House Republicans Want to Change the Definition of Rape

Posted: January 28, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: legislation, Reproductive Rights, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , , , , | 25 Comments

OK, this is too much. If you need any more convincing that Republicans are just plain evil, check out this story at Mother Jones on the GOP’s new plan to limit funds for abortion.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith’s spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old’s parents wouldn’t be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn’t be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

Unbelievable!! Don’t these people have any human decency? Are they so brainwashed by their fundamentalist religions that they are incapable of empathizing with a young girl who has been impregnated by her own father and could die if forced to give birth?

And get this, there is no definition of “forcible rape” in the bill. So who decides what “forcible” means? Many states do not have an official definition of “forcible rape,” so it could be that no woman in those states could qualify.

It sounds like overt violence has to be involved in order for the House GOPers to certify that the woman or little girl can get funding for an abortion. Under this policy, according to Mother Jones, women who have been date raped, women who have been drugged and raped, and women who are taken advantage of because they are drunk or have cognitive disabilities would not meet the requirements.

If this bill passed, what would it do to public perceptions about rape. Before the women’s movement rapes were hardly ever successfully prosecuted. It was assumed that women “asked for it”–they were wearing the wrong clothing, or they acted in provocative ways. If the police thought the women didn’t fight hard enough, her case might not even get to court. For years a battle has been waged to change public perceptions around rape. But now we may be taken back to square one.

It’s really hard to believe that so many of these right wing Republicans claim to follow Jesus’ teachings. This bill is the product of heartless, cruel people with sick minds.

CNN’s Extremist Shill

Posted: January 24, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , | 22 Comments

Where's the blood?

For some reason, the media has decided to respond to right wing outrage for perceived ‘liberal’ biases by allowing access to any one with a half truth to tell or some radical right viewpoint.  It’s one thing to air the views of a politician holding a public office–like Michelle Bachmann–whose grasp of reality, history, and science is demonstrably lacking, it’s completely another thing to hire and continually promote some one with extremist views and agendas.  This is especially true when it is for no other reason than to air a given view point in some perceived act of fairness when no equally extreme voice on the left exists any where on the network.  In fact, no equally extreme leftist voice exists in any media outlet.

Again, I say perceived fairness  because there is never a real left wing equivalent out there equal to the likes of Red State’s Erick Erickson.  If so, they’d have also hired at least some equivalent of Noam Chomsky or some one who is honestly liberal and honestly left wing.  The continued employment of  Erick Erickson goes beyond even the lowest standards set by the likes of the Buchanans.   He’s about one hyperbole short of Pat Robertson; but just barely.  The deal is that this guy is no Bob Novak or George Will conservative.  He’s an extremist and radical because he constantly advocates violence and uses revolutionary rhetoric.

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

Size or physical location?   WTF kind of demented language is that? This man just made a call for women to be dehumanized into incubators, to have their liberty and privacy removed, and to have their personal religious viewpoints usurped by his own.  How can CNN justify maintaining the likes of Erickson without–minimally–giving air time to a Marxist which would be a leftie equivalent.  Bet yet, they need to fire him.

Nearly every one who has cracked a legitimate history book and read documents written by the founders knows that the basic ‘state’s rights’ vs. federal government’s rights was about slave ownership. The constitution was crafted carefully so that slave owning states could find enough leeway in the ‘state’s right provision’ to allow slavery.  That was  the purpose of the entire deal in a nutshell.  The 13th amendment was required to close that particular loophole.  The descendant’s of those folks that scream state’s rights now and limited constitutional authority support similar devious schemes that prevent key individuals from fully exercising their constitutional rights.  They used it for Jim Crow Laws until specific laws and SCOTUS findings closed the loophole.  They’ve extended its use to women’s bodies and medical treatment and relationship status for GLBT.  Erickson’s terminology of judicial usurpation is justification for involuntary servitude and seeks to deprive certain classes of people of their liberty.  That is radical.  How can CNN provide a safe harbor for a radical?

Any one who invokes the term ‘state’s right’s’ invariably is evoking the use of state laws to abridge  some one else’s liberties and freedoms.  Putting Erickson and his arguments on TV is like handing the public airways over to slave owners and folks that rationalized Jim Crow Laws.  He’s absolutely no different.  His outrageous positions are far out of the mainstream .  My guess is that CNN would never hire Noam Chomsky or socialist Brian Patrick Moore a seat for one segment, let alone an ongoing salaried position.  But Erickson not only uses radical language, he uses revolutionary language.  This makes him an extremist.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tuesday Reads

Posted: January 18, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads, Social Security, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 52 Comments

Good Morning!!!

It’s the end of a long weekend that celebrates the life of an American with vision, purpose, and fortitude in the pursuit of principle.   The news at the moment is as glum as the weather.  I will try to end the morning reads on higher and lighter ground.  I promise.

