Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts

February 25, 2014

State of Disgrace

First up: Pennsylvania. In Southwestern PA, homeowners wake up to find scary, bomb-looking masses of wires and electronics on their front yards. When they contact the police/local officials, they are told by these officials that they cannot comment on the devices (which, as it turns out, were installed by a private Texas company to facilitate seismic mapping in the search for gas). Some of the devises are accompanied with threats of criminal investigations if anyone dare remove them. Meanwhile, the process of seismic mapping is actually damaging the homes in its path.







A forced birther lawmaker in Virginia refers to a pregnant woman as nothing more than a “child’s host” on Facebook. He later disappears the phrase. So if the woman is the "host" doesn't that make the fetus a, well, parasite? Hey! It's his analogy, not mine.













Finally, all eyes turn to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to see if she believes--like the lawmakers in her state--that it's legally OK to deny LGBT folk public accommodation as long as Baby Jesus said so.

May 24, 2012

Daryl Metcalfe - Not Just Crazie, ARIZONA Crazie

From The Trib:
A Republican lawmaker plans to introduce legislation today that would prohibit Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide abortion services from receiving any public funding.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, will sponsor the Whole Woman's Health Funding Priority Act, a bill that would mirror legislation passed in nine other states.
Here's how Metcalfe described the legislation:
According to my proposed legislation public entities would receive the highest priority for receiving such funds, followed by non-public hospitals and federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics and, last, nonpublic health providers that have their primary purpose the provision of primary health care. Additionally, the legislation will prohibit the Department of Health from entering into any contract with or providing grants to any entity that performs non-federally qualified abortions. Under the legislation, the Attorney General will be granted jurisdiction to enforce the proposal's provisions.
The important sentence is the one that begins "Additionally..."

And here's the legislation.  The part that would impact planned parenthood is this - Section 3(1):
The department may not enter into a contract with or make a grant to any entity that performs non-federally qualified abortions or maintains or operates a facility where non-federally qualified abortions are performed.
"Federally qualified abortions" are those allowed by the Hyde Amendment (ie those pregnancies caused by rape or incest or those pregnancies that would endanger the life of the mother).

Now let's take a look at the "mirrored" legislation recently signed into law in Arizona.  The important part is this:
This state or any political subdivision of this state may not enter into a contract with or make a grant to any person that performs nonfederally qualified abortions or maintains or operates a facility where nonfederally qualified abortions are performed for the provision of family planning services.
So when the Huffington Post writes:
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.
They're really not kidding.

Daryl Metcalfe, Arizona-style crazie.

UPDATE:  The Trib's editorial board AGREES WITH ME:
Lance: To Daryl Metcalfe. The Cranberry Republican should have his head examined for introducing a bill that would redirect taxpayer dollars from Planned Parenthood. Mr. Metcalfe says the move would cut off taxpayer money that now "support(s) abortionists." Never mind that 95 percent of Planned Parenthood's services don't involve abortions. How many women will suffer because of Metcalfe's misguided legislation?
Indeed.

May 15, 2012

What "Freedom" Means In Arizona

From The Explorer in Arizona:
Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2625 into law Friday. The legislation authorizes religiously-affiliated employers to deny contraceptive services from their employees' health insurance plans.

Despite opponents saying the bill would violate a woman's right to privacy, proponents say it will apply exclusively to those entities whose religious beliefs are central to their operating principles, and for whom providing coverage for contraception could pose a moral conflict or religious objection.
You'll note that the proponents' argument doesn't actually address whether the bill violates a woman's right to privacy.  Patience, my friends.

Here's what the Governor's office itself had to say about the bill:
Governor Jan Brewer today signed into law HB 2625, legislation that authorizes religiously-affiliated employers to exempt contraceptive services from their employees’ health insurance plans. The new law will apply exclusively to those entities whose religious beliefs are central to their operating principles, and for whom providing coverage for contraception could pose a moral conflict or religious objection.

“In its final form, this bill is about nothing more than preserving the religious freedom to which we are all Constitutionally-entitled,” said Governor Brewer. “Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the 1st Amendment.”

Currently, state law allows a narrow scope of nonprofit, faith-based institutions to opt out of contraceptive coverage, provided that the institution primarily employs and serves individuals who share the religious tenets of the institution.
See? It's about freedom!  There's nothing about any "violation of privacy" in there!  It's just protecting the rights of any "religiously affiliated employer" to hold true to their beliefs!

What are these ladies complaining about?  It's so unseemly, isn't it?

Perhaps it's this part of the legislation:
Notwithstanding subsection y of this section, a religiously affiliated employer may require that the corporation provide a contract without coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section because providing or paying for coverage of the specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs of the religiously affiliated employer offering the plan. If a religiously affiliated employer objects to providing coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section, a written affidavit shall be filed with the corporation stating the objection. On receipt of the affidavit, the corporation shall issue to the religiously affiliated employer a contract that excludes coverage for specific items or services required under subsection Y of this section. The corporation shall retain the affidavit for the duration of the contract and any renewals of the contract. This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. A religiously affiliated employer offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit and may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not for a purpose covered by the objection. A hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

AA. Subsection Z of this section does not authorize a religiously affiliated employer to obtain an employee's protected health information or to violate the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (P.L. 104‑191; 110 Stat. 1936) or any federal regulations adopted pursuant to that act. [emphasis added.]
So the law allows for insurers to cover contraceptives, as long as they're not used for contraceptive purposes.  And it's up to a woman who may be suffering from, say, polycystic ovary syndrome to prove that she's not a slut who's using the pill to keep from getting pregnant.  And even then, she may be charged "an administrative fee" for providing such proof.

All to insulate a religiously affiliated employer from following the law like everyone else.  As Justice Scalia wrote:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
But I guess that all changes when it comes to controlling the vaginas.

January 12, 2011

Sarah Palin: America's Enduring Victim

In a seven minute and 43 second video today, Sarah Palin addressed the massacre in Arizona last Saturday. Well, actually, she spent only the first minute and a half addressing the people who were killed and injured. She spent the rest of the time explaining how the violent language and images that she used against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (and all the violent rhetoric used by Republicans this past year) not only had nothing whatsoever to do with Giffords being shot in the head, but was the height of patriotism:
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
"Blood libel"?!?

Does she even know what that phrase means?? (Even uber conservative Jonah Goldberg has a problem with it.)

And, then there's her idea that when she and other Republicans use violent rhetoric ("crosshairs," "reload," "Second Amendment remedies," "armed and dangerous," "Our nation was founded on violence," "a bloody war," "the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots," "Put anything in my scope and I will shoot it," "And if ballots don’t work, bullets will") that is merely engaging in "spirited public debates," but when anyone dares to criticize the violent rhetoric that is inciting hatred and violence.

Yes, Sarah, you are the true victim in all this and people who object to violent language are the true perpetrators of violence. It all makes so much perfect fucking sense that I need to rush right out and buy your books. You have slain me with your logic. Please, please run for President so that I may vote for you.

In case you missed it, here's poor, little Sarah huddled by the hearth in her hovel in the shetl trying to get her words out before the Cossacks come:


.

May 11, 2010

Really, you shouldn't have.

"Complete the danged fence"?!

Really, Sen. McCain. You should not have approved this message:


P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

April 30, 2010

Friday Morning Música Post

Good morning, Pittsburgh! I'm sending México Americano by Los Lobos out to the folks from this comment thread.


(And, anyone who hasn't read The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat's take on Arizona's new immigration law should.)