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 18, 2015
<snip>
In theory, that should effectively end the controversy, such as it was, and since my wife works for Planned Parenthood – her work is completely unrelated to fetal tissue and she played no role in this report – I was prepared to look past it altogether. But a Roll Call article yesterday pushed the story in an unexpected direction: some congressional Republicans have known about the video for weeks.
Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee looking into the video, said at a Wednesday news conference he’d seen the clip weeks before.
Asked afterward why he and others waited until this week to take action, Murphy struggled for an answer before abruptly ending the interview with CQ Roll Call, saying he should not be quoted and remarking, “This interview didn’t happen.”
Well, actually, it did happen, and members of Congress can’t talk to reporters, then retroactively pretend they didn’t.
In this case, Roll Call asked why the story, if it’s as scandalous as Republicans are now claiming, didn’t break immediately. If GOP lawmakers consider the revelations an outrage, why did some members say nothing for nearly a month?
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), before pretending the interview “didn’t happen,” said, “Um, I don’t know why. All I know is I saw it and he said he was going to post it eventually, so that’s all I know.”
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), one of Congress’ most strident opponents of reproductive rights, also said he first saw the video about a month ago, but also said nothing. “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media,” Franks argued yesterday.
It’s a curious argument. Republicans have spent the week characterizing this as a potentially criminal scandal, but when some far-right lawmakers saw the video weeks ago, they didn’t feel the need to do much of anything – they didn’t run to the GOP leadership to demand action; they didn’t call allies in conservative media; they didn’t hold a press conference to express outrage. If they genuinely saw the video as proof of illegal Planned Parenthood activities, notifying the “authorities” could have happened immediately.
But it didn’t. So what is this really all about? Consider this Politico report published overnight:
Republicans on Capitol Hill are betting the secretly filmed Planned Parenthood video — depicting an executive allegedly discussing the sale of fetal organs from terminated pregnancies — will give them cover to more aggressively push abortion issues without the political ramifications that have haunted the party in the past. […]
<snip>
Ah, there it is. Republicans don’t have proof of Planned Parenthood wrongdoing, but rather, have a desire to claim a “scalp.” When the GOP went after women’s healthcare in 2012, it backfired on the party, so Republicans hope a misleading video will offer new opportunities to try the same move again.
That’s the point of the GOP calls for investigations, hearings, and probes. That’s why Republicans are trying to use this story to raise money and advance their personal ambitions.
Those who were inclined to take the story seriously should probably adjust their perspective accordingly.
Postscript: The video released by the Center for Medical Progress doesn’t show Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal, but whether the video itself was recorded illegally is a separate matter.
Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-congressman-would-say-interview-didnt-happen
Why a congressman would say, ‘This interview didn’t happen’
Why a congressman would say, ‘This interview didn’t happen’<snip>
In theory, that should effectively end the controversy, such as it was, and since my wife works for Planned Parenthood – her work is completely unrelated to fetal tissue and she played no role in this report – I was prepared to look past it altogether. But a Roll Call article yesterday pushed the story in an unexpected direction: some congressional Republicans have known about the video for weeks.
Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee looking into the video, said at a Wednesday news conference he’d seen the clip weeks before.
Asked afterward why he and others waited until this week to take action, Murphy struggled for an answer before abruptly ending the interview with CQ Roll Call, saying he should not be quoted and remarking, “This interview didn’t happen.”
Well, actually, it did happen, and members of Congress can’t talk to reporters, then retroactively pretend they didn’t.
In this case, Roll Call asked why the story, if it’s as scandalous as Republicans are now claiming, didn’t break immediately. If GOP lawmakers consider the revelations an outrage, why did some members say nothing for nearly a month?
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), before pretending the interview “didn’t happen,” said, “Um, I don’t know why. All I know is I saw it and he said he was going to post it eventually, so that’s all I know.”
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), one of Congress’ most strident opponents of reproductive rights, also said he first saw the video about a month ago, but also said nothing. “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media,” Franks argued yesterday.
It’s a curious argument. Republicans have spent the week characterizing this as a potentially criminal scandal, but when some far-right lawmakers saw the video weeks ago, they didn’t feel the need to do much of anything – they didn’t run to the GOP leadership to demand action; they didn’t call allies in conservative media; they didn’t hold a press conference to express outrage. If they genuinely saw the video as proof of illegal Planned Parenthood activities, notifying the “authorities” could have happened immediately.
But it didn’t. So what is this really all about? Consider this Politico report published overnight:
Republicans on Capitol Hill are betting the secretly filmed Planned Parenthood video — depicting an executive allegedly discussing the sale of fetal organs from terminated pregnancies — will give them cover to more aggressively push abortion issues without the political ramifications that have haunted the party in the past. […]
<snip>
Ah, there it is. Republicans don’t have proof of Planned Parenthood wrongdoing, but rather, have a desire to claim a “scalp.” When the GOP went after women’s healthcare in 2012, it backfired on the party, so Republicans hope a misleading video will offer new opportunities to try the same move again.
That’s the point of the GOP calls for investigations, hearings, and probes. That’s why Republicans are trying to use this story to raise money and advance their personal ambitions.
Those who were inclined to take the story seriously should probably adjust their perspective accordingly.
Postscript: The video released by the Center for Medical Progress doesn’t show Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal, but whether the video itself was recorded illegally is a separate matter.
Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-congressman-would-say-interview-didnt-happen
July 16, 2015
UFC Champion Ronda Rousey had some choice words for Floyd Mayweather when she beat him for a fighting award.
When Rousey won Best Fighter at Wednesday night’s ESPY awards, she said, “I wonder how Floyd [Mayweather] feels being beat by a woman for once,” ESPN reports. Mayweather, the pound-for-pound boxing champion, has has been arrested multiple times on domestic violence charges.
Rousey also bragged, “I’d like to see you pretend to not know who I am now,” after Mayweather claimed in a 2014 interview that he had no idea who she was.
Rousey also beat out Serena Williams for the Best Female Athlete ESPY later in the evening.
Ronda Rousey Slams Floyd Mayweather in ESPY Award Speech
Ronda Rousey Slams Floyd Mayweather in ESPY Award SpeechUFC Champion Ronda Rousey had some choice words for Floyd Mayweather when she beat him for a fighting award.
When Rousey won Best Fighter at Wednesday night’s ESPY awards, she said, “I wonder how Floyd [Mayweather] feels being beat by a woman for once,” ESPN reports. Mayweather, the pound-for-pound boxing champion, has has been arrested multiple times on domestic violence charges.
Rousey also bragged, “I’d like to see you pretend to not know who I am now,” after Mayweather claimed in a 2014 interview that he had no idea who she was.
Rousey also beat out Serena Williams for the Best Female Athlete ESPY later in the evening.
July 15, 2015
A federal appeals court in Denver on Tuesday ruled that an order of Roman Catholic nuns must comply with President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring employers to provide insurance that covers contraception.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Baltimore-based order of nuns who operate nursing homes, saying their obligations under the law did not substantially burden their religious freedom.
The nuns had sued the Obama administration arguing that a compromise in the 2010 Affordable Health Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, still made them complicit in authorizing birth control for their employees even if they did not have to pay for it.
The federal healthcare law requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.
Religious groups opposed to abortion and sometimes contraception can opt-out of paying for the services, which then forces insurers or a third party to pick up the tab.
The nuns argued that signing paperwork authorizing the third party to cover contraception was a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The appeals panel disagreed, saying the compromise made handing off coverage “as easy as obtaining a parade permit."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-usa-colorado-contraception-idUSKCN0PP0FZ20150715?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
Federal appeals court rules against nuns in contraception coverage case
Federal appeals court rules against nuns in contraception coverage caseA federal appeals court in Denver on Tuesday ruled that an order of Roman Catholic nuns must comply with President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring employers to provide insurance that covers contraception.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Baltimore-based order of nuns who operate nursing homes, saying their obligations under the law did not substantially burden their religious freedom.
The nuns had sued the Obama administration arguing that a compromise in the 2010 Affordable Health Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, still made them complicit in authorizing birth control for their employees even if they did not have to pay for it.
The federal healthcare law requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.
Religious groups opposed to abortion and sometimes contraception can opt-out of paying for the services, which then forces insurers or a third party to pick up the tab.
The nuns argued that signing paperwork authorizing the third party to cover contraception was a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The appeals panel disagreed, saying the compromise made handing off coverage “as easy as obtaining a parade permit."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-usa-colorado-contraception-idUSKCN0PP0FZ20150715?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
July 10, 2015
Several House Democrats are threatening to oppose a bipartisan medical cures bill over concerns that Republicans are using it to further restrict abortion funding.
Both Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) vowed to oppose the bill on Friday if it includes the abortion rider. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) also threatened to oppose the bill.
“Why in the world would you put in an abortion rider on a thing for medical research?” Slaughter asked during floor debate. Her office did not return requests for comment about whether she would oppose the bill in full.
At least five other Democrats are also planning to oppose the bill, a spokesman for Speier's office said Thursday afternoon, adding, "I think there’s some momentum."
