Friday Reads
Posted: May 20, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights, Economy, Foreign Affairs, Israel, morning reads, Reproductive Rights, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: Federal Debt, Filibuster, Goodwin Liu, israeli Palestianian morass, President Obama, State Department Speech, Texas sonogram law 46 CommentsIt is definitely the silly season! You can tell that an election count down is nearing in the District. A judge of Chinese descent was successfully blocked by Republican Senators and Ben NelSOB for sounding like a communist. Did we go back to the McCarthy era and I missed it?
Six years ago, Ninth Circuit judicial nominee Goodwin Liu published an op-ed in which he made the utterly banal point that a conservative interest group used the terms “free enterprise,”‘ “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” as “code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.” In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, however, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) somehow managed to interpret this op-ed as proof that Liu wants to turn America into “Communist-run China”:
GRASSLEY: Does [Liu] think we’re the communist-run China? That the government runs everything? That it’s a better place when they put online every week a coal-fired plant to pollute the air, put more carbon dioxide into the air then we do in the United States, and where children are dying because food is poisoned, and consumers aren’t protected, and where every miner in the China coal mines is in jeopardy of losing their lives? That’s how out of place this guy is when he talks about “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” being something somehow bad, but if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place.
Republicans appear to be pulling out all the bells and dogwhistles for this one. This is the first time a judicial nominee has been blocked since 2005.
Liu also drew Republican ire over his criticism of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in testimony when the conservative judge was nominated to the court.
“His outrageous attack on Judge Alito convinced me that Goodwin Liu is an ideologue,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said before Thursday’s vote. “His statement showed he has nothing but disdain for those who disagree with him. Goodwin Liu should run for elected office, not serve as a judge.”
Imagine that! Some one with an opinion! Does that mean a person isn’t capable of honest judgement?
Obama gave a speech yesterday at the State Department indicating support for the Arab Spring and suggesting that a dialogue between Israel and Palestine is possible but must meet certain ground rules. One of these is controversial because it breaks with a speech given by President Bush that more or less accepted the reality of some Israel colonies in the occupied territories. That is that the negotiations be based on the 1967 agreement which would reverse Israeli colonization of territories that occurred after the agreement. Israel has already rejected the idea.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Obama also made it clear that Hamas’ failure to recognize the state of Israel was a huge problem.
Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
The President said that US commitment to Israel is unshakeable but the status quo is unsustainable. The Israeli/Palestinian situation continues to the most vexing problem on the planet. If you’re going to venture an opinion, be aware that the topic creates such tension that its discussion is actually banned on many blogs. I’d prefer not to relive past experience myself but I thought it needed mentioning.
Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute says “We’re not broke nor will we be”. It seems more and more economists are fighting back on the weird suggestion that a country with a huge economy, rich people, and tons of assets can’t invest in its own future because it’s broke. Here’s the link to the briefing paper. This is good explanation of why we are not Greece and will not go down the Greek Road. There are tons of nifty graphs so go check it out!!
Despite the rhetoric, it is clear that “we” as a nation are not broke. While the recession has led to job loss and shrinking incomes in recent years, the economy has produced substantial gains in average incomes and wealth over the last three decades, and economists agree that we can expect comparable growth over the next three decades as well. Between 1980 and 2010, income per capita grew 66.4%, and wealth per capita grew 73.2%. Over the next 30 years, per capita income is projected to grow by a comparable 60.6%. In other words, “we” are much richer as a nation than we used to be and can expect those riches to rise substantially in the future. So who is the we in the “we’re broke” mantra? The recession has certainly been a rough patch of road for many families, but the output produced by corporations in the private sector has already recovered to pre-recession levels, and these firms’ profi ts were 21.7% higher overall, driven largely by the 60% jump in pre-tax profi ts enjoyed by fi rms in the fi nancial sector.
Here’s why we can actually afford to invest in America and Americans!
Despite the fact that average incomes have increased substantially over the past 30 years, the federal government is currently running a projected defi cit of 9.8% of gross domestic product. As noted above, many use the deficit to support the “we’re broke” theme. But how can that be the case? How can the country have much more income, collectively, onwhich to draw, yet all levels of government are “broke” and unable to aff ord anything?
The answer is that revenue has declined substantially due to the recession and due to the Bush-era tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Offi ce projects federal revenues will be just 14.8% of GDP in the fi scal year ending September 30, 2011—by far the lowest revenue intake relative to GDP since 1951. In contrast, federal revenues totaled over 18% of GDP at the end of the last recovery (fi scal year 2007) and were roughly 20% at the end of the 1990s recovery. A largepart of the revenue shortfall can be attributed to legislated changes in taxes under George W. Bush, which lowered the revenue share by 2.1%.