With that, I start with Glenn Greenwald at Salon and ‘The U.S. role in Gulet Mohamed’s detention’.  Thought we were done torturing people and denying them due process?  Dream on!  This is the story of a young American held in extraordinary conditions in the extraordinary country of Kuwait that basically still owes us their oil fields and freedom from the occupation by Saddam Hussein.  Gulet’s been held in some horrible situations that beg the question of who is responsible?  Is it some Sultan or President Obama?  Yes, this is change you can believe in if you’re Dick Cheney. Gulet and his family were led to believe that he would be released and sent home.  Home is the U.S. because he is a US citizen.  He deserves a lawyer and due process.  Now, he’s on the no-fly list and you know what that means.

As an American citizen, Gulet has the absolute right to return to and re-enter his country.  But by secretly placing him on the no-fly list while he was halfway around the world — and providing no information about why he was so placed — the U.S. Government is denying him his right to return.  Worse, they know that this action is not only preventing him from returning, but is keeping the 19-year-old in a state of absolute legal limbo, where’s he imprisoned by a country that admits it has no cause for holding him and does not want to hold him, yet which cannot release him.  The U.S. government has the obligation to assist its citizens when they end up detained without cause; here, they are doing the opposite:  they’re deliberately ensuring it continues.

If there’s any evidence that he has has done anything wrong, he should be charged, indicted, and brought back to the U.S. for trial.  What the Obama administration is doing instead is accomplishing what they could not do if he were in the U.S.:  holding him without a shred of due process, interrogating him without a lawyer present, and — if his credible claims are to believed — using beatings and torture to get the information it wants (or false information:  Gulet told me he was very tempted to falsely confess to make the beatings stop).  This abuse of the no-fly list is a common tactic used by the U.S. Government to circumvent all legal and constitutional constraints when it comes to its own citizens; this case just happens to be extra viscerally repellent.

Let’s see what our Secretary of State can do about this.

Not too long ago, our intrepid frontpager BostonBoomer took us down memory lane in pursuit of the vast criminal background that fills the resume of our head Inquisitor, Darrell Issa.  Now, it appears The New Yorker does the same. Just remember, your read it here first.  Skip the first two pages, those read like some blah blah blah  American Fairy Tale.  When you hit the rest, look for the pattern of insurance scams, crime, and a fortune that appears to be based in car theft.  The justice system is likely the force behind young Issa going into the military.   The unraveling of the Fairy Tale begins in 1998–like so many do–with a political tall tale that reflects the spin and not the facts.  Some one fact checked Issa’s campaign material.

In May of 1998, Lance Williams, of the San Francisco Examiner, reported that Issa had not always received the “highest possible” ratings in the Army. In fact, at one point he “received unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings and was transferred to a supply depot.” Williams also discovered that Issa didn’t provide security for Nixon at the 1971 World Series, because Nixon didn’t attend any of the games.

A member of Issa’s Army unit, Jay Bergey, told Williams that his most vivid recollection of the young Issa was that in December, 1971, Issa stole his car, a yellow Dodge Charger. “I confronted Issa,” Bergey said in 1998. “I got in his face and threatened to kill him, and magically my car reappeared the next day, abandoned on the turnpike.”

Bergey died of lung cancer in 2002, but his widow, Joyce, recently said to me that she remembered her husband telling the story of the stolen Dodge Charger. She laughed when she heard that Issa is now a prominent member of Congress. “Well, he probably figured he was borrowing it from a friend,” she said. “But now we’re discussing politicians, so we all know how honest they are. When I meet a good one, I’ll let you know.”

Issa was transferred to a supply depot in the military.  That explains a lot.  For example, how does a guy coming out of the army find the funds for a really expensive sports car?   Only in America can this sort’ve  fractured fairy tale occur and play out in success.  Issa is bad news.   This is the second time I’ve linked to BB’s expose and it will not be the last.  We can muckrake with the best of them here and we intend to keep it up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Monday Reads

Posted: January 17, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Corporate Crime, Gulf Oil Spill, morning reads, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments

Good Morning!! Today is the official Martin Luther King birthday holiday. I hope everyone has the day off. I think I have a few interesting reads for you this morning.

I’ll start with this in depth report by Naomi Klein on scientific studies of the impact of the BP oil gusher on the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. While the government reassures Americans that everything down in the gulf is safe safe safe, scientists are finding plenty of evidence that that’s not the case. According to

Ian MacDonald, a celebrated oceanographer at Florida State University. “The gulf is not all better now. We don’t know what we’ve done to it.”

