Amy Goodman Democracy Now: Colleagues of Slain Kansas Abortion Doctor George Tiller Continue His Fight for Reproductive Rights
If you ever wondered why I take such an interest in this issue, well first and foremost, I honestly believe that it should be every woman's right to choose whether she carries a foetus to term or not.
I consider the social/economic implications of a woman or girl being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. And those social/economic consequences are by no means trivial, but I'm sure I don't have elaborate on those.
Lastly, and least it must be said, (for now) is the imposition of a biblical morality that has no place in a modern society. There are rich and powerful factions that are working to such ends, the ultimate goal of these extremists being the establishment of the Theocratic States of America, or some such, who want to rule America under biblical law.
Not only that, the social/economic class that wants to impose this morality, is invariably so far removed and above those, who would have the will of the sanctimonious imposed on it. Which as you can well imagine, is about as far away from a democracy as you can get. An occidental Iran if you will. Women's reproductive rights only being the thin end and start of this particular brand of totalitarianism.
Plenty more in the sidebar under the various tags.
Update and an endorsement I guess, of what I've just been rattling on about.
I consider the social/economic implications of a woman or girl being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. And those social/economic consequences are by no means trivial, but I'm sure I don't have elaborate on those.
Lastly, and least it must be said, (for now) is the imposition of a biblical morality that has no place in a modern society. There are rich and powerful factions that are working to such ends, the ultimate goal of these extremists being the establishment of the Theocratic States of America, or some such, who want to rule America under biblical law.
Not only that, the social/economic class that wants to impose this morality, is invariably so far removed and above those, who would have the will of the sanctimonious imposed on it. Which as you can well imagine, is about as far away from a democracy as you can get. An occidental Iran if you will. Women's reproductive rights only being the thin end and start of this particular brand of totalitarianism.
Plenty more in the sidebar under the various tags.
Update and an endorsement I guess, of what I've just been rattling on about.
Attack of the Theocrats! How the Religious Right Harms Us All - and What We Can Do About It
Advance copies now available
Also available for Kindle at Amazon and Nook at Barnes&Noble
Publication Date: February 15, 2012
At no time in American history has the United States had such a high percentage of theocratic members of Congress-those who expressly endorse religious bias in law. Just as ominously, at no other time have religious fundamentalists effectively had veto power over one of the country's two major political parties. As Sean Faircloth argues, this has led to the crumbling of the country's most cherished founding principle-the wall separating church and state-and presages yet even more crumbling. Faircloth, a former politician and current executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, moves beyond the symbolism to explore the many ways federal and state legal codes privilege religion in law. He goes on to demonstrate how religious bias in law harms all Americans-financially, militarily, physically, socially, and educationally. Sounding a much-needed alarm for all who care about the future direction of the country, Faircloth offers an inspiring vision for returning America to its secular roots Reviews RDF
Colleagues of Slain Kansas Abortion Doctor George Tiller Continue His Fight for Reproductive Rights
A federal judge has blocked the impact of one of the laws aimed at defunding Planned Parenthood, ordering Kansas to restore federal family planning funds to a clinic that claims it suffered "collateral damage" from the law because it would be forced to close, leaving 650 mostly low-income patients without access to reproductive healthcare services. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, and the unaffiliated Dodge City clinic, are challenging a law requiring the state to first allocate Title X funds to public health departments and hospitals, which leaves no funds for specialty family planning clinics. This is just the latest development in Kansas, which saw the murder of one of its staunchest supporters of women’s access to abortion: Dr. George Tiller. For more, we are joined by Julie Burkhart, who worked for eight years with Tiller before he was killed in 2009. She is the founder and director of the Trust Women Foundation and PAC, which focuses on protecting women’s access to reproductive healthcare, as well as the rights of the physicians who provide these services.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from Kansas City, right on the border between Kansas and Missouri, an area that is ground zero in the push to reduce women’s access to reproductive services, and specifically abortion.
The music you just heard was from Kansas City native, by the way, Charlie Parker.
After the passage of Roe v. Wade, Kansas had 27 abortion providers. Now it has three. All three of those clinics were targeted by a barrage of bills that passed during the last legislative session in Kansas. This was the session that saw the rise of Republican Governor Sam Brownback after Democrat Kathleen Sebelius left to become President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Well, just yesterday, a federal judge blocked the impact of one of the laws aimed at defunding Planned Parenthood. He ordered Kansas to restore federal family planning funds to a clinic that claims it suffered "collateral damage" from the law because it would be forced to close, leaving 650 mostly low-income patients without access to reproductive healthcare services. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri and the unaffiliated Dodge City clinic are challenging a law requiring the state to first allocate Title X funds to public health departments and hospitals, which leaves no funds for specialty family planning clinics. They argue that under the Supremacy Clause, Kansas cannot impose further restrictions on a federal program. Congress created Title X of the Public Health Services Act to promote family planning services to low-income patients, because it found the lack of access to birth control services exacerbates poverty.
This is just the latest development in Kansas, which saw the assassination in 2009 of one of its staunchest supporters of women’s access to abortion: Dr. George Tiller. The 67-year-old doctor was shot as he attended services at his Wichita, Kansas, church. In a related development, an ethics panel recommended last week that former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline have his state law license suspended over his conduct during criminal investigations of abortion providers, including Dr. Tiller, saying he was "motivated by dishonesty and selfishness."
For more, we’re joined by Julie Burkhart. She worked for eight years with Dr. George Tiller before he was killed in 2009. She’s founder and director of the Trust Women Foundation and PAC, which focuses on protecting women’s access to reproductive healthcare, as well as the rights of the physicians who provide these services.
Even today, our condolences on losing your friend, Dr. Tiller. You were with him days before he was killed in 2009? Transcript
More Republican Nose In Your Womb
I'm going to strangle the next huckster that quotes the 'sanctity of life.'
How many wars is the US engaged in at present?
This story is tangential to my previous post: Sorry Ladies The Sanctity of Life Doesn't Extend to You which in itself was an update on: Women's Reproductive Rights: America The Next Nicaragua
Sort them out at the ballot box ladies.
How many wars is the US engaged in at present?
This story is tangential to my previous post: Sorry Ladies The Sanctity of Life Doesn't Extend to You which in itself was an update on: Women's Reproductive Rights: America The Next Nicaragua
Sort them out at the ballot box ladies.
After Confusing Himself, Cain Decides That Rape Victims Should Be Forced to Carry Pregnancies to TermNewly emerged GOP presidential frontrunner Herman Cain does not do well under public scrutiny. He has “no idea” how his gimmicky 999 tax plan works in practice. He mixes up our nation’s founding documents. And hisweak grasp of foreign policy even inspired his fellow GOP contender Newt Gingrich to worry that Cain is “not ready for prime time.”
So it probably should be surprising that last week Cain actually managed to confuse himself — and everyone at Fox Business’s Stossel show — over a much more basic yes or no question: Should abortion be legal?
At first, Cain offered a simple answer: “I’m pro-life from conception, yes.” But when host Stossel asked whether there are any cases in which abortion should be legal (such as rape or incest), Cain then declared, “I don’t think government should make that decision.” Recognizing the conflict, Stossel endeavored to clear up exactly where Cain stood on abortion — an attempt that led Cain to completely contradict himself by offering three different positions. He began with his anti-choice stance:
CAIN: I support life from conception. No people shouldn’t be free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception, we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.
An understandably “confused” Stossel then asks Cain whether a rape victim should have the right to get an abortion. Cain then offers position 2:
CAIN: That’s her choice. That’s not government choice. I support life from conception.
STOSSEL: So abortion should be legal.
CAIN: No abortion should not be legal.
A now thoroughly perplexed Stossel asserts, “I’m not getting it, I’m not understanding it” and helps Cain understand the obvious flaw: “If it’s her choice, then that means it’s legal.” Cain replies with position 3:
CAIN: No! I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up?
STOSSEL: Even if she is raped.
CAIN: Even if she is raped or she is the victim of incest because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that. Real clear.
Cain has tried to have it both ways on an issue before. But his struggle to fully reject a sexual assault victim’s freedom offers a window into just how radical this increasingly common positionamong the right-wing is. Not only does such a blind position defy the constitution, it callously robs a victim who had no choice in whether or not to be assaulted her last remaining choice in regards to her own body. It is also important to note that Cain’s “life at conception” policy couldcriminalize pregnancy prevention methods for women as well.
Cain is no closer to figuring out exactly how he feels about this ludicrously radical position. On NBC Sunday, he declared that abortions should be illegal “under any circumstance” even in cases of rape or incest. However, when asked about whether the procedure should be allowed to save the life of the mother, he once again deviated from his position. “If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.” AlterNet
Fix For: Why does outlook keep asking for a network password
It's a crock, forget I posted it.
In the end, what I still do is to delete all the sub accounts, turn off the machine, go for a walk to calm down, and then re-install the sub accounts. It works fine then, until it doesn't. Which sometimes can be as long as a month, or as short as a few minutes.
I wish I had never started this post.
It is a vast improvement, so much so that I made this post, but it ain't the perfect fix.
Scientists to Rick Perry 'Not In My Name' as Texas Doctors Report
I don't know Ricky, what would God say about all these porkies?
Did you know, if Texas were a country, it would be the world's seventh largest polluter of the planet. scroll down a bit
Officials from Texas Spark Revolt After Perry Appointees Doctor Environmental Report
Scientists are asking for their names to be removed after mentions of climate change and sea-level rise were taken out by Texas officials.
October 18, 2011
Officials in Rick Perry's home state of Texas have set off a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.
By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. "None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed," said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre.
"To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does," Lester said. "We can't be censored." Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer's season of wildfires and drought.
However, Perry, in his run for the Republican nomination, has elevated denial of science, from climate change to evolution, to an art form. He opposes any regulation of industry, and has repeatedly challenged the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Texas is the only state to refuse to sign on to the federal government's new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. "I like to tell people we live in a state of denial in the state of Texas," said John Anderson, an oceanography at Rice University, and author of the chapter targeted by the government censors.
That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. "The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax," said Anderson.
But scientists said they still hoped to avoid a clash by simply avoiding direct reference to human causes of climate change and by sticking to materials from peer-reviewed journals. However, that plan began to unravel when officials from the agency made numerous unauthorised changes to Anderson's chapter, deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction.
"It is basically saying that the state of Texas doesn't accept science results published in Science magazine," Anderson said. "That's going pretty far."
Officials even deleted a reference to the sea level at Galveston Bay rising five times faster than the long-term average – 3mm a year compared to .5mm a year – which Anderson noted was a scientific fact. "They just simply went through and summarily struck out any reference to climate change, any reference to sea level rise, any reference to human influence – it was edited or eliminated," said Anderson. "That's not scientific review that's just straight forward censorship."
Mother Jones has tracked the changes. The agency has defended its actions. "It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it," Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. "Information was included in a report that we disagree with."
She said Anderson's report had been "inconsistent with current agency policy", and that he had refused to change it. She refused to answer any questions. Campaigners said the censorship by the Texas state authorities was a throwback to the George Bush era when White House officials also interfered with scientific reports on climate change. Go to page two
Did you know, if Texas were a country, it would be the world's seventh largest polluter of the planet. scroll down a bit
Just WHO Does God Want In The White House?
Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- Vote for me or burn in hell. I can't imagine someone running for office saying that. And yet four candidates -- Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum -- have said they had a sense that God was leading them to run. How far can we be from "vote for me or burn in hell" when it seems we're already comfortable with "vote for me, I've been called by God"? There was a time when if a candidate wanted to inject faith into a campaign he or she would be photographed going to church or shaking the Rev. Billy Graham's hand. Now it seems many GOP campaigns aren't complete without claiming God's seal of approval, which suggests the other candidates may be running without it. Such a sentiment is an ideological piñata for comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, but for conservatives trying to secure the GOP nomination, it's a highly manipulative campaign tool. Consider the words of Rick Perry's wife, Anita. During a stop in South Carolina last week she said her husband was being brutalized by the media because of his faith and that while his GOP opponents are "there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them, too ... I truly feel like we are here for that purpose." When Perry was asked about his wife's comments on "Good Morning America," he said "I think she's right in both cases. My understanding is that she said I'm the most conservative candidate in the race and, 'He's a Christian.'" Cain was a guest on the Christian Broadcasting Network recently and recapped a conversation he said he had with God before entering the race. "I felt like Moses when God said, 'I want you to go into Egypt and lead my people out.'" Cain said. "Moses resisted. I resisted. ... But you shouldn't question God." Repeat: You shouldn't question God. OK, fine. But why aren't we questioning the candidates who make these kinds of statements the same way we would question whether God actually wanted a particular athlete to win a game? I do believe a person's faith is personal, but I'm not the one using it to get votes. Four candidates have claimed a level of divine intervention with their campaign, which either means the creator of heaven and Earth is hedging his bets or somebody's mistaken. When a candidate claims to have a plan to create jobs or turn our economy around, we expect thoughtful analysis, as we have seen with President Obama's jobs package and Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Why are we not demanding the same level of critical thinking with respect to these candidates? Is the media so afraid to appear to be attacking someone's faith that interviewers don't bother to ask follow-up questions? If I could trade places with Anderson Cooper, who is moderating Tuesday's debate, I would ask, "Now which ones of you were really called by God and which ones are hearing voices in your head?" then let them discuss among themselves. It seems like a fair line of questioning, especially when you consider Cain is telling a particular voting bloc that he is like Moses and Perry is telling the same voters that Cain and others misheard God. Why wouldn't conservative Christians want to hear this line of questioning, since they are the sheep who are potentially being targeted by deceptive, power-hungry wolves? Now I know it seems as if I'm picking on Republicans, but trust me, I'm equally disgusted by Democrats who use religion to win elections. I still recoil in horror at the memory of then Sen. Hillary Clinton, on the eve of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday in 2008, standing in front of a Baptist church in Harlem, trying to out-black preach then Sen. Barack Obama, who was visiting Ebenezer Church in Atlanta the same day. And at both locations, the crowd was just eating it up, like extras in a Tyler Perry movie. When people ask why I'm not a Democrat, this is one of the reasons I give. But not even in the heat of those moments did I hear them say they were called by God to run. Not because Democrats are not religious, but because they seem to know where the line is. This current GOP candidates seem to have no idea that there is a line, let alone its location. It is beginning to feel like if we don't start pushing back soon, in the next election we're going to see campaign slogans like, "Vote for me or God won't bless America." "Vote for me, or you'll be left behind." "Vote for me... Jesus did." On August 4, 2010, just before 10:30 p.m., former longtime Rep. Pete Hoekstra stood in front of a group of supporters in a small city in Michigan to deliver a concession speech. The Republican had just lost his bid to be governor, a job he said he left Congress to pursue because of "God's plan." "God's got something better in mind for us," he said, and in January he finished his term in the House. Today Hoekstra is back in Michigan. Running for Congress. No word yet if God told him to do so or if this is the "something better" the Almighty had in mind. CNNYes, when you talk to God, it's called praying, when he talks to you, it's called schizophrenia. Two from the time before last, I missed the last election, I was busy wasting my time looking for a bit of justice.
I think this one was in response to a handful of Repub contenders denying evolution, on national television I remind you. Well I suppose they will have two to go at this year, evolution and climate change. Only in Amerki folks, only in Ameriki. 
This one is educational. For those of you who might have wondered how Noah built his ark 1500 years before the Iron Age, well here's your answer. That Lord, he really does work in mysterious ways, don't he. Just. 
And we couldn't have a FSM post without my masterpiece. Tickets please. 
And sure, isn't it nearly Christmas. Jeezy!