As the economy recovers, the defi cit will fall as unemployment declines, as incomes and associated revenues increase, and as recession-sensitive expenditures automatically decline (expenditures for food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other programs rise with the economic distress in a recession and fade as unemployment declines). This expected decrease in the defi cit is refl ected in CBO projections showing the defi cit declining from 9.8% of GDP in 2011 to just 3.0% in fi scal year 2015. Some of this decline can be attributed to the assumed expiration of the Bush tax cuts extended in 2010 and the inheritance tax change in 2010 (plus the R&D, ethanol, and fi rst-year depreciation tax breaks), which would total 2.9 percentage points of GDP that year. Even so, that still leaves the defi cit falling by 4.0 percentage points due to the recovery.
Texas officially joins the war on women by mandating sonograms before terminations. This is just more harassment and costs to women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination. Ridiculous!
Texas Governor Rick Perry Thursday signed into law a measure requiring women seeking an abortion in the state to first get a sonogram.
Texas is one of several U.S. states with strong Republican legislative majorities proposing new restrictions on abortion this year. The Republican governor had designated the bill as an emergency legislative priority, putting it on a fast track.
Under the law, women will have to wait 24 hours after the sonogram before having an abortion, though the waiting time is two hours for those who live more than 100 miles from an abortion provider.
So, like I said, it’s the silly season which means there’s plenty of news out there that’s bound to upset people! What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Does Michelle Bachmann Have the Guts to Debate a High School Girl?
Posted: May 13, 2011 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, U.S. Politics | Tags: Amy Myers, Michelle Bachmann, Republican crazies 19 CommentsHigh School sophomore Amy Myers of Cherry Valley, NJ has challenged Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) to a debate.
Myers says Bachmann’s frequent errors, misstatements and distortions aren’t just bad for civic discourse — they’re bad for women.
“Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole,” Myers writes.
Here’s Myers’ letter to the notorious Representative from Minnesota:
Dear Representative Bachmann,
My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.
Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.
Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:
I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.
Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.
Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers
BACHMANN’S LATEST LIE:
What Matters is the Abortion, not the Child Sexual Abuse
Posted: May 7, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights, child sexual abuse, children, fetus fetishists, religious extremists, Reproductive Rights, Women's Rights | Tags: Aerosmith, Steven Tyler 21 CommentsDon’t read this post unless you’re prepared to be repulsed, sickened, nauseated, enraged. I just thought it would be fair to warn you. A few days ago, the National Review ran this op-ed by Kevin Burke, in which he tries to make a case for “post-abortion trauma” using Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler as an example. Here’s how the article begins:
Long before he won accolades as an American Idol judge, Steven Tyler was a bona-fide rock star, with all that that implied. In 1975, when he was in his late 20s and the lead singer for the band Aerosmith, Tyler persuaded the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Julia Holcomb, to make him her legal guardian so that they could live together in Boston.
When Miss Holcomb and Tyler conceived a child, his longtime friend Ray Tabano convinced Tyler that abortion was the only solution. In the Aerosmith “autobiography,” Walk This Way (in which recollections by all the band members, and their friends and lovers, were assembled by the author Stephen Davis), Tabano says: “So they had the abortion, and it really messed Steven up because it was a boy. He . . . saw the whole thing and it [messed] him up big time.”
Okay, there is so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin. Burke tells us that a 27-year-old Tyler basically bought a 14-year-old girl from her parents, moved her into his home and impregnated her. Then he got her an abortion, and he is traumatized.
But Burke doesn’t even register the horror that he has described–a child given up by her parents so a wealthy rock star can exploit her. His only focus is on the fact that Tyler was upset by the abortion.
He provides a quote from Aerosmith’s “autobiography ” Walk This Way, in which Tyler describes the experience (Julia was called “Diana” in the book).
“It was a big crisis. It’s a major thing when you’re growing something with a woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our lives. . . . You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?”
See that ellipsis? Burke left something out of the quote, so I’ll provide the entire passage:
Burke left out the part where “they” (doctors?) told Tyler Julia was too young to have a baby! Burke also left out the part about how Tyler was providing a little girl with drugs and how he dumped her right after the abortion. Burke expresses zero concern for how traumatic all this must have been for Julia Holcomb. And BTW, what kind of abortion is that? It sounds like a very late term one to me. I suppose a rock star would be able to get one of those for his underage girlfriend….and then he got involved with a Playboy playmate and sent Julia back to her parents.
And check this out (h/t Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon)
Um…did it bother Burke that Tyler made Julia dress up in little girl outfits? I guess not. Anyway he goes tries to argue that Tyler suffers from “post-abortion trauma.”
For many post-abortive men and women, the anxiety associated with an abortion can surface at unexpected times, triggered by events such as a subsequent pregnancy, the death of a pet or a loved one, or some other person, place, or thing that in some way connects with the traumatic memory.
Because Burke runs something called Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries, which puts on workshops and retreats for “post-abortive” people.
Rachel’s Vineyard weekends for healing after abortion are offered throughout the year in locations across the United States and Canada, with additional sites around the world. We also offer a 15-week support group model for Rachel’s Vineyard. Rachel’s Vineyard is a ministry of Priests for Life
The program is an opportunity to examine your abortion experience, identify the ways that the loss has impacted you in the past and present, and helps to acknowledge any unresolved feelings that many individuals struggle with after abortion. Because of the emotional numbness and secrecy that often surrounds an abortion experience, conflicting emotions both during and after the event may remain unresolved. These buried feelings can surface later and may be symptoms of post abortion trauma.
Married couples, mothers, fathers, grandparents and siblings of aborted children, as well as persons who have been involved in the abortion industry have come to Rachel’s Vineyard in search of peace and inner healing. The weekend is a lot of work but yields a fruitful harvest for all who are willing to labor there.
Good grief! Well at least they accept women. I wonder if they have to stand up and “confess” in front of the group? But come on–grandparents and siblings of aborted “children?” What about cousins, aunts and uncles?
I told you this was going to be a sickening post. I could make a remark about about maybe Burke isn’t so concerned about child sexual abuse because he’s a priest… Ooops! Did I say that?
HR 3 means Women Die
Posted: May 4, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights | Tags: HR#3 11 CommentsA wide sweeping bill aimed straight at women’s health was debated in Congress today. HR3 goes way beyond the Hyde Amendment. All Republicans and 16 Democratic Representatives voted for the bill which basically says that women should die rather than terminate a dangerous pregnancy.
There are other issues here too as pointed out by The Hill. Once again, Republicans have been shown to violate their basic principles of supposedly being pro-business and anti-big government when it comes to inflicting their personal religious views on woman.
After decades of escalading group health insurance premiums and demands for Congressional action for relief, a little over one year ago many of our small businesses finally were given the opportunity for federal health insurance tax credits.
Now H.R. 3, up for a vote this week, threatens to erase this benefit for small businesses because it would eliminate the health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for any existing or new plans that provide coverage for abortion.
The problems H.R. 3 would cause for small businesses that are trying to do the right thing and offer health insurance have nothing to do with the ideological intent of this bill. Even if a small business owner agrees with the intent, the cost of passage of H.R. 3 in terms of time, money and continuity of policy is very significant.
TPM has more information on the details of this bill that has passed the house but will probably not make it to the senate floor. This is yet another example of Republicans clearly wasting time on bills that do nothing to deal with the pending debt ceiling issue and the jobs crisis. This is obviously a political ploy to appease religionist radicals in the country to get them to turn out for the next election.
It’s not likely the bill will move along much further past the House. Democrats control the Senate and the Obama administration has promised to veto the bill if it ever land on the president’s desk.
Proponents say the bill will simply make permanent existing bans on using federal money to pay for abortions. But critics say the bill goes much further than existing law, and say it reopens the abortion fight that’s been in detente for years thanks to the Hyde Amendment.
The bill would end tax credits for businesses that provide health insurance benefits if the insurance covers abortions, which Democrats say is both a new encroachment on the rights of private citizens to spend their own money and a huge tax increase.
Earlier on Wednesday, the bill’s author, anti-abortion icon Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), told reporters even he understands there’s a tough road ahead for his legislation, though he said that Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) will be working to get a vote for the legislation in the Senate.
Even if the bill doesn’t make it to a Senate vote, it may have already succeeded in doing its job politically. By making a sweeping abortion restriction the third bill on the House agenda, Republicans were able to dissuade social conservatives worried that the tea party-powered 112th Congress might put their issues on the back burner.
More details on the Bill from Ms. Magazine.
The bill goes beyond the Hyde Amendment, which has banned federally-funded abortions for the past 30 years except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the woman’s life. Furthermore, H.R.3 denies tax credits to small businesses that purchase a health insurance policy that includes abortions–currently 87 percent of private insurance plans do–and enacts strict requirements for private insurance companies that cover abortions.
Additionally, the bill eliminates privately funded insurance coverage for abortion in the health-care exchanges (marketplaces for insurance purchasers) established by the Affordable Care Act. NARAL Pro-Choice America estimates that 13.5 million women who receive health coverage through Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs will permanently lose access to abortion coverage if the bill is made law.
If all that wasn’t bad enough, the bill effectively turns IRS agents into “abortion cops.” The law forbids women from using tax benefits (such as credits or deductions) to pay for abortions. Therefore, to ensure that taxpayer money does not go towards the procedure, IRS agents would have to ask questions like, “Were you raped? Was it incest?”
Finally, the bill includes a provision that prevents women in the military from having abortions on federal property, such as military bases. So if a woman in the Army gets pregnant while stationed in Afghanistan, she would have to find a doctor locally to perform the procedure or return to the U.S.
This is disgusting. Women’s lives and health are once again collateral damage for craven politics.













Recent Comments