MacDonald is arguably the scientist most responsible for pressuring the government to dramatically increase its estimates of how much oil was coming out of BP’s well. He points to the massive quantity of toxins that gushed into these waters in a span of three months (by current estimates, at least 4.1 million barrels of oil and 1.8 million gallons of dispersants). It takes time for the ocean to break down that amount of poison, and before that could happen, those toxins came into direct contact with all kinds of life-forms. Most of the larger animals—adult fish, dolphins, whales—appear to have survived the encounter relatively unharmed. But there is mounting evidence that many smaller creatures—bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton, multiple species of larvae, as well as larger bottom dwellers—were not so lucky. These organisms form the base of the ocean’s food chain, providing sustenance for the larger animals, and some grow up to be the commercial fishing stocks of tomorrow. One thing is certain: if there is trouble at the base, it won’t stay there for long.

There is evidence of permanent changes in organisms likely caused by the oil and dispersants, and those changes may be passed on to future generations as mutations. In addition, the damage to creatures at the lower end of the food chain is so extensive that it may lead to collapses and even extinctions in larger species. While it will be difficult to directly pin all the damage on BP, there really isn’t much doubt that the oil and dispersants are at the root of the problems. It’s very bad, folks.

Ms Magazine has gotten involved in a protest against the New Yorker.

Last week, Anne Hays put her latest copy of the New Yorker back in the mail, with a note explaining that the august publication owed her a refund for putting out the second issue in a row featuring almost no pieces by women. In a December issue of the New Yorker content by women made up only three pages of the magazine’s 150; one January issue contained only two items by women, a poem and a brief “Shouts and Murmers” item.

“I am baffled, outraged, saddened, and a bit depressed that, though some would claim our country’s sexism problem ended in the late ’60s, the most prominent and respected literary magazine in the country can’t find space in its pages for women’s voices in the year 2011,” wrote Hays in the letter, promising to send back every issue containing fewer than five female bylines. “You tend to publish 13 to 15 writers in each issue; five women shouldn’t be that hard,” she concluded.

Her letter, posted to Facebook and widely circulated last week, has prompted Ms. magazine to start an online petition reminding the magazine’s editors that there are in fact lots of women in the world and that many of them write feature articles, reviews and poems, and that the premier literary/current events magazine in the country should reflect that fact.

According to the article, the New Yorker is not alone in ignoring women writers. Read it and weep.

Read the rest of this entry »

Secretary & the City: Hillary in Abu Dhabi

Posted: January 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Hillary Clinton: Her Campaign for All of Us, Middle East, Women's Rights | Tags: , , , , , | 23 Comments

A brief Hillary update… H/T stacyx at secretaryclinton.wordpress.com for the photos of Hillary at the ladies’ talk show Kalam Nawaem.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton poses with the presenters of the Arabic ladies' talk show "Kalam Nawaem"

From the Gray Lady’s reporting on Hillary’s arrival in Abu Dhabi on Sunday for a several-day visit to the Persian Gulf region with multiple stops:

Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that this trip, which includes stops in Dubai, Oman and Qatar, will be devoted at least in part to making amends for these embarrassing disclosures. She spent much of her last trip to Central Asia apologizing for the leaks to aggrieved world leaders.

“I think I will be answering concerns about WikiLeaks until the end of my life, not just the end of my tenure as secretary of state,” she said, joking that she has asked her staff to make jackets like those worn by touring rock bands, with a picture of the globe and the title “The Apology Tour.”

Saudi talk show host Hiba Jamal (L) takes a picture of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) with Lebanese presenter Rania Barghut after recording a special episode. (KARIM SAHIB/AFP/Getty Images)

From Greta Van Susteran:

Per ABC VIP pool, clinton speaking at a town hall meeting in Abu Dhabi.

“Look we have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman congress member, congresswoman giffords was just shot in our country. We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence.“

Hillary takes the high road. It’s how she rolls. She understands we’re all in this together.

Reuters has also picked up on Hillary’s remarks on the AZ shooter and has more details:

Clinton, speaking on Monday in the United Arab Emirates, made the comment in response to a question about the September 11, 2001 attacks, carried out by al Qaeda.

A student at a town hall-style meeting asked why U.S. opinion often blames the entire Arab world for 9/11. Clinton said this was due to misperceptions and the media impact of political violence.

More from further down in the Reuters report:

Clinton, who said she hopes her current trip to the Gulf will help to strengthen U.S. and Arab mutual understanding, said both societies should work to offset the sometimes overly loud voices on the political fringes.

“The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that’s not who we are, that’s not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that that doesn’t represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions,” she said.

This echoes Hillary’s condemnation of the Qu’ran-burning BS back in September, in which she said the religious bigotry driving that behavior:

“doesn’t, in any way, represent America or Americans or American Government or American religious or political leadership. And we are, as you’ve seen in the last few days, speaking out.” –HRC, today at the CFR

There is something so wonderfully assertive and definitive about the way Hillary says it.

Here’s another Hillary headline that grabbed my attention straight away. Read the rest of this entry »

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →