The War on Women

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:07 am

The Trump administration is finalizing plans to strip funding from Planned Parenthood

A rule released Friday will make it harder for abortion providers to offer birth control.

Anna North
Feb 22, 2019, 2:40pm EST

Protesters outside of the Colorado Springs Westside Health Center February 11, 2017, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Marc Piscotty/Getty Images
The Trump administration on Friday released a final version of a rule barring clinics that provide or refer patients for abortions from getting federal family planning funds.

The rule, first proposed last year, is known by some reproductive rights advocates as the “domestic gag rule.” It bars Planned Parenthood and any other provider that performs abortions or offers abortion referrals from receiving funding under Title X, which pays for birth control and other family planning services for low-income patients.

Anti-abortion groups have long backed such a rule, arguing that organizations that provide abortion should not receive federal support. But Planned Parenthood and other groups say that the rule will leave low-income patients without access to health care they need. Planned Parenthood says it sees about 41 percent of patients who get family planning services under Title X.

“The administration’s action will do irreparable harm to the public’s health and damage the network of highly qualified family planning providers across the country,” said Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, in a statement to media on Friday. Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the rule “unconscionable and unethical.”

The rule is one of a number of moves by the Trump administration that critics say will restrict access to contraception and abortion. It also comes as the president ramps up his rhetoric on abortion, which he may see as a winning issue for him and the Republican Party in 2020.

The rule bars Title X recipients from performing abortions. It will likely take effect in about 60 days.

The new rule, posted on Friday on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services, requires that providers that receive Title X funds be both physically and financially separate from any entity that provides or refers for abortions. That means that because some Planned Parenthood health centers perform abortions, all Planned Parenthood centers are barred from getting Title X funding.

In addition to Planned Parenthood affiliates, Title X funds also go to Health Department centers, hospital-run clinics, and other facilities, all of which will be barred from performing abortions under the new rule.

Providers were already banned from using Title X money to pay for abortions, but until now, Title X funding recipients could still perform abortions if they covered the costs with other funds.

The rule was first proposed in May 2018, but did not go into effect at that time. The version published on Friday is technically a draft of the final rule, and could still be changed before its official publication in the Federal Register, which will likely take place in the coming days. The rule will take effect 60 days after official publication.

A similar rule was proposed under President Reagan but was only in effect for a month, in 1992. That rule prohibited Title X recipients from even discussing abortion, as Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear note at the New York Times, but the new rule does not go that far.

Abortion opponents applauded the rule. “We thank President Trump for taking decisive action to disentangle taxpayers from the big abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement.

“Americans United for Life is pleased that HHS has taken steps to stop Title X funds from subsidizing abortion,” Catherine Glenn Foster, president of the group, said in a statement.

But Planned Parenthood and other groups say it will leave many low-income patients without access to contraceptive care.

“The gag rule is unconscionable and unethical,” Wen said in a statement to media on Friday. “This rule compromises the oath that I took to serve patients and help them with making the best decision for their own health.”

In many places, Planned Parenthood is the only option for low-income patients; a 2015 analysis by the Guttmacher Institute found 103 counties where Planned Parenthood is the only provider of publicly funded contraceptives. If Planned Parenthood were locked out of Title X funds, other health centers might struggle to pick up the slack. According to another Guttmacher analysis, other providers would have to increase their caseloads by an average of 70 percent to serve all the patients currently seen by Planned Parenthood.

“If fully implemented, the proposed changes to Title X would shrink the network of participating providers and have major repercussions for low-income women across the country that rely on them for their family planning care,” wrote a team from the Kaiser Family Foundation in a November 2018 analysis of the proposed rule.

Once the final rule is officially published, it can be challenged in court. “If the official published rule is as damaging as today’s draft final version, [the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association] will be prepared to challenge the Trump administration to protect the family planning safety net for the millions of people who rely on it,” Coleman said in her statement.

The Title X rule is just one of several moves by the Trump administration that limit access to contraception or abortion. In 2017, for instance, the administration released interim rules allowing almost any employer to get an exemption from the Obama-era requirement that employers offer contraceptive coverage as part of employee health insurance. Those rules were finalized in 2018, one day after the midterm elections.

Trump has stepped up his anti-abortion rhetoric in recent weeks, after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s confusing comments on a bill in his state led to a larger controversy around abortions late in pregnancy. The president’s appointment of conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has boosted his popularity among conservatives, according to Vivian Wang of the New York Times. And with a potential challenge to Roe v. Wade on the horizon, Trump may see opposition to abortion — and to Planned Parenthood — as a winning strategy going into 2020.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rule-trump
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:35 am

This is the year 2019 and women still are not guaranteed equal rights in this country

One of these states could ratify the Equal Rights Amendment

The fight over the Equal Rights Amendment is shifting to states like Arizona and Georgia after the latest ratification effort failed last week, leaving supporters one state short of the threshold needed to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution.

Entering this year, supporters had targeted Virginia — a once reliably red state that has shifted blue in recent years — as the next state most likely to back the amendment, known as the “ERA.” A bill to ratify the measure gained traction in Virginia’s House of Delegates last month. But it languished in committee and wasn’t brought to a full vote — as supporters had hoped — before the state’s 2019 legislative session ended last Friday.

At least two-thirds of the state legislatures in the U.S. — or 38 — must ratify the measure for it to become an official constitutional amendment. Last year Illinois became the 37th state to ratify the amendment since Congress passed it in 1972. Over the years, as states missed multiple deadlines to reach the two-thirds threshold, the debate over the ERA has turned into a broader culture war clash over gender equality and issues like abortion.

“It will happen, the question is which state will be the state to push it over the historic finish line,” said Kate Kelly, an attorney at the advocacy group Equality Now.

Supporters are now focused on other traditionally right-leaning or conservative states that are considering taking up the issue, including Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Utah.

But the amendment remains unpopular with conservative critics who have long argued that it would impinge on existing federal and state laws.

“The ERA does not put women in the Constitution. It puts sex in the Constitution, and it doesn’t define what sex is,” said Anne Schlafly Cori, the chairman of the Eagle Forum, a group opposed to the amendment. “It would upend countless state and federal laws that currently benefit women,” said Cori, the daughter of Phyllis Schlafly, a leading ERA opponent during the 1970s. If the ERA was ratified, she worries “there would be tax dollars paying for abortions,” an idea she opposes.

Image
President Jimmy Carter signs an extension of Equal Rights Amendment at the White House on October 20, 1978. National Archives/White House Photo/Handout via REUTERS

Supporters of the ERA have dismissed the abortion argument.

“This abortion scare tactic is often used by anti-ERA activists whose real goal is actually to strip away existing constitutional rights women already have to access necessary reproductive health care,” Kelly said.

Aside from Virginia, 12 other states have not ratified the amendment: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. Here’s a look at the states on that list where there could be legislative movement on the issue in the near future.

Arizona

In 2018, Democratic state Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley sponsored a resolution to ratify the ERA in Arizona, but it failed after Republicans refused to allow debate on the measure. Since then, Democrats have picked up four seats in the Republican-controlled state House, whittling down the GOP advantage to a 31-29 split for Republicans. The state senate now has a 15-15 split, creating an opening for Democrats to try and push for ERA ratification again.

An ERA resolution has been introduced this year. All 29 Democrats and one Republican in the state House have signed on, and, Powers Hannley told the NewsHour there are hints of more Republican support if the bill goes to a floor vote.

But the bill will face opposition from some powerful GOP lawmakers. Republican state Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, the chairman of the senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to block the bill.

Georgia

Last month, Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman and Democratic state Sen. Nan Orrock introduced a bipartisan resolution to ratify the ERA in Georgia. Seven Republicans have co-sponsored the legislation, including six men. The Georgia General Assembly now has 15 women in the 56-seat Senate and 57 female lawmakers in the 180-seat House, a record for the state. Supporters say the growing number of female lawmakers in Georgia has increased the odds of ratification.

North Carolina

Democratic state Sen. Floyd McKissick sponsored an ERA measure last year and in previous legislative sessions going back to 2015, but all of them failed to pass. McKissick is trying again this year with another ERA bill expected to be introduced next month. But gaining co-sponsors in a state that had a Republican supermajority until recently will be challenging.

“There is an improved atmosphere, and there is more bipartisanship on some issues. The question is, can that extend over to the ERA, and I think that’s going to be an uphill battle,” McKissick said in an interview. He added: “In my mind it’s unconscionable that it’s even being debated in 2019. It seems absolutely obvious.”

Movement in Congress?

While the fight plays out in the states, some Republicans and Democrats in Congress are backing legislation that would pave the way for ERA ratification whenever the 38th state signs on. Congress would likely have to act because it originally gave states seven years to reach the 38-state threshold after passing the ERA in 1972, and later extended the deadline to 1982, but has not taken action on the issue since then. Critics contend that ratification by a 38th state would be moot since Congress never extended the 1982 deadline.

Rep.Jackie Speier, D-Calif., introduced a resolution last month that would eliminate the deadline and count the states that have ratified the ERA since the early 1980s toward the magic number of 38.

The bipartisan bill has 149 co-sponsors, according to Speier’s office.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, introduced a similar resolution in the Senate last month. In a joint op-ed in The Washington Post, Cardin and Murkowski wrote that “we come from different ends of the political spectrum, but we agree that this needs to change.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced a different bill in the House that would restart the ratification process for the ERA from scratch, and add the word “women” to the amendment.

“Rep. Speier and I are working together to cover all our bases. I am dedicated to getting the ERA in the Constitution – I am open to all paths to doing so,” Maloney said in a statement to the NewsHour.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/o ... -amendment
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:51 pm

Saudi Arabia women's rights activists to face trial, prosecutors say

March 2, 2019, 6:20 AM CST
By Linda Givetash and Associated Press

Women's rights activists in Saudi Arabia who have been detained for nearly a year will be put on trial, the country's public prosecutor said late Friday, as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman faces growing scrutiny over his leadership.

The women are accused of coordinating activities that "aim to undermine the Kingdom's security, stability, and national unity," the prosecutor said in a statement released by the Saudi press agency.

The statement did not name those accused in the case or list specific charges but referred to an earlier release last year that marked the arrests.

The prosecutor stated the women "enjoy all rights preserved by the laws in the Kingdom."

An investigation conducted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International last year claimed that Saudi authorities tortured and sexually assaulted the detainees.

“The Saudi prosecution is bringing charges against the women’s rights activists instead of releasing them unconditionally,” said the group's deputy Middle East director Michael Page. “The Saudi authorities have done nothing to investigate serious allegations of torture, and now, it’s the women’s rights activists, not any torturers, who face criminal charges and trials.”

The women, ranging in age from their 20s to 70s, were arrested in May 2018. State-linked media at the time reported they were accused of offering financial support to "overseas enemies." One activist told NBC News following their arrests that the accusations were a "smear campaign" to condemn the women.

Some of the women were released within days of their arrest, but at least 10 women remain in custody including Loujain al-Hathloul, whose sister appealed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in January to raise the issue with officials in Riyadh.

The arrests came at the same time as a major shift in the conservative kingdom's public approach to women.

Bin Salman had promised to implement more moderate policies, with the headline-grabbing move to lift the ban on women driving seen as evidence of his reformist credentials.

The arrests of the activists were among the first incidents to cast a shadow over bin Salman's attempts to position himself as a proponent of a more moderate form of Islam.

He has since faced fierce criticism for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October. Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post and critic of bin Salman, was killed by a team sent from Riyadh after he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. His body has not been found.

Earlier this year, Sen. Lindsey Graham said relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia cannot progress until bin Salman is "dealt with."

President Donald Trump referred to efforts to conceal the killing as the "worst cover-up ever" after having downplayed the prince's involvement.

In November, the U.S. Treasury slapped sanctions on 17 Saudi officials in response to the killing.

Saudi involvement in Yemen's civil war has also prompted international outcry and a rebuke for the Trump administration from Congress.

Earlier this week White House adviser Jared Kushner met with bin Salman to discuss a peace plan for the region and "economic investment."

Linda Givetash is a reporter based in London. She previously worked for The Canadian Press in Vancouver and Nation Media in Uganda.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saud ... ay-n978511
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:26 am

Neal Katyal

Just learned Trump DOJ has now abandoned its defense of the statute criminalizing, of all things, female genital mutilation. This is what happens when you torch your institutional responsibilities to defend statutes, and gut the traditional standard DOJ has applied in past admin

That is correct. The solicitor general has informed Rep. Nadler in a letter today that it will not appeal and will not defend the statute banning female genital mutilation. My god. What statute is next?
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/ ... 7354731520


Dershowitz joins genital mutilation case defense team
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 102378354/


Image
Image

Texas Bill Would Make Abortion Punishable by the Death Penalty
By Ed Kilgore
Image
If abortion is really “murder,” why not string up women who “kill their own babies?” Photo: George Kraychyk/Hulu
Generally speaking, I don’t pay much attention to crazy bills sponsored by random wingnut state legislators. But because it secured an extensive hearing in an important state’s legislature, I will make an exception for the Texas bill introduced by Republican State Representative Tony Tinderholt that would make abortion a criminal act of homicide, as explained by Andrea Gonzáles-Ramirez:

The bill alters Texas’ penal code, eliminating the exception for abortions from the definition of criminal homicide. Therefore, everyone involved in providing abortion care — from physicians and nurses to patients seeking this type of care — would face murder charges. HB896 makes no exceptions for rape, incest, or cases where the women’s life is in danger. Tinderholt also proposed the legislation would be enforced “regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision,” which would go directly against Roe v. Wade.
This last part is probably the least radical aspect of Tinderholt’s bill (which, in a nod to the meme comparing abortion to slavery, he dubbed the Abolition of Abortion Act) insofar as legislation challenging or defying Roe is being enacted in Republican-controlled legislatures all over the country (including Texas). This bill is best understood as representing the logical end of the strong belief in Right-to-Life circles that a fetus, and even an embryo, are indistinguishable metaphysically, and should be indistinguishable legally, from adult human beings — including very specifically the pregnant women involved. Indeed, as supporters of the bill have pointed out, it reflects the Texas GOP’s party platform, notes the Dallas Morning News:


[T]he state party platform adopted last year calls on lawmakers to enact legislation “stopping the murder of unborn children and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings that would deprive an unborn child of the right to life.”
There’s talk of sanctioning the Republican committee chairman who held the hearing on Tinderholt’s bill if he keeps it from appearing on the House floor (the same chairman co-sponsored an earlier version of the bill, so his determination on this score could waiver).

Get unlimited access to Intelligencer and everything else New York. Learn More »
The Abolition of Abortion Act has split the anti-abortion lobby in Texas for the very good reason that many of RTL-ers fear it would scandalize voters (and mobilize women) at a time when every effort is being made to claim that it’s pro-choice folk who are the extremists on the subject. You may recall the trouble Donald Trump got into in 2016 when he naively said that women should face some form of punishment for violating abortion bans once they are enacted. That’s a tactical no-no, traditionally.

But Tinderholt’s allies don’t really care, as the Washington Post observes:

“Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional,” said Jim Baxa, president of West Texans for Life. “And the 10th Amendment puts it to you all to stand up to that tyranny and do what’s right.”

Baxa said the bill was his organization’s “number one priority” because it was the first to treat abortion fully as a capital felony, giving those who claim to “believe abortion is murder” a chance to “prove that.”
Some might say being compelled to carry an unwanted and/or dangerous pregnancy to term is punishment enough for women who have had the right to an abortion in most circumstances over the last 46 years.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... ution.html
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:24 am

Would this really do anything when a woman could just wait until after the child is born, because the penalties for child murder/infanticide aren't being stiffened at the same time. The women who simply toss the baby immediately after birth do not serve much time at all, in fact. I think what's really going on is the well known game of pumping a sensitive issue for attention and votes instead of actually intending to accomplish anything fundamental that would encourage women not to terminate a pregnancy.
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1834
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:28 am

This is especially true in Texas, where a sweeping anti-abortion law in 2013 shuttered more than half the clinics in the state, leaving wide swaths of West and South Texas without a single provider. Texas now has 10 cities of more than 50,000 without an abortion clinic within 100 miles, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. That’s more than any other state.
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-mos ... on-clinic/


In 2008, 851 clinics provided abortions across the US. By 2014, the number had dropped to 788, a 7% decrease. And the stats get even slimmer when you look at state-by-state totals. Five states are down to a single abortion clinic:

Image
A TRAP law was at the heart of a major case decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The law in question required abortion clinics in Texas to meet strict standards, from the exact size of the examination rooms to admission privileges doctors had to secure for admitting patients to local hospitals.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-man ... ate-2017-2



States pushing near-bans on abortion, targeting Roe v. Wade
David Crary, Ap National Writer7:27 pm CDT, Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Children of abortion opponents, sing outside Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic, while construction of a hotel across the street continues, in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The singing is an effort to get a pro-life message to clinic patients, since the clinic is the only medical facility that performs abortions in the state. The state legislature recently passed a law that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, meaning as early as six weeks. Photo: Rogelio V. Solis, AP / Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Photo: Rogelio V. Solis, AP
Image 1 of 12
Children of abortion opponents, sing outside Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic, while construction of a hotel across the street continues, in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The singing is ... more
Emboldened by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in numerous states are pushing near-total bans on the procedure in a deliberate frontal attack on Roe v. Wade.

Mississippi and Kentucky have passed laws that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which means as early as six weeks, when many women don't even know they're pregnant. Georgia could join them if Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs a measure that has been sent to him.


And a bill in Ohio won final approval Wednesday in the Republican-controlled legislature; it now heads to GOP Gov. Mike DeWine, who said he will sign it. The final votes followed a spirited committee hearing where abortion rights activists evoked an era of back alleys and coat-hanger abortions.

Similar bills have been filed in at least seven other states with anti-abortion GOP majorities in their legislatures.

Alabama may go further, with legislation introduced last week to criminalize abortion at any stage unless the mother's health is in jeopardy.

The chief sponsor of the Alabama bill, Rep. Terri Collins, acknowledged that the measure — like the heartbeat bills — is intended as a direct challenge to Roe, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

"To me this is an issue the court simply got wrong years ago," said Collins, who hopes President Donald Trump's appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court lead to a reconsideration of Roe.

Staci Fox, Atlanta-based CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said these bans are "blatantly unconstitutional and lawmakers know it — they just don't care." The goal, she said, is to "challenge access to safe, legal abortion nationally."

Activists and legal experts on both sides of the debate agree that getting a Supreme Court decision on such a defining case is unlikely any time soon.

The bans may face difficulties just reaching the high court, given that Roe established a clear right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Kentucky's heartbeat law has been blocked for now by a federal judge; abortion-rights lawyers are seeking a similar injunction in Mississippi before the law there takes effect July 1.

"The lower courts are going to find these laws unconstitutional because the Supreme Court requires that outcome," said Hillary Schneller, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

However, some federal appeals courts around the country, such as the 5th Circuit, which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, are viewed as having grown more conservative with the addition of Trump appointees.

If even one circuit breaks with Roe v. Wade and upholds a heartbeat ban, that could be enough for the Supreme Court to take up the issue, said Justin Dyer, a political science professor at the University of Missouri.

Alternatively, the high court could agree to hear any of several less sweeping anti-abortion measures. Some would tighten restrictions on clinics; others seek to ban certain categories of abortions.

What might happen at the Supreme Court is far from clear. Legal experts are unsure what effect the Trump appointees might have, or where Chief Justice John Roberts stands in regard to Roe.

Schneller said she is skeptical the reconfigured court will overturn or weaken Roe, as abortion foes are hoping: "Over 45 years, the court has had different compositions, and we've always gotten the same answer."

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, warned that it is impossible to predict what the court will do but said Kavanaugh's appointment "gives pro-lifers hope that legislation which offers more comprehensive protection to the unborn will receive a sympathetic hearing."

Some anti-abortion groups have declined to endorse the heartbeat bills, signaling doubts about their prospects. Texas Right to Life has instead endorsed bills that would curtail late-term abortions and ban abortions based on a fetus' race, gender or disability.

If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Roe v. Wade, states would presumably be left to decide for themselves whether abortion would be legal.

The renewed challenges come as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 1.6 million in 1990. The latest 50-state tally was 926,000 in 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The heartbeat bills in particular have alarmed many women.

After Kentucky's governor signed the heartbeat bill, and before it was blocked, "we could feel the fear," said Marcie Crim of the Kentucky Health Justice Network, which runs a fund supporting Kentuckians who opt to get abortions.

"We had so many phone calls from people trying to save up the money for their procedure," Crim said. "They were thinking they were safe and could go get this done, and all of a sudden it was snatched away from them."

In Georgia, where Kemp is expected to sign the heartbeat bill soon, more than 50 actors, including Alyssa Milano, Alec Baldwin and Amy Schumer, have threatened a campaign to pull Hollywood productions out of Georgia — a hub for TV and movie projects — if the ban is enacted.

Other states where heartbeat bills have been filed — and in some cases advanced — include Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas ... 755133.php
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:46 am

http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/texa ... irman-says

[....]
State Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), who serves as the chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, issued a statement Wednesday evening on House Bill 896.

"My commitment to advancing the pro-life cause is stronger than ever and that's why I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896..." Leach said. "Trusted pro-life legislators and advocates agree with that this bill moves our state and the pro-life cause in the wrong direction and it will not be advanced from the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence."

HB 896, authored by state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington), defines life as beginning at fertilization of the egg and criminalizes abortion regardless of who or how the procedure is performed or how the fetus was conceived,

"My bill simply accomplishes one goal," Tinderholt said in a Facebook post Wednesday evening. "It brings equal treatment for unborn human beings under the law."

He also states that the Texas Penal Code already defines an individual as “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child from fertilization until birth," but that Texas law as it stands now provides two exceptions to homicide: a mother or a medical professional performing an abortion.

"The 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee due process of law to take an individual’s life, and as previously mentioned, an individual includes unborn babies in Texas statute," Tinderholt said. "Some think we should exempt mothers, but that would inherently treat unborn children differently than other people who are murdered."

The bill had a committee hearing that went into the early morning hours Tuesday, with over 500 people registering on the bill and 320 of those testifying, according to Tinderholt.

Tinderholt filed a similar bill in 2017, but it also failed to leave committee.
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1834
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:42 am

John Fugelsang on Texas abortion bill: ‘Republicans are so pro-life, they will f—-ing kill you’ -

In the wake of Texas lawmakers advancing a bill that would criminalize abortion as a serious felony, comedian and political commentator John Fugelsang spoke out on what he sees is the hypocrisy of the “pro-life” movement — a movement that won’t hesitate to potentially expose women to capital punishment.

On his Sirius XM show Tell Me Everything this Thursday, Fugelsang said the news was “funny for so many reasons.”

“Number one, they’re essentially saying, ‘We are so pro-life, we will f—ing kill you,'” he quipped.

“‘And we are so against big government, we will let the state interfere between a woman and her doctor,'” Fugelsang continued, adding that the state could use that interference to possibly impose the death penalty for murder.

“‘That’s how true we are to our ethics of pro-life and small government,'” Fugelsand said, continuing his faux Republican quote.

“But really, these are Christians, and you hate when I bring it up, but I’m gonna say it again — Jesus wasn’t against abortion,” he said. “I’m not saying he was for it, I’m saying he never brought it up.”

According to Fugelsang, the Christian right is prioritizing something “Jesus never talked about over everything Jesus did talk about.”

“That’s the genius of the GOP,” he declared.

“They’ll get followers of Jesus to vote against everything he discussed by talking about something he never discussed. Why is something Christ never talked about more important to you than everything he did talk about? Because if you go by what he talked about, you don’t really get to support Trump.”
http://deadstate.org/john-fugelsang-on- ... -kill-you/




Xeni Jardin


Ever notice how these guys bully women out of op-Ed gigs. Teaching gigs. Congress. They mob us out if we step out of line with our big mouths, because they need all women to know our ability to engage as full human beings is only at their pleasure.

Ilhan Omar is being publicly tortured to teach all of you a lesson

Whatever ragged edges, shortcomings, dirty undies, or mistakes you got they’ll use against you. But this isn’t about the substance of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s behavior or actions & everybody participating in this lynching knows it

May Ilhan Omar and her children have the best security our nation can provide.

Yes, and the most abominable sin we women make in their eyes, especially a black woman, the mistake punishable by death is simply breathing for the sake of one’s own air. Speaking for the sake of one’s own truth. Don’t you forget who’s boss, bitch. That’s what this is about.

Goodnight, patriarchy. Goodnight, white supremacy. Goodnight, Nazis. Goodnight, bigots. We will fight you unto death. God bless America, the one yet to be born.

And that is why the greatest freedom a woman can have right now is the freedom to speak her mind. Today, tonight, for the duration of this tweet, this bitch is free

That’s right, with the right alchemy of privilege, you can shoot someone on 5th avenue and still remain president. Make any lesser mistake as a female, and you should be raped or murdered. least that’s what my mentions told me should happen to me, all day today

shorter version: the full power of the state, and donald trump’s online mob, can and will be turned on individual political “enemies” under this illegitimate government. First they came for Ilhan Omar, guys. Wake up.

In a democracy we don’t subject people to public stoning like this. She’s an elected representative. It’s insane.

https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1116918510184067072
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:41 am

Progressive groups call on House Dems to investigate Kavanaugh's confirmation
Tal Axelrod04/11/19 01:41 PM EDT
More than two dozen progressive groups are asking House Democrats to investigate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.

“Senate Republicans made a mockery of their constitutional responsibility to provide ‘advice and consent’ on the president’s nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, and the American people deserve to know how and why the process was such a sham,” the groups wrote in a letter to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

“The public is just as entitled to a thorough review of Justice Kavanaugh’s record now as it was before he was elevated to the Supreme Court and to know whether allegations against him of sexual assault and perjury have any factual basis,” they added.

Kavanaugh nomination came under renewed scrutiny after he was accused of sexual assault from when he was a high school student, as well as sexual misconduct from his time in college. He has denied all allegations against him.

Progressive groups argue that the Senate confirmation process was tainted.

An FBI investigation cleared Kavanaugh of any wrongdoing connected to the sexual assault claims. Republicans seized on the conclusions as evidence that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, while Democrats noted the FBI failed to interview key witnesses, including Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, one of his accusers who also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“The Republican majority in the Senate initially resisted opening any sort of investigation into the allegations, but eventually relented to calls for an additional hearing and a supplemental FBI background check," the groups wrote in their letter to the House panels. "However, the hearing raised more questions than it answered, and the supplemental FBI investigation was so limited as to be virtually meaningless.”

The letter was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

The letter calls on the House committees to review documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House. Senate Republicans released those files after a vetting process run by an outside lawyer, but Democrats said the process was bungled and delayed.

The groups also asked for a review of Kavanaugh's personal financial debts that the White House attributed to purchasing baseball tickets and home improvements.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4384 ... kavanaughs
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests