act. Abortion is, according to the Supreme Court, about privacy. It is about an individual woman’s right to privacy and personal bodily autonomy. As such, abortion then becomes an individualized issue, despite the fact that one in three women in America will have an abortion in her reproductive lifetime. It may be incredibly common, but abortion is relegated to the shadows. We don’t talk about abortion at the dinner table, but we do talk about our relationships and spouses.
It’s also worth noting the kinds of cases that liberals have been “winning” this term at the Supreme Court. Some of these cases were based on the flimsiest of terms, like the transparently cynical King v. Burwell that hoped four words taken out of context could unravel health care for millions of Americans. Some, like the squashed threat to the Fair Housing Act, were predicated on the wrongheaded assumption that systemic racism is over and therefore, discriminatory housing practices no longer exist. These are the kinds of the cases that the Supreme Court decided to take on. While it’s heartening to come out with a win in some of these critical cases, the bar has been set depressingly low.
For now, safe abortion clinics in Texas and Mississippi are still open. That’s worth celebrating. But just one day after the Supreme Court allowed those clinics to stay open, Governor Kasich signed Ohio’s budget into law, containing more egregious abortion restrictions designed to close safe clinics. This is a national crisis, one that will continue to wage until the Supreme Court either puts a stop to it, or abortion opponents close every safe clinic in America.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-abortion-is-losing-gay-marriage
July 6, 2015
That's what the former Disney CEO told an audience Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, according to The Atlantic.
During an onstage conversation with Goldie Hawn, he theorized on why she'd been so successful: "From my position, the hardest artist to find is a beautiful, funny woman. By far. They usually — boy am I going to get in trouble, I know this goes online — but usually, unbelievably beautiful women, you being an exception, are not funny."
For her part, Hawn replied that she might owe her comedic talents to the fact that she thought of herself as an "ugly duckling" when she was young.
"You didn't think you were beautiful," Eisner said. "I know women who have been told they're beautiful, they win Miss Arkansas, they don't ever have to get attention other than with their looks. So they don't tell a joke. In the history of the motion-picture business, the number of beautiful, really beautiful women — a Lucille Ball — that are funny, is impossible to find."
Eisner, who served as CEO at Disney from 1984-2005, also held senior posts at ABC and Paramount Pictures.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-chief-michael-eisner-a-806748?utm_source=twitter
Dos it fucking matter??
Former Disney Chief Michael Eisner: A Woman Who Is Funny and Beautiful Is "Impossible to Find"
Former Disney Chief Michael Eisner: A Woman Who Is Funny and Beautiful Is "Impossible to Find"That's what the former Disney CEO told an audience Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, according to The Atlantic.
During an onstage conversation with Goldie Hawn, he theorized on why she'd been so successful: "From my position, the hardest artist to find is a beautiful, funny woman. By far. They usually — boy am I going to get in trouble, I know this goes online — but usually, unbelievably beautiful women, you being an exception, are not funny."
For her part, Hawn replied that she might owe her comedic talents to the fact that she thought of herself as an "ugly duckling" when she was young.
"You didn't think you were beautiful," Eisner said. "I know women who have been told they're beautiful, they win Miss Arkansas, they don't ever have to get attention other than with their looks. So they don't tell a joke. In the history of the motion-picture business, the number of beautiful, really beautiful women — a Lucille Ball — that are funny, is impossible to find."
Eisner, who served as CEO at Disney from 1984-2005, also held senior posts at ABC and Paramount Pictures.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-chief-michael-eisner-a-806748?utm_source=twitter
Dos it fucking matter??
July 4, 2015
Oregon lawmakers on Thursday approved a bill allowing women to get birth control prescriptions from a pharmacist instead of a physician, a shift that could vastly expand access to contraceptives throughout the state.
HB 2879, passed this month by the Democratic-majority state senate and house, is one of two Oregon bills approved in June that tackles access to the pill, patch, and ring. The other, HB 3343, will allow people to get a 12-month supply of birth control all at once, instead of the one- or three-month supply that most people receive.
<snip>
Oregon’s HB 2879 would still tie birth control access to a prescription, meaning it still won’t be available over the counter. And pharmacists can only prescribe birth control to minors who have had a previous prescription. Advocates of the proposal say that being able to get a prescription from a pharmacy instead of a primary care doctor or OB-GYN is a crucial distinction and a win for those in favor of expanding birth control access.
Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/30/oregon-residents-can-now-get-birth-control-prescription-without-doctors-visit/
Oregon Residents Can Now Get Birth Control Prescription Without Doctor’s Visit
Oregon Residents Can Now Get Birth Control Prescription Without Doctor’s VisitOregon lawmakers on Thursday approved a bill allowing women to get birth control prescriptions from a pharmacist instead of a physician, a shift that could vastly expand access to contraceptives throughout the state.
HB 2879, passed this month by the Democratic-majority state senate and house, is one of two Oregon bills approved in June that tackles access to the pill, patch, and ring. The other, HB 3343, will allow people to get a 12-month supply of birth control all at once, instead of the one- or three-month supply that most people receive.
<snip>
Oregon’s HB 2879 would still tie birth control access to a prescription, meaning it still won’t be available over the counter. And pharmacists can only prescribe birth control to minors who have had a previous prescription. Advocates of the proposal say that being able to get a prescription from a pharmacy instead of a primary care doctor or OB-GYN is a crucial distinction and a win for those in favor of expanding birth control access.
Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/30/oregon-residents-can-now-get-birth-control-prescription-without-doctors-visit/
July 3, 2015
In the first half of 2015, state legislatures continued the assault on reproductive rights that’s been intensifying since Republicans made big gains in the 2010 midterm elections, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.
Researchers at the reproductive rights think tank found that states have enacted 51 new abortion restrictions so far this year. (Many legislatures are now out of session, but the handful of states that are still lawmaking could pass even more anti-abortion provisions moving forward.) That brings the total number of restrictions enacted since 2010 up to 282:
[img]
[/img]
The trend is not entirely unexpected. After the 2014 elections handed significant victories to abortion opponents, experts in the field predicted that states would pass more stringent anti-choice laws this year. Several states forged ahead into new territory, enacting first-of-their-kind restrictions on the procedure as a new way of testing the bounds of Roe v. Wade.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/02/3676468/abortion-restrictions-states-since-2010/
In The Past 5 Years, States Have Enacted Nearly 300 Abortion Restrictions
In The Past 5 Years, States Have Enacted Nearly 300 Abortion RestrictionsIn the first half of 2015, state legislatures continued the assault on reproductive rights that’s been intensifying since Republicans made big gains in the 2010 midterm elections, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.
Researchers at the reproductive rights think tank found that states have enacted 51 new abortion restrictions so far this year. (Many legislatures are now out of session, but the handful of states that are still lawmaking could pass even more anti-abortion provisions moving forward.) That brings the total number of restrictions enacted since 2010 up to 282:
[img]
[/img]
The trend is not entirely unexpected. After the 2014 elections handed significant victories to abortion opponents, experts in the field predicted that states would pass more stringent anti-choice laws this year. Several states forged ahead into new territory, enacting first-of-their-kind restrictions on the procedure as a new way of testing the bounds of Roe v. Wade.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/02/3676468/abortion-restrictions-states-since-2010/
July 1, 2015
Macy's Cuts Ties With Trump Over Racist Remarks
Source: Huffington Post
Macy's is done with Donald Trump.
The department store said Wednesday it has cut ties with the billionaire Republican presidential hopeful, who said last month that Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists."
Macy's said it will phase out a Trump menswear collection that has been sold at the retailer since 2004.
"We are disappointed and distressed by recent remarks about immigrants from Mexico," the Cincinnati-based company said in a statement. "We do not believe the disparaging characterizations portray an accurate picture of the many Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Latinos who have made so many valuable contributions to the success of our nation."
The move comes after more than 728,000 people singed a MoveOn.org petition urging Macy's to dump Trump.
The retailer is the latest to cut ties with Trump over his comments.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/01/macys-donald-trump_n_7705710.html
July 1, 2015
And the right wing is worried about Sharia law? Looks a lot like Christian Sharia Law here.
Female pastors in Clarendon County receive letters threatening their safety
Source: WISTV
CLARENDON COUNTY, SC (WIS) - Two Clarendon County pastors say they have been targeted with threats of violence just because they are women.
The two pastors received letters where the writer used Bible verses to threaten the women, leaving them concerned about their safety. One letter was left on the front door of Society Hill AME Church on June 10th for Pastor Mary Rhodes.
“Whoever wrote this letter has taken the rime to find out who I am which means you may know my children, my grandchildren, and I have no clue who you are” Pastor Rhodes said.
Four days later, Pastor Valarie Bartley received the same letter at Reevesville AME Church.
The writer, who identifies as Apostle Prophet Harry Leon Fleming, says in the letter that “the woman cannot be head of the man in church, home and the world.”
Read more: http://m.wistv.com/wistv/db_330790/contentdetail.htm?full=true&contentguid=oOcqGn4u&pn=&ps=#display
And the right wing is worried about Sharia law? Looks a lot like Christian Sharia Law here.
July 1, 2015
Yesterday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Texas from enforcing two new requirements – requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and requiring providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Justice Kennedy joined Justices Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to keep 10 endangered clinics open while the Court decides whether to hear the appeal.
So what does this mean? Well, it means a lot of things. First and foremost, it means that Texas abortion clinics can stay open because the Supreme Court has ruled that they do not have to comply with some of the restrictive provisions set forth in HB2. If this law is allowed to go into effect, all but nine clinics will be forced to close. As our own Gina Loukareas noted, 5.4 million Texas women of reproductive age, in the second largest state in America, would be forced to travel hundreds of miles to access a safe abortion. For low-income women, this will not be an option. Many are already taking matters into their own hands as other facets of this heinous bill have imposed other onerous restrictions. But remember: this is just a stay, which is a temporary order while the Court decides whether or not it wants to hear the appeal brought forth by those trying to preserve safe abortion care in Texas (including Whole Women’s Health and our allies at the Center for Reproductive Rights).
Yesterday was also a tepid victory for Mississippi women. The Supreme Court took no action in response to the state’s petition allowing them to close the last abortion clinic in the entire state, Jackson Women’s Health Center. Because the Supreme Court took no action, the previous hold on the TRAP law designed to close the clinic is still in effect, which means that, for the next few months, anyway, the clinic stays open. Often called The Pink House because of its colorful exterior, this clinic is it for Mississippi women. In a state where nearly a quarter of its citizens live below the poverty line, traveling out of state simply isn’t an option. It’s either the Pink House or no safe abortion care. (To learn more about the Pink House, read our Clinic Escort Story with Pink House defender Michele Colon.)
The Texas ruling and the lack of action on the Mississippi case signal that the Supreme Court will almost certainly take up a case about abortion rights, possibly even this one. While liberals are decidedly giddy about this ideologically conservative Supreme Court upholding Obamacare (twice), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, and upholding the Fair Housing Act, we cannot mistake these rulings for an overall trend, particularly when it comes to abortion rights. If there is a trend with the Supreme Court regarding abortion, it is almost always restrictive. Just nine years ago, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on an uncommon second trimester abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation (D and E). In 1992’s Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court did uphold the right to an abortion, but said that states can restrict abortion without imposing an “undue burden” on women seeking that care. If laws designed to close every safe abortion clinic in the state isn’t an undue burden, I don’t know what is.
Let’s also remember that the stay was granted on a razor thin 5-4 order; Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would all have denied the stay. On this issue (and many others, it seems), Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, and in this instance he swung our way. But Justice Kennedy’s track record is anything but comforting; he has shown no qualms about restricting abortion rights. So essentially, your right to access a safe and legal abortion rests on how he rules on this issue. Women’s reproductive rights are in the hands of a man. How appropriate.
It is heartening to see the Supreme Court step in to preserve what little access is left in Texas. But it’s important to remember that this is only temporary, and as of now, it only applies to Texas. Sadly, the attacks on safe abortion access aren’t limited to the Lone Star state.
Read more: http://www.aisfor.org/texas-clinics-can-stay-open-but-the-war-on-abortion-access-is-far-from-over/#sthash.U7HLhdOY.dpbs
Texas Clinics Can Stay Open, But the War on Abortion Access is Far From Over
Texas Clinics Can Stay Open, But the War on Abortion Access is Far From OverYesterday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Texas from enforcing two new requirements – requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and requiring providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Justice Kennedy joined Justices Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to keep 10 endangered clinics open while the Court decides whether to hear the appeal.
So what does this mean? Well, it means a lot of things. First and foremost, it means that Texas abortion clinics can stay open because the Supreme Court has ruled that they do not have to comply with some of the restrictive provisions set forth in HB2. If this law is allowed to go into effect, all but nine clinics will be forced to close. As our own Gina Loukareas noted, 5.4 million Texas women of reproductive age, in the second largest state in America, would be forced to travel hundreds of miles to access a safe abortion. For low-income women, this will not be an option. Many are already taking matters into their own hands as other facets of this heinous bill have imposed other onerous restrictions. But remember: this is just a stay, which is a temporary order while the Court decides whether or not it wants to hear the appeal brought forth by those trying to preserve safe abortion care in Texas (including Whole Women’s Health and our allies at the Center for Reproductive Rights).
Yesterday was also a tepid victory for Mississippi women. The Supreme Court took no action in response to the state’s petition allowing them to close the last abortion clinic in the entire state, Jackson Women’s Health Center. Because the Supreme Court took no action, the previous hold on the TRAP law designed to close the clinic is still in effect, which means that, for the next few months, anyway, the clinic stays open. Often called The Pink House because of its colorful exterior, this clinic is it for Mississippi women. In a state where nearly a quarter of its citizens live below the poverty line, traveling out of state simply isn’t an option. It’s either the Pink House or no safe abortion care. (To learn more about the Pink House, read our Clinic Escort Story with Pink House defender Michele Colon.)
The Texas ruling and the lack of action on the Mississippi case signal that the Supreme Court will almost certainly take up a case about abortion rights, possibly even this one. While liberals are decidedly giddy about this ideologically conservative Supreme Court upholding Obamacare (twice), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, and upholding the Fair Housing Act, we cannot mistake these rulings for an overall trend, particularly when it comes to abortion rights. If there is a trend with the Supreme Court regarding abortion, it is almost always restrictive. Just nine years ago, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on an uncommon second trimester abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation (D and E). In 1992’s Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court did uphold the right to an abortion, but said that states can restrict abortion without imposing an “undue burden” on women seeking that care. If laws designed to close every safe abortion clinic in the state isn’t an undue burden, I don’t know what is.
Let’s also remember that the stay was granted on a razor thin 5-4 order; Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would all have denied the stay. On this issue (and many others, it seems), Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, and in this instance he swung our way. But Justice Kennedy’s track record is anything but comforting; he has shown no qualms about restricting abortion rights. So essentially, your right to access a safe and legal abortion rests on how he rules on this issue. Women’s reproductive rights are in the hands of a man. How appropriate.
It is heartening to see the Supreme Court step in to preserve what little access is left in Texas. But it’s important to remember that this is only temporary, and as of now, it only applies to Texas. Sadly, the attacks on safe abortion access aren’t limited to the Lone Star state.
Read more: http://www.aisfor.org/texas-clinics-can-stay-open-but-the-war-on-abortion-access-is-far-from-over/#sthash.U7HLhdOY.dpbs
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AMNumber of posts: 5,840
