Daily Kos

Reposted from Steven D by annrose

Imagine Mitt Romney as President, it's not that hard to do.  Now imagine these series of terror attacks were happening on his watch:

A series of break-ins and arson incidents have workers and patients at women’s health clinics in Atlanta on “heightened alert,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The FBI and ATF are conducting a joint investigation of what appears to be a sharp escalation in a campaign to intimidate and threaten providers of women’s health care, including abortion services. [...]

It was after the physicians’ group had made their resistance to the law known that the first break-in occurred. On Sunday, March 4, the North Atlanta Women’s Specialists’ offices were burglarized by a thief who stole two laptop computers that contained employees’ names and personal information. A second break-in took place on Saturday, March 17, when a suspect broke into the offices of The Georgia Obstetrical & Gynecological Society, again stealing laptop computers with staff members’ personal information.

What came next? Two Arson attacks in rapid succession.

COBB COUNTY, Ga. -

The latest blaze occurred Tuesday morning at the Alpha Group OB GYN Abortion Services and Counseling on Powers Ferry Road in Marietta.

Office manager Angela Buckner said an employee saw smoke and notified other workers. At the time, there were reportedly about 17 employees along with patients in the building. Buckner said one doctor began fighting the flames using fire extinguishers.

"He saved our lives, I mean, every one of us," said Buckner. [...]

The fire in Cobb County followed an attempted arson at another women's clinic in Gwinnett County.

The FBI says it happened at a facility on Pleasant Hill Road. They said that the front window of that clinic was broken followed by a fire alarm. A K-9 later indicated an incendiary substance was present, according to officials.

The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI Atlanta Civil Rights Squad are also involved in the investigation.

Georgia recently passed an anti-abortion bill that places severe restrictions on late term abortions, regardless of the health of the mother.  HB 954, would ban all abortions after 20 weeks unless the pregnancy was "medically futile" a term defined in the law as ...

"Profound and "irremediable" anomalies that would be "incompatible with sustaining life after birth."

... whatever that may mean.  I'm sure the Georgia courts will have fun interpreting what constitutes a profound and irremediable anomaly "incompatible with sustaining life after birth."  Meanwhile, it should come as no surprise that the doctors who publicly opposed the bill work at the very clinics that were targeted by these crimes.

The physicians who were victims of the burglaries and Sunday’s fire did not perform abortions but they had all visited the Statehouse this session to discuss the impact of abortion-related legislation, said Dr. David Byck, president of the Georgia Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.

“We are concerned that each of these physicians spoke with lawmakers during the session and that each then became targets of felony crimes,” Byck said in a statement.

So, so you think these acts of domestic terrorism would  would be a priority for the Romney administration or would he consider them harmless pranks?  Well, what do you think Mitt would do if he becomes our next President by hook or by crook?  Do you think the "Domestic Terrorism Task Force" would investigate these terrorist attacks against abortion providers, or do you think their main priority would be harassing, investigating and infiltrating Occupy Movements across the country?  I mean, Banks are persons too, right? And their right to be free from protests regarding their actions as "masters of the universe" certainly trumps the rights of meat puppets women and their medical care providers to offer health services.

Well, I can't really read Mitt's mind but I'm guessing he wouldn't want to offend his fundamentalist Christian supporters or make them feel "persecuted."  After all, who knows when the Supreme Court will hold that throwing Molotov cocktails at women's health clinics falls within the the free speech protections of the 1st amendment or is justified under the legal defense to criminal acts known as "Necessity."  Hyperbole?  Today, yes.  Tomorrow, in MittWorld?  Who knows?

Reposted from Daily Kos by annrose

Reposted from Kaili Joy Gray by annrose

This isn't really news (unless you're a clergyman in the Catholic Church or your name is Rick Santorum), but yet another poll, this time from Gallup, shows that pretty much everyone in America—including Catholics who are supposedly losing all their religious freedomz because of birth control—thinks birth control is totally a-okay.

This is just the latest in a series of polls showing that:

• most Americans have a favorable view of birth control;
• most Americans think all workers should have access to birth control, regardless of their employers' religious beliefs;
• most Americans, including Catholics, think employers should be required to provide health insurance that covers birth control;
• and most Americans support a federal requirement that private health insurers cover the full cost of birth control.

In other words, pretty much all Americans freakin' love birth control. They want everyone to have access to birth control. And they want insurers to pay for it. And they don't give a rat's ass what employers think of birth control—including Catholics, whose very faith is supposedly under attack.

That's bad news for Republicans, who thought that attacking the president for his birth control mandate would actually win them any support. And it's especially bad news for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who this week coordinated a massive lawsuit by more than 40 Catholic-affiliated institutions, like the University of Notre Dame, to try to stop the administration from implementing the new mandate.

This, of course, follows on the heels of months of whining and crying by the bishops about how the president is waging war on the Catholic Church and religion and the First Amendment and God himself. If women have affordable access to birth control, the bishops claim, the entire Catholic Church will be so driven to distraction that it will no longer be able to "live out the imperatives of our faith to serve, teach, heal, feed, and care for others." And if that sounds like the bishops have tried to take health care hostage by threatening to suspend all of its good, Jesus-y works, that's because that's exactly what the bishops have tried to do. Enforce our belief that women should not use birth control, since we can't make them listen to us, or we'll stop feeding the poor, healing the sick and caring for others.

But this poll shows what all the others before it have shown: no one cares what the bishops say about birth control. Everyone likes it, everyone wants it, and no one other than the same crooked organization that covers up for pedophiles has a problem with it.

Reposted from Joan McCarter by annrose All the whacko states are doing it, defunding Planned Parenthood. Now add Pennsylvania to the list.

Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) will introduce legislation on Wednesday that would defund Planned Parenthood, adding his state to a list of four others that have pending bills to strip public funds from the family planning provider.

Metcalfe's bill, the Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act, would put health care providers that offer abortion services at the bottom of the priority list for state funding. The anti-abortion activist group Susan B. Anthony List and the Alliance Defense Fund co-wrote the bill, which closely resembles the one Arizona lawmakers used to defund Planned Parenthood earlier this year.

The Susan B. Anthony List appears to be picking up where ALEC left off, becoming a right-wing, social issues legislation mill. Metcalfe's bill is like the effort in Ohio that would put Planned Parenthood at the end of the list of health care providers to receive funding, rather than cutting it off entirely. That's what Texas did, losing Medicaid funding and ending up in federal court over it. Arizona followed Texas in an outright ban. Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma are also considering defunding bills now, giving us a preview of what could happen with Mitt Romney in the White House, warns one advocate.

"What’s happening in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kansas is a preview of what would happen in all 50 states if Mitt Romney is elected," said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Planned Parenthood won't let politics interfere with the health care that one in five women in America relies on at some point in her life. Planned Parenthood doors are open, and they’ll be open tomorrow."

In just this handful of states, as many as 350,000 people could be cut off entirely from health care, Planned Parenthood estimates. That's because in the rural and medically underserved areas of these states, Planned Parenthood is the sole provider for women's health services. Which of course doesn't matter to Republicans. Take Romney's word for it: "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

Reposted from Kaili Joy Gray by Clytemnestra We knew this was coming. After all, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been threatening that if the bishops don't get their way—and prayer, "the ultimate source of our strength," fails them—they'll take their whining to court. And that's exactly what they've done. Via Politico:

More than 40 Catholic institutions on Monday filed lawsuits challenging the Obama administration’s policy that requires employers to provide insurance coverage of contraceptives, a coordinated strategy backed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The groups, including the Archdiocese of Washington, the University of Notre Dame and other Catholic schools and charities, filed 12 lawsuits in courts throughout the country. They join about 12 lawsuits already filed against the policy. [...]

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration’s policy, is not a party to the suits but said it is backing them.

The lawsuit, filed Monday by the University of Notre Dame, repeats several of the false allegations made repeatedly by the bishops and Republicans, such as:

Under current federal law described below (the "U.S. Government Mandate"), Notre Dame must provide, or facilitate the provision of, abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraceptive services to its employees in violation of the centuries' old teachings of the Catholic Church.

That's something the Church and its various affiliated organizations have continued to claim, even though it's blatantly false. The new mandate does not require the Church, Notre Dame, or any of the other Catholic hospitals or universities to do ... well, anything. It requires the insurance companies who provide insurance to the employees and students of those institutions to "provide, or facilitate the provision of" such basic preventive health care as contraception.

(Continue reading below the fold)

Reposted from Daily Kos by annrose

Praise great Gaia for the awesome perks of being a woman!

Sure, we women may have once been second-class citizens, but ever since the radical feminists destroyed the patriarchal structure of our society and totally ended sexism forever, usurping all the levers of power in the public and private sector, it's been a non-stop gravy train of government handouts and free rides, as we enjoy our superior status in society by lording it over the oppressed menfolk. Am I right?

No, of course not, but that's the mindset of the Republican Party, as it continues to wage war against women's rights and privileges. Damn broads have too many rights nowadays, and those excessive rights infringe on the more-important-rights of Catholic bishops who think women's health care restricts their religious liberty; the rights of men who abuse their wives and girlfriends because sometimes that's the only way to keep them in line; and the rights of Republican taxpayers to ensure that their money is not spent on programs and organizations of which they don't approve. At its core, this mindset assumes that women are stupid, greedy, conniving, dishonest and irresponsible, and that's why we need the self-appointed experts in the Church and Congress to both protect women from themselves and protect defenseless men and the government from a nefarious women's agenda.

At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick perfectly sums up this mindset:

But what’s so striking about so many of the GOP initiatives that implicate women this year is that they betray not a deep suspicion of “politicians who say we should be dependent on government programs,” but rather a deep suspicion of other women. Underpinning virtually every changed rule and policy, every effort to defund and repeal, lies an argument about the ways in which women are trying to defraud the government and simply can’t be trusted.

Women can't be trusted. That's why Republicans attempted to redefine rape last year, to eliminate the "rape loophole" women were supposedly exploiting in order to obtain abortions. It's why we've seen bill after bill in state legislatures around the country to "inform" women about their pregnancies so they'll make the "right" decisions about their reproduction. It's why we've seen open hostility to equal pay laws because any wage gap can be explained away with the "truth" that women just don't care about making money and seek out lower-paying jobs. It's why we've seen attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, because despite all evidence to the contrary, it exists solely as an abortion mill for slutty immoral women to kill their babies for the sake of convenience. After all, only immoral sluts need health care.

And it's why this week we saw House Republicans fight for their version of the Violence Against Women Act, excluding protections for lesbians, Native American women and immigrants because those women don't really experience domestic violence and don't really need protection. In fact, according to Republicans and the organizations that lobbied for the watered-down VAWA, those women who claim to have been abused are just lying in order to reap the numerous benefits that come with being a victim of domestic violence. As Anna North at Buzzfeed reported:

Bill Ronan says he was "one of the fortunate ones." He says his wife falsely accused him of domestic violence in order to get American citizenship, but that a sympathetic police officer stood up for him. That's why, he says, he was never charged — but he claims that countless men in America have lost their homes and lives to fraudulent allegations of domestic violence by immigrant partners.

"We have welcomed many scam artists into our country," he says.

Ronan is now a poster child for the strange new turn taken by the debate over the Violence Against Women Act. To him and his allies, immigrant women making false allegations are the true abusers, and men like him — accused of domestic abuse — are the true victims. [...]

Ronan is part of a group called the National Coalition for Men, which calls itself "the oldest men’s group committed to ending sex discrimination" and which has endorsed the Republican-sponsored House version of VAWA Wednesday.

Right Wing Watch also reported on the coalition of so-called men's rights activists and anti-feminists who supported the Republican version of VAWA, including convicted felon Timothy Johnson, who told police at the time of his arrest, "I admit it. I hit her, that's the only way I can get her attention."

In other words, sometimes bitches just need hitting, and if you pass laws saying otherwise, you're infringing on men's right to hit them. And any woman who says otherwise should just shut the hell up. The menfolk don't need to hear what women think about the laws that affect them. Like Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, who this week held a hearing about the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which would ban all abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia, and refused to allow D.C. congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to speak. Like Rep. Darrell Issa, who held a men-only congressional hearing a few months ago about birth control, because certainly women have nothing to contribute to a conversation about their own health care.

The message from Republicans is clear: women have too much freedom, and they're abusing that freedom by taking advantage of government assistance, making false allegations against innocent men, and of course, inflicting their radical agenda on defenseless taxpayers and religious institutions. That's why Republicans must act to right that wrong by restricting those freedoms to ensure that men—and only men—can make decisions about women's lives and livelihood. Because, as Lithwick notes, women cannot be trusted to make those decisions for themselves. And now, as national media has focused on the War on Women and Republicans are desperate to claim that they are in fact the party of and for women (all overwhelming evidence to the contrary), Republicans are wrapping up their anti-woman agenda in the co-opted language of feminism, claiming that all of the draconian measures they seek to implement are actually for women's good. Nothing could be further from the truth, though, no matter what kind of language Republicans use. Their War on Women is simply a continuation of a battle as old as time to control women by denying their rights, restricting their sexuality, and demanding that they shut the hell up when they dare to speak out against it.  

As Lithwick concludes:

You can argue all you want about whether it’s better for women to have access to health care, child care, maternity leave, equal pay, and preventive medicine. But when you base those arguments on rickety old Elizabethan stereotypes about deceitful women and their lying ways, it becomes harder to call yourself the party of women.

---

This week’s good, bad and ugly below the fold.

Reposted from Kaili Joy Gray by annrose Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ:

The Catholic Church's U.S. hierarchy warned Tuesday that without quick action by Congress, it will sue the Obama administration for mandating that insurance plans provide birth control to women without a co-pay.

"[F]orcing individual and institutional stakeholders to sponsor and subsidize an otherwise widely available product over their religious and moral objections serves no legitimate, let alone compelling, government interest," lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in a letter to federal regulators.

Talk about sore losers. The bishops had their chance to weigh in on the Obama administration's new policy to require health insurers to cover birth control without co-pays. The Obama administration generously carved out a boatload of exemptions for them to address their "concerns." The bishops even got their puppets in Congress to introduce bills on their behalf—which the American people overwhelmingly opposed. They even got themselves invited to the boys-only congressional hearing on birth control—because who understands birth control better than a bunch of supposedly celibate men?

At the end of the day, though, they lost. They made their case that basic health care for women violates their "religious liberty" and makes Jesus sad—and they lost. They launched a charm offensive to "set the record straight," arguing that the Catholic Church totally loves women's health care and has been "the most effective private provider of such care anywhere around," and people better stop saying mean stuff about them or they won't be able "to live out the imperatives of our faith to serve, teach, heal, feed, and care for others." And no one bought it.

You'd think, after such a resounding "fuck off" from the American public, the bishops might leave women's health care alone and go back to focusing on those important things they claim to care about. But when the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), led by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and the president of the bishops' conference, met to decide whether to accept defeat or keep whining, they of course decided to keep whining, even as they concluded:

Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.

Well, apparently their prayers didn't work, so they've decided to scrap the God plan in favor of litigation:

"We believe that this mandate is unjust and unlawful – it is bad health policy, and because it entails an element of government coercion against conscience, it creates a religious freedom problem," wrote Anthony Picarello, USCCB associate general secretary and general counsel, and Michael Moses, associate general counsel. "These moral and legal problems are compounded by an extremely narrow exemption that intrusively and unlawfully carves up the religious community into those that are deemed 'religious enough' for an exemption, and those that are not."

That would be the same Anthony Picarello who introduced the world to the laughable Taco Bell theory—that the boatload of exemptions to this mandate do not cover someone who opens a Taco Bell and thinks his employees should not be allowed to use birth control because of Jesus 'n stuff. Yeah, he's a real legal eagle, that one.

Given that one federal court has already ruled against the bishops' absurd argument that their definition of religious liberty trumps all else, any future lawsuits are most likely destined for the same fate. But since stopping women from having access to affordable health care has now become the Most Importantest Issue Evah!, little things—like being completely wrong—probably won't stop the bishops from continuing to stamp their feet like petulant two-year-olds who don't want to take a nap.

Because that is totally what Jesus would do.

Reposted from RH Reality Check by annrose

The vicious attacks on women’s health to which we’ve grown so accustomed on the national and state stages are trickling down to the local level, as municipal and county governments get in on the action. But recent successes in responding to attacks on women's health programs underscore that we need to be vigilant in our own backyards.

Written by Jenny Dodson for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Reposted from Kaili Joy Gray by Clytemnestra Isn't it amazing that despite all their concerns about jobs, jobs, jobs—and ending Medicare and giving more tax cuts to the rich and protecting light bulb freedom—House Republicans can still find time in their busy schedule of accomplishing nothing to focus on abortion, abortion, abortion? Via The Hill:

The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a 2013 State Department funding bill that includes controversial anti-abortion language. [...]

On abortion, the bill cuts off all funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and reinstates the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule. The rules says that all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. funding must refrain from performing or promoting abortion services.

The global gag rule, first implemented by Ronald Reagan, rescinded by Bill Clinton, reinstated by George W. Bush, and rescinded again by Barack Obama, has been a disaster for women around the world. Although the policy supposedly prohibits funding or organizations that "promote abortion," what it really does is cuts off funding for women's reproductive health and family planning of any kind. So, in the years when the rule is in effect, unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal mortality rates increase—because when you cut off women's access to safe and affordable health care and information, it makes things worse for women and their children:

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, offered an amendment to strip out the anti-abortion restrictions, but it was defeated 23-27. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) voted for the amendment.

“These provisions will leave millions of women without access to critical and lifesaving services,” Lowey argued. She said the global gag rule has been shown to have led to a doubling in the number of abortions in Africa when it was imposed by the George W. Bush administration. Lowey asserted that the provisions would result in 1.4 million more abortions once women were barred from receiving family planning services.

But as long as "pro-life" Republicans can stop people from even talking about abortion, they don't really care if their policies lead to more dead women and dead children. Because that's how being "pro-life" works.

Reposted from Avenging Angel by annrose

Just in case you had forgotten, the campaign web sites of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney want to remind you it's Mother's Day.  The Obama site includes a card you can sign for the First Lady and a video of the President paying tribute to his mom and grandmother.  Meanwhile, Team Romney is offering "Moms Drive the Economy" bumper stickers, Ann Romney's USA Today op-ed on "Three Seasons of Motherhood" and a gauzy video of Mitt's five sons praising their mother Ann.

But while Barack Obama proclaims "my mother was the single, most important influence in my life" on his web site, Lenore Romney doesn't appear to be featured at all.  Which is too bad.  After all, as the New York Times explained in February, "in style, temperament and outlook, Mitt Romney is very much his mother's son."  Especially, it turns out, when it comes to Mitt's evolution - or more accurately, devolution - on the issue of abortion rights.

Reposted from VetGrl by annrose

Tim Carney, you can kiss my silly, distraction-inducing, feminist ass.

From the video posted in Olympia's diary, MSNBC Tamron Hall vs Right Wing Tim Carney Follow Up, transcribed to the best of my rage-filled ability:

Well it is my opinion that Obama, but more so a lot of his liberal supporters are trying to distract every week with something new ... the bullying thing is an example, the silly idea that there is a war on woman--women, talking about gay marriage.  All of these I think are attempts to distract.

To talk about a war on women is not to try to say let's have a debate about the appropriate government role in these issues. It is simply to try to distract and to launch ad hominem attacks at people.  And so a talk about policy or a talk about the economy is a trickier thing.

Fuck you, Mr. Carney. Tamron Hall smacked your stupid ass right proper on "silly," but I've got some things to add.

First, the War on Women is NOT a Democratic Talking Point.  It's a real war that your kind has waged against our bodies, our rights, and our dignity.

Second, our fight is a people-powered fight that the Democratic party followed.  You and your party fan the flames of this war every time you deny this truth.  WE fought back with our most powerful weapon--our voice.  Since Komen's Planned Parenthood decision, I learned what's happening here on the Great Orange Satan while the party lagged behind by a few days every step of the way.  Ordinary women, women who we call LaFeminista, legalchic, Liberal Granny, and countless others; we are the leaders and foot soldiers in your war.

Third, you don't get to have "a debate about the appropriate government role in these matters."  You know why?  Because they're none of your goddamned business.  Whether I or any woman wants a baby, an abortion, or a night of mind-blowing, sheet-soaking sex is not a subject of debate, nor is there any appropriate government role.

Fourth, we are not a distraction.  Pretend there's a law that requires a doctor to shove a cathater tube into your dick.  Pretend that a major cable news outlet takes seriously the idea that maybe, just maybe, the country would be better off if men didn't vote.  Pretend that your boss has to approve the reason for every condom you buy.  Pretend a municipality repealed a law protecting you from violence at the hands of your partner.  Would you call that a distraction?  Yea, I thought not.

Fifth, in case you missed it, pucker up your silly, uninformed, mysogynist, homophobic, bullying lips and KISS MY ASS.

"All I ask of our brethren is that they will take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on the ground which God intended us to occupy"  - Sarah Moore Grimke

(Rant is over; rage continues to build.)

Reposted from Meteor Blades by annrose For a long time, but more intensely the past two years, the states have been in a contest to see who can pass the most restrictive anti-abortion laws.

Denying insurance coverage, setting gestational age limits, mandating ultrasounds, defunding Planned Parenthood and other public providers, requiring hospital privileges, demanding providers' credentials, lengthening waiting periods, restricting medical school's curriculums and even laying out the size of clinic closets are all fodder for the forced-birthers to dick around with if it means they can make it more difficult for women to obtain a medical procedure that the Supreme Court says is their inherent right.

The ultimate goal, as the Republican-controlled Mississippi legislature and Republican governor made clear with passage of a bill that will shut down the last abortion clinic in the state, is to make exercising that right impossible.

In Kansas, doctors and nurses are now encouraged by law to lie about abortion by saying it increases breast-cancer risk.

And now the Republican-dominated Kansas House and Senate have added another provision to its already prodigious collection of regulations seeking to give the state sovereignty over women's wombs. The Republican governor is certain to sign the monstrous bill in which this provision is contained. As the Kansas City Star warns in an editorial:

That bill [...] extends the state’s “conscience” provision for medical personnel to include the right to refuse to refer a woman to an abortion provider, or prescribe or administer a prescription or treatment that terminates a pregnancy.

Taken to its extreme, the legislation could empower doctors and medical staffers to refuse to provide birth control or even chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient.

Not only will this allow physicians to refuse to provide treatment on "moral" grounds, they will not be required to explain why they aren't providing the treatment, and they can also refuse to refer patients to other physicians would provide the treatment.

An outrage? That hardly covers it. This is downright evil.

Whatever happened to: "First, do no harm"?