The bill, called the 21st Century Cures Act, has 230 co-sponsors, including a majority of House Democrats. The 350-page bill is designed to speed up the development of new drugs and treatments, with help from an $8.75 billion funding boost to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
But concerns are now surfacing over abortion-related provisions in the bill. The Democrats claimed the language had been secretly added to the bill, reminiscent of the Senate GOP’s inclusion of abortion-related language to a human trafficking bill earlier this year.
“I cannot stand by while these provisions are slipped into an otherwise excellent bill through underhanded maneuvers that run contrary to our democratic process,” Speier said, claiming the language was added “in the dead of night.”
During the Senate battle over abortion this spring, Democratic concerns derailed the bill’s passage for weeks.
“When similar provisions were slipping into a human trafficking bill, we said no. Why aren’t we saying no today?” Speier asked in a fiery speech from the floor.
"The majority is yet again using this bill as a vehicle for anti-choice Hyde Amendment," DeLauro said, urging a "no" vote on the bill.
The legislation, co-authored by Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 51-0 vote. It also unanimously passed the House Rules Committee on Wednesday with no mention of abortion language during the hours-long hearing.
The new language would extend the Hyde amendment, which blocks public funds being used for abortions — a restriction that Democrats argue is already in place under federal budget rules.
It was added to the bill when leadership added "the annual riders from the Labor-HHS bill" after the legislation advanced out of committee, said DeGette, the bill's Democratic co-author.
"I think its unnecessary and I think it distracts our attention," DeGette said about the abortion language. She then urged all members to vote yes for the overall bill.
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said while she supports the overall bill, she is “disappointed” that the abortion language was added. She said she plans to support an amendment offered by her Democratic colleagues to remove that language.
The bill's top Democratic supporters said they still believed they would have broad support from their party in Friday's vote.
“There are always going to be some people that are against, but I think it’ll be very few,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said, adding that the party “is going to work hard to get rid of the riders.”
Read more:http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/247416-several-dems-threaten-to-oppose-medical-cures-bill-over-abortion-language
___________________
I hate it when they do that shit.
House Dems threaten to oppose medical cures bill over abortion rider
House Dems threaten to oppose medical cures bill over abortion riderSeveral House Democrats are threatening to oppose a bipartisan medical cures bill over concerns that Republicans are using it to further restrict abortion funding.
Both Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) vowed to oppose the bill on Friday if it includes the abortion rider. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) also threatened to oppose the bill.
“Why in the world would you put in an abortion rider on a thing for medical research?” Slaughter asked during floor debate. Her office did not return requests for comment about whether she would oppose the bill in full.
At least five other Democrats are also planning to oppose the bill, a spokesman for Speier's office said Thursday afternoon, adding, "I think there’s some momentum."
The bill, called the 21st Century Cures Act, has 230 co-sponsors, including a majority of House Democrats. The 350-page bill is designed to speed up the development of new drugs and treatments, with help from an $8.75 billion funding boost to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
But concerns are now surfacing over abortion-related provisions in the bill. The Democrats claimed the language had been secretly added to the bill, reminiscent of the Senate GOP’s inclusion of abortion-related language to a human trafficking bill earlier this year.
“I cannot stand by while these provisions are slipped into an otherwise excellent bill through underhanded maneuvers that run contrary to our democratic process,” Speier said, claiming the language was added “in the dead of night.”
During the Senate battle over abortion this spring, Democratic concerns derailed the bill’s passage for weeks.
“When similar provisions were slipping into a human trafficking bill, we said no. Why aren’t we saying no today?” Speier asked in a fiery speech from the floor.
"The majority is yet again using this bill as a vehicle for anti-choice Hyde Amendment," DeLauro said, urging a "no" vote on the bill.
The legislation, co-authored by Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 51-0 vote. It also unanimously passed the House Rules Committee on Wednesday with no mention of abortion language during the hours-long hearing.
The new language would extend the Hyde amendment, which blocks public funds being used for abortions — a restriction that Democrats argue is already in place under federal budget rules.
It was added to the bill when leadership added "the annual riders from the Labor-HHS bill" after the legislation advanced out of committee, said DeGette, the bill's Democratic co-author.
"I think its unnecessary and I think it distracts our attention," DeGette said about the abortion language. She then urged all members to vote yes for the overall bill.
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said while she supports the overall bill, she is “disappointed” that the abortion language was added. She said she plans to support an amendment offered by her Democratic colleagues to remove that language.
The bill's top Democratic supporters said they still believed they would have broad support from their party in Friday's vote.
“There are always going to be some people that are against, but I think it’ll be very few,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said, adding that the party “is going to work hard to get rid of the riders.”
Read more:http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/247416-several-dems-threaten-to-oppose-medical-cures-bill-over-abortion-language
___________________
I hate it when they do that shit.
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/
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AMNumber of posts: 5,866
