Some follow-up Info on the "Bubble Zone" Ordinance

The "Bubble Zone" Ordinance (that the Other Political Junkie wrote about here) was passed yesterday in City Council. The vote was 5-3 (voting for: Peduto, Shields, Carlisle, Deasy and Motznick. Voting against: Bodack, Ricciardi and new City Council President Ravenstahl. Udin was not present).

The Shields-Peduto Ordinance seems to revolve around a couple of definitions. The "Eight-Foot Personal Bubble Zone" and the "Fifteen Foot Buffer Zone."

Here's what the Ordinance says on the 8 foot zone:

No person shall knowingly approach another person within eight feet (8’) of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling with such other person in the public way or sidewalk area within a radius of one hundred feet (100’) from any entrance door to a hospital and/or medical office/clinic.

And here's what it says about the 15 foot zone:

No person or persons shall knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate in a zone extending fifteen feet (15’) from any entrance to the hospital and or health care facility. This section shall not apply to police and public safety officers, fire and rescue personnel, or other emergency workers in the course of their official business, or to authorized security personnel employees or agents of the hospital, medical office or clinic engaged in assisting patients and other persons to enter or exit the hospital, medical office, or clinic.

This is how the Post-Gazette characterizes it:

If the restrictions become law, protesters would be barred from getting within 15 feet of the doors of any healthcare facility. Within 100 feet of the doors, protesters could not approach within eight feet of clients without their consent.

There's no word whether Mayor Murphy will sign the legislation - there was no comment from the Mayor's office.

On the other hand, the Mayor-Elect's spokesman told the P-G that Mayor-Elect O'Connor "says his goal is to have Pittsburgh be the safest and cleanest city in America and the O'Connor administration plans to vigorously enforce all laws of the city."

Not sure what to make of all those words.

Pittsburgh's Bubble Zone Gets Pricked

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the City will have to choose whether Pittsburghers seeking medical attention will be harassed at the doors of medical facilities or be stalked on the way to medical facilities. Apparently allowing Pittsburghers to seek medical care sans some sort of direct intimidation is too much to ask.

Of course, when I write "Pittsburghers" I mean women in Pittsburgh attempting to enter women's clinics because no one is, say, stalking men going to get Viagra prescriptions.

From the Post-Gazette:

That was the opinion of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday in striking down a 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance that limited the rights of pro-life protesters at medical facilities where abortions are performed. [Actually, legally any medical facility.]

The ordinance, designed to protect patients who said they were being harassed as they entered the clinics, created an 8-foot bubble zone around people approaching medical facilities, as well as a 15-foot buffer zone from center entrances.

In an 83-page opinion, the circuit court wrote that the combination of the two zones was too much and burdened "substantially more speech than necessary" [because wimmin are dumb, impulsive bitches and having a state imposed 24-hour waiting period just isn't enough to help these hos with their barely human thought processes -- or something like that I'm guessing].

[snip]

The Supreme Court has separately found in favor of both buffer and bubble zones, but the Third Circuit said the use of both has never been upheld.

Reaction by Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania:

Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania is troubled and disappointed by the recent ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which effectively reduced the protection of women seeking out medical care at family planning centers in Pittsburgh. While pleased that the court approved a modified version of the original ordinance, Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania is concerned with the reduced protections this rule offers patients and others impacted by protesters at medical facilities.

[snip]

“The security and privacy of our clients has been greatly enhanced by the Pittsburgh Medical Safety Zone Ordinance” said Kim Evert, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. “We will continue to work with the city to ensure that patient safety needs are met and are dismayed by the courts decision to weaken these protections.”

Reaction by mayoral candidate Franco Dok Harris:

“Protecting women’s rights to have unfettered access to family planning services free of intimidation and threats will be a top priority for my administration. Protecting free speech is important but the Nation’s founders never meant free speech to be used to intimidate, harass and endanger women” Harris says.

Many of the clinics this ordinance protects provide health services like free and low cost breast exams, pap smears, and pre-natal care for low income women.

Franco Dok Harris is the only pro choice candidate in the race and the only candidate not to receive endorsement or large donations from anti-choice Political Action Committees.

Harris added that “we must create new protections immediately so that there is no lapse in the safety we are able to provide to women seeking health care services. Women should never feel unsafe or intimidated when they need care.”

Reaction by Pittsburgh City Councilor Bill Peduto:

William Peduto, a city councilman who helped craft the original legislation, said that there will be a meeting with the solicitor's office this week to determine how to move forward.

The city could appeal the court's decision, or choose to narrow the ordinance.

"In my opinion, it's essential that people have the right to obtain legal health care without being subjected to intimidation," Mr. Peduto said. "We can do that while protecting individual rights of freedom of speech and expression."

.

No, really. Why?

We've been having quite the spirited discussion in the Comments Section to a recent post; "Ravenstahl, Birth Control, & the 7th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting." One commenter, Patrick, and I have been going back and forth and my answer to his latest comment grew so long that I thought that it deserved a post of its own. (You can read all the comments here.)

Here's Patrick's latest comment:

At 5:44 PM, Patrick said...
Look, this is REALLY getting old...
but the posts I've read which claim to quote Luke on the bubble law are referencing questions from committee people on the subject of birth control; those QUESTIONS then went on to tie in his opposition to the bubble law as a way to sound him out on the right to privacy (seems to me like the questioners were trying to ask about his views on abortion, without actually asking about his views on abortion).

Thus, Luke's responses to those multi-subject questions would naturally mention privacy - the questioners asked him about it themselves. I have yet to see references in these blogs of a question directed at Luke that specifically asked about why he voted no on the bubble law.

[Now, one can believe in a right to privacy and still be of the opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but that's another set of blog posts...]

And another thing: why do the residents of Peduto-stan seem so desperate to believe that Luke is against birth control and abortion? Does that somehow give their support of Peduto some extra-value? Maybe it's more motivation to be against someone rather than be for your own candidate, but the Peduto-istas seem to WANT Luke to be against everything they believe in, perhaps so it feels better backing Peduto.

NOTE: In a previous comment, Patrick had asserted the following: "Opposing this bubble law is in no way an attempt to repeal these existing laws; rather it is a solid, pro-American, pro-1st Amendment stand that Luke should be commended for taking."


Here's my reply:

Patrick,

Your denial is what's getting OLD.

You ascribe positions and opinions to Ravenstahl with absolutely no backup -- without one shred of evidence.

I, on the other hand, believe Ravenstahl when he tells people that he's against birth control and when he tells the Post-Gazette that he's "socially conservative."

It's really quite simple, Patrick. If he voted against the Bubble Zone based on the First Amendment, why doesn't he just say that?

He had all the time in the world to give his justifications during the vote, yet he CHOSE to be the only council member to remain silent about why he voted as he did.

When someone asks him a question like "Mayor Ravenstahl, I'm concerned about your position on contraceptives/abortion/privacy rights because of your 'no' vote on the Bubble Zone. Can you help me out on that?" He could just say something like:

"My vote reflected my First Amendment concerns."

Damn, that was pretty friggin' simple, no? Only seven words.

Yet, time after time, he doesn't say anything like that. This has to lead one to believe that either: 1) he didn't vote based on that or; 2) For some reason he wants people to think it may have been based on his religious views/moral concerns but he's being cagey about it or; 3) what -- he just can't even think that much on his feet?

I mean come on, it's not that hard to say what you mean, is it?

But, I have no doubt that if this issue breaks into the MSM, and he starts taking some heat on it, he will have no trouble FLIP-FLOPPING. After all, that's been his MO. As the P-G's Brian O'Neill has pointed out:

"A couple of years ago, Councilman Ravenstahl wanted to stop devoting bus shelter advertising revenue to shade trees. This month, Mayor Ravensthal is pledging to slash carbon dioxide pollution and has signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Last fall, Mayor Ravenstahl lobbied to keep a $52 lump sum tax on all workers inside the city limits. Last month, he changed his mind, advocating the same $1-a-week system Peduto has pushed.

Last October, Mayor Ravenstahl nominated the politically toxic Dennis Regan to be public safety director. After that choice went over like a Browns jersey at a Steelers tailgate party, the mayor nominated Fire Chief Mike Huss as director of public safety, the same guy Councilman Peduto suggested in October."

However, O'Neill loses me when he says, " Who can argue that learning from early mistakes is a bad trait in a politician?" because what I've also seen from Ravenstahl is lots and lots of plain old BAD JUDGMENT and some folks just never outgrow that (Bush is prime example of that).

Ravenstahl has shown plenty of incredibly poor judgment. He demonstrated that trait when he raised the "politically toxic" Dennis Regan to be his Director of Operations. It got even worse when he named him as Pittsburgh's Public Safety Director. Even a 26 year-old should know that that position demanded experience -- hell, even an 18 year-old should have known that.

His declaration that Cathy McNeilly wasn't a whistle-blower and the demotion that followed will cost the city big time. His killing off of the Police Off-Duty Recovery Program will, and has, cost the city even more.

There was also his failure to really reform City Council spending when he, instead, opted to keep the walking around monies

And, for someone who's running against Bill Peduto, he sure has no problem "borrowing" idea after idea from him, or, just outright claiming credit for work he never did. And, I don't think he even bothers do the borrowing on his own. I hear it's Yarone Zober's job to grab into the bag of "Things Peduto Has Said During Council Meetings" to come up with ideas for Ravenstahl to parrot.

And, when he isn't busy pirating from Peduto, he's stumped for answers on something as big as the Mon-Fayette project or he, the MAYOR of Pittsburgh, is conceding his authority to his "boss." Boss? Why do we need to keep asking who's in charge with this guy?

Then there's his problem with being more inclined to truthiness than truth -- yeah, I have a problem with people who weasel or lie. I also have a problem with blatant use of taxpayer dollars for one's own politcal gain.

And after all this, I'm supposed to support Luke . . . Why?

No, really. WHY?

I mean even he wasn't able to come up with an answer on that his own self for David Letterman.

As to your assertion that:

"Maybe it's more motivation to be against someone rather than be for your own candidate, but the Peduto-istas seem to WANT Luke to be against everything they believe in, perhaps so it feels better backing Peduto."

I don't need any help in feeling good about backing Bill Peduto for Mayor, thank you very much.

I backed him in his first run in 2005 and I support him now for the same reasons that I supported him then.

I'm supporting Bill Peduto for Mayor because I find him to be smart, knowledgeable, experienced, and creative. I believe that he possesses the good judgment necessary to more than handle this important position. I also happen to agree with his stance on many issues.

Moreover, I know that I don't have to worry that he's beholden to the same old, same old, tired crew of the worst of the party hacks.

When Peduto speaks as Mayor, he won't need to look around to others for an answer as to his opinions on the important issues of the day, and we won't have to ask who's the boss.

That's why I'm for Bill.

An Open Letter to My Councilman, Gene Ricciardi

Dear Councilman Ricciardi:

I was unable to attend the Pittsburgh City Council meeting on Wednesday, December 7, 2005, and couldn't see a broadcast of that meeting until this week. When I was finally able to view the meeting, I was both surprised and dismayed at the statement that you made before voting against the "Bubble Zone" Ordinance.

You stated that all the emails you received against the ordinance were personally written while the all the emails you received in favor of it were form letters. I notice that you did not refer to any PHONE CALLS that your office received regarding the ordinance. If you had, you would have had to admit to receiving at least one (NON-FORM) phone call from a CONSTITUENT who asked that you vote in favor of the ordinance.

I know this for a fact because I called your office myself on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

I will note that I got voicemail, but I did leave a very clear message and the message was left well before 5:00 PM (perhaps you/your staff were too busy reading emails from college students in Ohio to pick up the phone). I will also note that when I called Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle's office minutes later on the same subject, I got an actual person on the phone, and ironically enough, the person who answered actually knew me.

But, then again, I doubt that any phone call or email from actual Pittsburghers (constituents or otherwise) in favor of the ordinance would have made a dent in your decision process. You biases showed immediately in your pre-vote statement when you referred to all clinic patients as "Moms," a term that is not only emotionally loaded, but inaccurate as non-pregnant women also go to these clinics for basic health care services.

You further stated that there was a need to communicate effectively to these "Moms" and that the buffer zone ordinance would "seriously damage the free choice to save a life." Your thoroughly patronizing view that there's some sort of necessity for women entering these clinics to hear an opposing view (echoed by Councilman Len Bodak's remarks that the protesters were just trying to "get people to think about what they're doing") is offensive. It presupposes a view that women don't take their choices seriously or that they are somehow incapable of seeking out or considering opposing opinions on their own. As Councilman Doug Shields reminded you at the meeting, Pennsylvania already has restrictive abortion laws including a 24 hour waiting period (because, you know, we girls just can't think on our own without direction from The State).

In your statement, you referred almost exclusively to the thoughts and opinions of a group of out-of-state college students to the exclusion of the thoughts and opinions of the many Pittsburgh women who also addressed Council. You stated that the college students were "caring counselors" and not protesters. You repeated their talking points that were "prayerful and peaceful." You said that these "counselors" must be able to look the women entering the clinics in the eye to see into their "heart and soul" in order to conduct their "ministry."

Well, unlike you (and Bush with Putin), I am not so adept at seeing into the souls of others. I find that I need to rely on people's words and actions. So I will refer to the words of one of the college students: Billy Valentine (resident of Virginia and matriculating in Ohio).

Billy spoke at the meeting. Billy also has a blog ( http://billyvalentine09.blogspot.com ) and is reported to be by Truth Caucus as 'a rumored “rising star” in Virginia' (http://www.truthcaucus.com/index.php?id=839 ).

In his blog ( http://billyvalentine09.blogspot.com/2005/11/operation-yellow-elephant-names-me.html ), Billy writes that he was named by Operation Yellow Elephant as "The Most Cynical Yellow Elephant Yet!" (Operation Yellow Elephant is a group which asks military-age pro Iraq war people -- especially students -- to back their convictions by actually enlisting in the military).

During the Council hearing Billy stated that not only was he "peaceful and prayerful," but that his mission is to "be Jesus Christ to these women."

And, how does Billy talk to women when the adults aren't looking? In responding to a woman in the comments section of the Operation Yellow Elephant post, Billy said the following ( http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2005/11/most-cynical-yellow-elephant-yet.html):

At 2:23 PM, Billy Valentine said...

You seem to have something against straight men Sadie... Not too much luck in the vast world of dating?

He also commented on gays in the military as follows:

At 2:21 PM, Billy Valentine said...

"And we all know faggots are cowards, right?"

Yep.

"They're not real men?"

Pretty much.

Doesn't sound too Christlike to me, but then I can't see into the hearts and souls of people like you and the Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio) can. I can, however, listen to the pleas of Pittsburgh women to be able to obtain legal medical services in a safe environment, which you seemingly cannot.

And, while I realize that this letter is becoming impossibly long, I do have one more thing to say:

The thought that you, who are about to start serving as a magistrate, are more concerned with your own idea as to what "damages a moral high ground" than what you admit is "Constitutional" is rather frightening to me. I hope your statements in Council do not reflect some sort of "activist" style as a magistrate.

Sincerely,

Maria (full name and address appear in the letter)
_____________________________

(emailed to Gene Ricciardi and cc'd to all members of Pittsburgh City Council)

Other posts on this subject:
December 6, 2005: A Matter of Public Safety
December 8, 2005: Some follow-up Info on the "Bubble Zone" Ordinance

tags: pittsburgh city council ravenstahl peduto twanda carlisle doug shields ricciardi len bodack sala udin dan deasy jim motznik

Peduto Derangement Syndrome

For those of you watching from outside of Southwestern Pennsylvania, the "Peduto" in the blog title is Bill Peduto, is the mayor of the city of Pittsburgh.

He's a democrat who supports LGBT rights:

While all three candidates have earned strong marks for their stance on LGBT issues in recent years, Peduto has received the most love in return. His mayoral bid has been endorsed by three LGBT-advocacy groups: statewide advocacy group Equality Pennsylvania, as well as the Steel City Stonewall Democrats and the Gertrude Stein Political Club.

He supported efforts to create a citywide domestic-partner registry, which allows same-sex couples to formally declare a committed relationship. (The registry has no legal authority, but can be used by employers as a basis for providing domestic-partner benefits to employees.) And at an April 18 forum hosted by Planned Parenthood, he suggested constructing new buildings with bathrooms designated for transgender occupants. "[T]here has to be accessibility for all," he said.

And is pro-choice:

Peduto, whose mayoral run has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, backed a 2005 "Medical Safety Zone Ordinance," which set up a 15-foot buffer zone around women's health clinics — and an 8-foot "bubble zone" around patients entering or leaving. That measure, supported by pro-choice groups, was later overturned when a judge ruled it infringed on the free speech of abortion opponents. (Currently only the buffer zone remains.) But at the April 18 forum, Peduto said his support for access hadn't changed: "If it does require an officer to be there to remind [observers of] the rights of all individuals, I'll certainly have an officer there."

He also recently signed some common sense gun control:

The ordinances, which council approved 6-3 last week, ban the use of assault-style weapons and accessories in public places and grant authority to the courts to temporarily seize weapons from people in the throes of mental health crises.

He also tweets from time to time - mostly about the city, sometimes about Pittsburgh politics, sometimes about Pittsburgh hockey.

If you follow his twitter feed (as I do) you'll notice one general thread from those who aren't supporters:

No matter what he tweets they demand his resignation and/or incarceration.

No real reason given. It's the grown up version of the school yard taunt: No body likes you and your mother dresses you funny. Nyah-nyah.

Call it the PEDUTO DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

He can tweet a "good morning" and within a few minutes someone (who may or may not even live in the city) will condemn him for not filling in the city's potholes - and demand his impeachment for it.

PEDUTO DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

Last Throes

In this article Robin Wright, a staff writer at the Washington Post, compares visits to Iraq:

September 2003

On our first trip, in mid-September 2003, the State Department entourage and diplomatic press corps stayed for two full nights at the legendary al Rashid Hotel, the high-rise once heavily bugged by Saddam Hussein's security goons. Iraqi vendors in the hotel arcade sold military paraphernalia and souvenirs from the old regime. Medals that Hussein once bestowed on his troops went for 10 bucks -- or less, if you bargained enough.

Back then, we could tool around the Iraqi capital. With a New York Times colleague, I walked through the concrete barriers down the lonely lane that linked the protected Green Zone to the rest of Baghdad. U.S. troops stationed along the route didn't stop us.

July 2004

My second trip to Baghdad, on July 30, 2004, some 15 months after the fall of the city, was a secret. This time, the press corps traveling with Powell couldn't report it until after we'd landed.

We traveled from the airport to the Green Zone in Black Hawk helicopters, with U.S. troops perched in open windows on both sides manning machine guns that fire as many as 4,000 rounds per minute.

The route was so dangerous that we were all given flak jackets and helmets for the short trip.

This time, we didn't stay even one night. The al Rashid had come under rocket fire in October 2003, when then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was visiting. The attack had killed one American soldier and wounded 15 other people.

November 2005

My latest trip to Iraq, on Nov. 11, 31 months after the fall of the capital, was kept secret even from some of the people on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's plane. The dozen members of the traveling press were summoned to the State Department the day before we left on a trip to the Middle East and sworn to secrecy after a briefing about the additional stop.

We could tell an editor and a family member, but we were asked not to mention it to anyone else, particularly our bureaus in the Iraqi capital -- and not on the phone or by e-mail to anyone, at all, anywhere. If word got out, the trip would be canceled. A leak had forced the postponement of a similar trip in the spring.

The road between the airport and the Green Zone was officially considered safer, but we still flew in armed Black Hawks moving in diversionary patterns through the sky.

On this latest trip to Baghdad, the bubble shrank even more. No roaming the Green Zone. Not even a stop at the convention center. The press corps, including veteran war correspondents, was sequestered in Hussein's old palace for most of the seven-hour stay. We were discouraged from wandering the palace and were provided escorts to go to the bathroom.

Our one venture out was a short hop to the nearby prime minister's office, also in the Green Zone. All we saw were new barricades trimmed with razor wire, concrete blast walls, roadblocks and time-consuming identity checks. No Iraqis. No vendors. In October 2004, the bazaar had been attacked, one of two almost simultaneous suicide bombings inside the Green Zone that together killed 10, including four Americans.

Read the entire story here.

Ravenstahl, Birth Control, & the 7th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting

It has been noted in the comments section of this blog and on other blogs that Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl had commented on his views on birth control at a 7th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting. The following email is a firsthand account of that meeting.

From:
To:
Subject: Luke Ravenstahl's appearances before the 7th and 14th Ward Committees
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:42:50 EST

Dear Barbara, Sam and other interested committee people,

Earlier this month, one of my sister members of the 7th Ward Democratic Committee told me of a conversation she had had with Luke Ravenstahl when he requested her support. She told me she had asked him about his vote as a member of City Council against protecting health care facilities – particularly women's health care facilities – from harassment, particularly by anti-abortion forces. She told me she was very upset by his answer, and that he further informed her that he was not only against the Constitutional right to abortion, he was also against birth control. I was amazed and somewhat incredulous about this answer, so I decided to ask him the question publicly.

On February 7, the 7th Ward held its forum. I had asked every candidate to detail her/his record on hiring and promotion of women of all colors and men of color. As a follow-up to Ravenstahl's answer, I said, "You can understand my concern, since I recently learned that you are not only opposed to abortion, but also against birth control. So I worry about your attitude to women generally."

The acting mayor responded by nodding as I stated his position. When he didn't verbally respond, one 7th Ward member complained that those issues had nothing to do with being mayor. But another member objected to that characterization, stating that public safety was an issue, and Ravenstahl had refused to protect women at the health clinics. A spirited debate occurred, during which Ravenstahl stated that he did not believe that there was any harassment at the clinics, just people trying to gently persuade women. Many of the 7th Ward members objected to that characterization. I tell you this in background so you know why I was asked by a 14th Ward Committee member to attend your forum last Thursday (2-22-07) to assess Luke Ravenstahl's answers to questions about women'sconstitutional rights.

Imagine my surprise when Ravenstahl essentially called one of the 14th Ward members a liar, saying "no such private conversation had taken place." And he, of course, left out the fact that he had confirmed his anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-right to privacy positions publicly in front of the 7th Ward committee. I was also amazed to discover that in the space of a couple weeks he had changed his position on public safety from one in which he denied there was a problem to "it is now the law and I will enforce it."

I feel that the 14th Ward committee members (and others, for that matter) should know that Ravenstahl lied in his presentation, which is why I'm writing this note. I hope you will consider forwarding it to your members and other interested people. I am also copying this to a number of Democratic leaders who have asked me about my experiences with Ravenstahl. I'm also adding members of political organizations for whom these issues are important. And of course, my contact information is listed below for anyone who wishes to discuss this with me.

As a parenthetical note, please let me answer those few members of the 7th Ward and 14th Ward who fail to see what relevance this has to being mayor of the city of Pittsburgh. Besides the already stated public safety question, there is a question of whether Ravenstahl bears allegiance to the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions as his oath of office requires or to his private religious views. In addition, it is easy to see that someone who becomes mayor of a major city in his youth is likely to envision a long political career, moving into higher office where he might have an opportunity to actually outlaw the right to privacy.

Finally, we must always keep in mind that real women and their families have a right to be trusted, and suffer and die when they are not. Ultimately, the issue is not just about abortion in Pittsburgh, but whether women and children in the world's poorest countries will live or die. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 16 women dies in childbirth, compared with one in 2,800 in the developed world. A woman dies every 7 minutes from an unsafe abortion. Five million people were infected last year with HIV. These numbers have increased dramatically under the Bush administration, and are just a part of the reason why support for women's legal constitutional rights is a key portion of the Democratic Party platform.

Thanks very much for reading and passing this on.

Jeanne K. C. Clark

MY NOTES:

- Ms. Clark did indeed include her contact info (email address, phone #) in the above email. I have edited it out, but will happily provide it to other bloggers who may wish to contact her, as well as to anyone in the mainstream media who would hopefully want to write on this subject.

- Ms Clark is a Democratic Committeewoman, a longtime activist for women's rights, and has served as a political and media strategist to candidates and issue campaigns on local, state and federal levels.

- It should be noted that during the public comments section of the Bubble Zone Bill City Council Meeting, the OUT-OF-STATE college students who flooded that session used the same language as Luke that there were "just people trying to gently persuade women." Ravenstahl choose to believe these OUT-OF-STATE college students' assessment of the situation over the testimony of LOCAL WOMEN and newspaper reports. I'm only surprised that he didn't manage to use the phrase "prayerful and peaceful" which the students used ad nauseam.

- David's own firsthand account of Ravenstahl on the subject of contraception at a 14th Ward Committee meeting can be found here.

- For anyone who wishes to start up again the tired, straw man argument that I or David are saying that Ravenstahl would try to ban the sale of contraceptives, or who keeping playing ignorant by stating that the Mayor's views on contraceptives would never come into play in city policy, I will remind you all that cities often have programs to distribute condoms to IV drug users, and NYC was recently in the news for their new condom giveaway program. Also, of course, it would certainly seem that Ravenstahl decided his vote on the Bubble Zone Bill based more on his own religious training than on the fact that it was a public safety issue.

A Matter of Public Safety

Pittsburgh Councilman Doug Shields and Councilman Bill Peduto proposed an ordinance to create a "bubble zone" near clinics, hospitals and other medical facilities so that protesters can't stand directly in front of the doors. This ordinance would create a 100 foot area in which protesters would have to back away when asked, and a small 15 foot zone right in front of the clinic where protesters cannot congregate at all.

A similar ordinance in Colorado has already been found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision in 2000.

The creators of the ordinance have said the following about it:

Mr. Shields said protesters sometimes cross the line, getting in women's faces or trying to shove literature in their purses or jackets. Mr. Dick countered that anti-abortion counselors are sometimes pushed by "escorts" deployed by the clinics, or occasionally punched by mothers of clinic patients.

And:

Peduto said a woman's right to have an abortion was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. "We are just trying to provide public safety," he said.

And, if you believe that only the Left favors this bill, the Progress Pittsburgh blog reports the following:

Those of you who saw WQED's "On Q" last night will note that even resident Rushwannabes Ruth Ann Dailey and Fred Honsberger agreed that this ordinance was extremely fair and reasonable.

Any of you out there familiar with Dailey or Honsberger know that both of them would consider themselves "pro-life."

Of course not all are in favor of the proposed legislation. It does not appear to be well loved by Operation Rescue for example:

"We will be in court," said Keith Tucci, pastor of Living Hope Church in Latrobe, as he ripped up a copy of the proposal.

"Our behavior is not going to change. ... We will not abide by it." Mr. Tucci was director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue from 1990 to 1994.

The Post-Gazette also reports today:

Some 20 protesters held graphic signs near the entrance to the Hilton Pittsburgh hotel, Downtown. They said they chose the location because itis 100 feet from American Women's Services, an abortion provider in GatewayTowers at 320 Fort Duquesne Blvd.

If the ordinance passes, "we're going to have to [protest near] places like this," said Helen Cindrich, executive director of People Concerned for the Unborn Child, as she gestured toward the hotel.

Of course, the ordinance says nothing of the sort. Protesters do not have to be 100 feet away, but that is the kind of lie that is being told about this legislation.

So is it needed? An article on Saturday in the Post-Gazette noted some recent violence outside a clinic in East Liberty and went on to say:

Abortion providers describe the East Liberty incident as the most vivid example yet of what they have been seeing on sidewalks outside their clinics since last spring, when the cash-strapped city of Pittsburgh withdrew regular police patrols that had been stationed Downtown and in East Liberty to stop confrontations before they escalated. With police gone, said Kim Evert, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, protesters became more forceful and patients and families responded in kind.

If you believe that the buffer zone is a good idea you can call your council member (or call ALL of them):

District 1 - Luke Ravenstahl - 412-255-2135
District 2 - Dan Deasy - 412-255-8963
District 3 - Gene Ricciardi - 412-255-2130
District 4 - James Motznik - 412-255-2131
District 5 - Doug Shields - 412-255-8965
District 6 - Sala Udin - 412-255-2134
District 7 - Len Bodack - 412-255-2140
District 8 - Bill Peduto - 412-255-2133
District 9 - Twanda Carlisle - 412-255-2137

You can also attend tomorrow's City Council Meeting and give brief public testimony in support of the ordinance (Please contact jhirsh@ppwp.org ):

Wednesday, December 7, 2005
10:00 A.M.
Standing Committees Meeting, commencing with the public comment followed by the Committee on Finance and Budget.
Pittsburgh City Council
510 City - County Building
414 Grant St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone:
(412) 255-2138

A vote is expected to occur on this ordinance tomorrow.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal Having Far Reaching Effects Including Here in Pittsburgh

Dan Onorato, Mike Doyle and Luke Ravenstahlat today's early morning press conference.
In a move which political insiders found "stunning" a joint press conference was held today in Pittsburgh by three notably Catholic elected officials: US Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

The three men issued a press release stating that, "We realize that we have no right to impose our particular religious views on the citizenry of Southwestern Pennsylvania."

It went on to add, "We're all Democrats and it's time that we lived up to our Party's platform."

At the presser, Onorato said, "I told the good folks at the Steel-City Stonewall Democrats endorsement vote just this Sunday that I was against same-sex marriage, but with each new revelation in the Church abuse scandal I came to the realization that maybe my Church didn't really have the moral authority to tell others how to live their lives. If elected to be your Governor, I will work for real equality not just some sham unfunded commission."

Mayor Ravenstahl, whose voice frequently chocked with emotion and who at times was blinking back tears, blurted out, "I've been a real douche." He went on, "That vote I made against the Bubble Zone when I was on City Council which I never explained, yeah, that was totally an anti choice vote. Myself and my colleagues here have no right to try to impose the views of our Church or ourselves on the women of our area.

Growing increasingly more philosophical during his comments, Ravenstahl added, "What are we talking about here anyway? I can't even keep my own marriage together and yet I say the gays shouldn't even be allowed to try? It's all about the love, right?"

Doyle, the last to speak, said he'd been conflicted for some time. "Yeah, I voted for the Stupak Amendment, but even then I was still trying to bring the two sides together. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I know I can't impose my own beliefs on others. And, I certainly can't hide behind my faith -- especially not now. I want to say though that there are many, many good people in the laity, but I've had a real change of heart. I'm gonna go one step further and sponsor a repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Abortion is legal in this country and there's no good reason why we should punish poor women. That would be real health care reform."

The three took questions after making their statements and when asked about his status as a resident of the infamous "C Street House" run by the shadowy group called "The Family," Doyle noted that he had moved out over a year ago. "What was I thinking living there? Talk about religious hypocrites and a lack of moral authority! They're almost on par with the leadership in the Catholic Church."

As the conference ended, the press was ushered out with a broadcast of David Bowie's "Changes."


.

McIntire on Choice and the Bubble Zone

Here's a link to the column that John McIntire referenced on air a few moment's ago:

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A39970

We wrote a little something on this issue way back here.

Video of Luke at 14th Ward Meeting

Courtesy of Agent Ska, you can now see for yourself exactly how Interim Mayor Ravenstahl answered a question about contraceptives and the Bubble Zone Bill at the 14th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting. While Ska does not have video of the 7th Ward meeting, Ravenstahl does at least seem to confirm that there was some discussion of this subject at that meeting.

Mayor Luke and the Question of Contraception

I was lucky enough to attend the 14th ward Democratic Committee meeting this evening. It was described at the committees's website as:

14th Ward Democratic Committee Candidate Night at the Sixth Presbyterian Church, corner of Forbes and Murray. Candidate night for Mayor, City Controller, School Board, City Council, and non-judicial County Offices. Doors will open at 6:30. Only candidates that have submitted "Letters of Intent To Seek the Endorsement" will be provided the opportunity to address the committee at this meeting. Candidates will be scheduled to speak at specific time.

And I was disappointed to hear the moderator say that only members of the committee would be allowed to ask questions. Bummer - I had a great one planned out for Mayor Luke.

In any event after the mayor spoke, the floor was opened for questions. A woman in the second row (or was it third?) asked our young mayor a rather probing question. She began by saying that she'd heard that Mayor Luke had mentioned in private to some committee members that he didn't think people should be using contraceptives. The woman then basically asked whether that was true and if not, for him to ease her concerns about his committment to privacy - considering he'd voted against the Peduto/Shields "bubble zone" ordinance.

Over the murmurs of the crowd ("What does that have to do with anything?" was one murmur I heard), Mayor Luke began a very interesting answer. First off, he denied ever having had a conversation about contraception with any committee member. Then he went on to say that while he DID vote against he ordinance, it's now the law and he's going to uphold the law.

Notice what's missing? Whether he thinks people should be using contraception (and it's only a short jump from there to whether women should have access to abortion services).

It may have been an oversight on his part. It may have been a dodge. And while the question may have come from left field, since it was asked, don't you think the people of Pittsburgh deserve a clear answer to the question?

We certainly didn't get it tonight.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! AAAAAH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I just read this.

It's about Mayor Ravenstahl saying in private to some Allegheny County Democratic Committee (ACDC) members how he didn't think people should be using contraceptives. Then, denying that he'd ever had that conversation, then dodging whether or not he's against contraceptives and how committed he is to a right to privacy.

lmxclsksk fkdk;,g ,gdkjkms ddflss nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I'm sorry, I think I temporarily went blind or blacked out or something.

What year is this?

This is coming from Pittsburgh's "hot, hip, young" mayor?

And, let me make this clear, I don't give a flying fig what Luke thinks about contraceptives for his own family.

I do care what this City's Mayor whispers about contraceptives to other public officials (ACDC members are elected by the public) in private when he's trying to get their votes. (The average age of ACDC members must be, like, 70 something and lives in a region which is heavily Catholic.)

I especially care when this same person voted against the so called "Bubble Zone" Ordinance" -- without public comment -- while he was on City Council.

I also care when a supporter of Luke's recently called up a progressive friend of mine claiming that Luke is the real progressive and that Bill Peduto is actually anti-choice. Let's just hope that the caller wasn't working from a script (you know, one for progressives and one for older ACDC members).

Let's also hope that this Luke supporter, who is a gay man, also stops to think for a moment that if Ravenstahl adheres so rigidly to Catholic doctrine on contraceptives (which let's face it, most American Catholics don't), that he might also believe Catholic doctrine regarding gays. I hope he promises to at least abstain from all gay sex sex with other men (and any contraceptive use) until he checks it out with Luke. Otherwise, he might want to consider switching his alliance away from someone who, well happy to have his vote, may very well consider him to be a sinner.

But more importantly, someone who has no problem putting his own religious doctrines first when it comes to making public policy for everyone.

Things that make you go "Hmmm"

Via the Pittsburgh City Paper's Slag Heap blog:

City council district 5

Corey O'Connor raised just under $33,000 this year -- not an earth-shattering total, but thanks largely to the political inheritance of his father, he came into the year with more than $127,500 -- and still has more than $100,000 left. His biggest contributors are union PACs -- Steamfitters #449 gave him $2,000, for example. O'Connor's boss, Congressman Mike Doyle, helped his protege out with a $1,000 PAC contribution.

But progressives take note: O'Connor has also received $500 from Family PAC. That PAC, operated by the Donahue family (of Federated Investors fame), typically backs pro-life candidates. Family PAC also supported Republicans Tim Murphy and Heather Heidelbaugh so far this year. And it contributed $1,000 to the Susan B. Anthony List, which seeks to elect pro-life women around the country. [Emphasis added]

Past recipients of Family PAC funds include McCain-Palin, Rick Santorum, Melissa Hart, Tom Corbett, Pat Toomey, Jane Orie, Phil Ignelzi and Sarah PAC.

Family PAC certainly overwhelmingly favors Republicans, but Corey O'Connor is certainly not a Republican, so it doesn't necessarily follow that because they back anti choice candidates that O'Connor is anti choice (nor does it necessarily follow that because they support him that he supports them). But, it sure would be nice to know both what O'Connor's position is on choice and why Family PAC felt compelled to back him.

And, at this point I feel compelled to note that Chris Zurawsky -- also running in District 5 -- received the most endorsements by progressive groups (Gertrude Stein Political Club, Democracy for Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club); and that Zurawsky is pro choice; and that abortion-related issues do come up in City Council Chambers (also, compelled to repeat that I've been paid by the Friends of Chris Zurawsky campaign to create and maintain his website).

UPDATE: Via the Pittsburgh City Paper:

So where's O'Connor on this issue? Our very own Chris Young asked him that question awhile back. It seems safe to say that O'Connor was not as enthusiastic about the issue as Zurawsky is. But O'Connor did respond that if elected to council, "I would support the bubble-zone" -- a reference to a protester-free area that is maintained around the entrance to family-planning cliincs. O'Connor later added that he didn't think local elected officials "should make a decision on someone's personal life and how they want to choose."

.

EVENTS!

Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006 - TODAY!




Pgh. League of Young Voters Education Fund: Monthly Meeting With Special Guest Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
When: Tuesday, October 17th, 7 PM
Where: Grand Hall, Union Project, 801 N. Negley Avenue, Highland Park
What: A spiced up monthly meeting!

Because the new mayor needs to know what young Pittsburghers care about...

Information: 412.728.2197 or Omar: pghmusicculture@gmail.com
http://www.pittsburgh.indyvoter.org/blog

FYI: I was invited to be one of the community leaders to ask a question, but it looks like I won't be able to make it. If I was going to ask a question, it would have been the following:

"Mayor Ravenstahl, you were quoted in the Post-Gazette as saying you considered yourself to be 'socially conservative.' In that same article Councilman Jim Motznik said that he thought you were 'pro life.' Can you please tell me if you are anti choice and if that's why you voted against the Bubble Zone ordinance and how your social conservatism would affect you postions as mayor?"

(The League is looking for some dope data entry people! Wanting to volunteer, but hate talking to peeps about politics? Shoot Nish at nish@indyvoter.org an email with your availability.)

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Rally at Senator Santorum's Office: Save Social Security!
When: Wednesday, October 18th, 1:30 PM,
Where: Senator Santorum's Office, 100 W. Station Square Drive, Station Square, Landmarks Building, Suite 250.

Part of PA Action's efforts to protect Social Security. I hear that former Senate candidate Chuck Pennacchio will be in attendance.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

SEAD Meeting (South End Active Democrats)
When: Thursday, October 19th
Where: Larry's Roadhouse at Rt 51 and Whited Street in Overbrook.

Members of the Casey Campaign will talk about the plan for victory. 6:30 if you want dinner. Meeting will begin promptly at 7 pm. Democratic Candidates and campaigns welcome. Bring signs, buttons, and literature.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Progress Pittsburgh : PRE-ELECTION BONANZA
When: Tuesday, October 24, 6 PM
Where: 5151 penn gallery, 5151 Penn Ave in Garfield
Why: information + voters = power.

PRE-ELECTION BONANZA to bring you everything you need to know to get educated for and involved in the upcoming general election. Please join them with the Partisan Project show for an evening of information and informal conversation. representatives from organizations like the League of Young Voters will be there and some campaigns might also be present.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact Network Public Action - Public Transit!
When: Thursday, October 26, 7 - 8:30 pm
Where: Petra International Ministries, 235 Eastgate Drive, (former East Hills Shopping Center--near intersection of Robinson Blvd. & Frankstown Ave.)

Adequate and dedicated state funding for public transportation will be one of the major issues addressed by the Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact Network (PIIN) at its Public Action. PIIN expects an attendance of 2,000 or more. Key public officials will be invited to commit to specific actions furthering our transit funding goals. All supporters of this effort are urged to attend.

Information: bsimpson@tmail.com , 412-322-6419 or Wallace Watson
wallwat1@verizon.net , 412-371-8138

Nope, Mayor Opie (as John McIntire calls him) did not embarrass himself. He did just fine on Late Night with David Letterman last night.

But for me, the most telling exchange came when Dave said, "Forget Mayor. How does a 26 year-old become President of City Council?"

Much like some of the church domes in Pittsburgh, the answer to that is byzantine, but back to the show...

Mayor Opie declared that his age was inconsequential because he had the experience (You know, that whole entire two and half years in government. Then again when you're only 26, two and a half years does seem like an awfully long time.)

Then Dave asks Mayor Opie what were the things he did on City Council -- in his epic-length career -- that would have warranted him being chosen President.

So what was Mayor Opie's answer?

Let's just say he did his best to sidestep the question by saying that the very fact that he was chosen as President of City Council made him worthy to be President of City Council.

Uh-ha . . .

About a month ago, someone asked me what I thought of Luke Ravenstahl. I had to say that even after watching City Council meetings for about a year and a half, that I had no real idea what he actually thought about anything -- what his political philosophy is -- if he even had one. I added that as the conventional wisdom was that he was being groomed for higher office, it probably was not in his best interest to offer real opinions on anything that could be used against him later. I mean, why bother at this level? I said all he had to do at the council level was to appear capable and not really piss anyone off.

But, let's take a second to look at his record. Here's what stands out in my mind:

He was against Act 47 before he was for it (or at least against the Firefighters Union/Carlisle sponsored bid to end it now).

He voted against the bubble zone ordinance to protect women from abusive protests at clinics with no explanation (which in this town leads me to believe that he's anti choice until, and if, he states otherwise.)

When given a chance to really reform City Council spending, he opted to keep the walking around monies.

When asked, as Mayor, if he would match Bob O'Connor's pledge that women and minorities would make up half of his appointees, he stopped short of agreeing instead weaseling out of an answer.

Kinda makes this new kid on the block look like one more good old boy network politico, no?

To quote McIntire again:

"Why does a young man necessarily have fresh ideas? He could be a product of an old crowd of long time politicos, and be their pawn in the end. People are WAY to quick to assume that youth equals fresh OR QUALIFIED."

You only have to listen to a group of Young College Republicans discussing their "ideas" to know that's the truth.

UPDATE:
My bad! Apparently there's been a "NICKNAME TRANSFORMATION - MAYOR OPIE TO MAYOR DOOGIE."

UPDATE II:
I had the nagging suspicion when I originally wrote this that I had left something out. I did. Mayor Doogie also had to be pressured to reschedule the special election for Council District 3 last spring after Spring Break instead of during it. Council District 3 includes thousands of students who live in the Pitt Towers -- kids who are only a couple of years younger than he is. He finally changed the date the morning of a planned protest in Oakland. The original date was thought to favor the machine endorsed candidate.

The Bubble-zone Ordinance PASSED

Rich Lord wrote today:

Pittsburgh City Council gave final approval to legislation restricting protests outside of abortion clinics and other healthcare facilities today.

Mayor Tom Murphy's administration would not say whether he will sign the ordinance, but the council majority in favor of it appears large enough to override a veto.

The vote was 6-3 in favor of barring protestors from getting within 15 feet of the doors of any healthcare facility. Inside of 100 feet from the doors, protesters could not approach within eight feet of clients without their consent.

The Downtown-based Women's Law Project heralded the passage as a win for clinic clients who are "often subjected to intensely confrontational and sometimes physically intimidating protest activity" when approaching the facilities.

Other groups have said the ordinance is a restriction on free speech and have pledged to challenge it in court if it is enforced.

Recent Posts

There are no coincidences when it comes to anti choice violence

In 1986 I witnessed the bombing of a women's clinic which performed abortions.

I was working at a company in midtown Manhattan at the time. It was 1:30 in the morning and most of the employees had already left so there were only a handful of people in the office. New York, New York may be the city that never sleeps but it was still pretty quiet and empty at that time of night in that neighborhood.

I was sitting at my desk when I heard a loud explosion that shook the building that I was in and made my ears ring. After an initial moment of shock, I rushed to the windows that overlooked 30th Street and saw smoke pouring out of a building halfway up the block and could see broken glass on the street. I called 911 to report the incident and later saw the first responders arrive. It wasn't until the next day that I learned that there was a women's clinic in that building and that two people had been injured from the blast.

Flash forward six years later. It's one month before New York City would play host to the Democratic National Convention and everyone is gearing up for the event. I'm back working at the aforementioned company after a three-year stint at another. The late Cardinal O'Connor announces that he will conduct a series of prayer vigils in NYC. They are mostly to take place in front of places like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. One stop stands out: it's right outside the clinic that was bombed. Defying all belief, O'Connor claimed that the decision to stage a vigil there had nothing to do with the abortion clinic -- it was just a coincidence -- nothing political at all and no need to read anything into the choice of venue.

Let's look at another "coincidence":

In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes five months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were six abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers (one of these attempts was on Dr. Tiller who was shot in both arms.) There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

Make no mistake that the assassination of Dr. George Tiller was a political act and an act of terrorism.

To think otherwise, you'd need to believe that people can somehow only control insane murderous impulses during the years where there's an R beside the name of resident of the White House (you know, kind of like the way teabaggers "spontaneously" found a need to talk about a revolution over government spending only after Obama was in office and not while W was actually destroying the economy).

This isn't to say that clinics and doctors did not face violent intimidation during the Bush years, just none that rose to a final solution:

According to the National Abortion Federation, since 2000 abortion providers have reported 14 arsons, 78 death threats, 66 incidents of assault and battery, 117 anthrax threats, 128 bomb threats, 109 incidents of stalking, 541 acts of vandalism, one bombing, and one attempted murder.

And, of course there were the "mainstream" groups who egged them on over the years:

Some pro-life groups are issuing statements of condemnation and attempting to paint this murder as the work of an extremist. But this latest act of terrorism is, sadly, not an anomaly. It is part of a clearly-established pattern of harassment, intimidation and violence against abortion providers and pro-choice individuals. And mainstream pro-life groups shoulder much of the blame.

Pro-life organisations routinely refer to abortion as “murder”, a “genocide” and a “holocaust”. They post the full names abortion providers on their websites, along with their addresses, their license plate numbers, their photos, the names of children and the schools those children attend (sometimes with helpful Wild-West-style “Wanted” posters offering $5,000 rewards).

When you convince your followers that abortion providers are the equivalent of SS officers slaughtering innocents by the millions, tell them that “it’s all-out WAR” against pro-choicers and then provide the home addresses and personal information of the “monster” “late-term baby-killer” abortion providers you’re supposedly at war against, you can’t act surprised when those followers conclude that it’s morally justified to use the information to kill doctors.

Add to that the bomb-throwers in the media who are quick to proclaim their innocence -- that calling Tiller a baby killer over and over and over again (repeat 29 times) has no effect or consequence.

[These are the same type of folks who would paint Obama as a terrorist lover during the election or who are SHOCKED! SCHOCKED! when their rejection of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court based on arguments that she practices identity politics or is less than smart results in underestimating "the degree to which a few conservatives would say a few extreme things, and that would be characterized as what all conservatives think."]

So what's to be done now?

I agree with Ezra Klein:

This was, in other words, a political act. Tiller was murdered so that those in his line of work would be intimidated. In conversations with folks yesterday, I heard well-meaning variants on the idea that it would be unseemly to push legislation in the emotional aftermath of Tiller's execution. I disagree. Roeder was acting in direct competition with the United States Congress. And it's quite likely that he changed the status quo. Legislative language and judicial rulings had made abortive procedures legal and thus accessible. Yesterday's killing was meant to render abortive procedures unsafe for doctors to conduct and thus inaccessible.

If a woman cannot get an abortion because no nearby providers are willing to assume the risk of performing it, the actual outcome is precisely the same as if the procedure were illegal. Roeder has, in all likelihood, made abortion less accessible. It would be, in my view, a perfectly appropriate response for the Congress to decisively prove his action not only ineffectual, but, in a broad sense, counterproductive.

That's not to suggest fast-tracking legislation that radically transforms the county's uneasy consensus. But there are plenty of remedies that speak to the question of access alone: Bills that make abortion centers safer and help poor women afford treatment, for instance. We can't stop Scott Roeder from killing George Tiller. But we can stop him from having his intended effect on a woman's ability to choose.

And, there's this from Feministe:

The Feminist Majority Foundation has a form on their website that you can use to send your condolences to Dr. Tiller’s family — which includes a wife, four children and ten grandchildren — and his staff. I hope that you’ll all take the time to write a personalized letter expressing your sorrow at his death, and deep respect and gratitude for the work he did while alive, even if it’s short. This is the most important item in this post.

Jill yesterday put up a post encouraging you to make a pro-choice donation in Dr. Tiller’s honor and memory. Please check that out and give if you can, if you haven’t already.

NOTES:

RE: The Cardinal O'Connor Pray-in. The block which housed the clinic was nearly filled-in with prayer vigil members -- and the surrounding corners and blocks in nearly all directions were full of thousands of pro choice counter protesters. The abortion clinic protesters -- that is what they were -- also had to contend with hundreds and hundreds of flyers which said "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" or which pointed out the non reality of O'Connor's claim that the vigil was not abortion-related which floated down on them over the course of their protest from an office which witnessed the bombing of that clinic six years earlier. New York's Finest could be observed picking up flyers, laughing at what they said, looking up briefly at our windows and choosing not to stop their, um, distribution.

Yesterday, Chris Moore's Pittsburgh Now TV show covered the subject of the high rate of abortion among African American women. As there was no mention of the assassination of Dr. Tiller, I hope I'm not going out on a limb to think that the program was a repeat (but maybe another "coincidence"). Day Gardner of the National Black Pro-Life Union, which is anti choice, was a guest on the program. This was not the first time that Moore featured a guest who thought that there was a racist conspiracy to kill black babies with abortion as the main weapon of choice or that words like genocide or eugenics were floated.

It is true that that African American women have a much higher rate of abortions than white women (about 3 to 1). What was never mentioned on the show was a very simple explanation for that high rate: they also have a three times greater rate of unintended pregnancies. And, if you couldn't guess that Ms. Gardner is also against all forms of birth control (including condoms), then you haven't been paying attention.

If you believe that abortion politics have no local consequences, remember that Lil Mayor Luke voted against the "bubble zone" which protects clinic patrons and staff back when he was a member of council.
.

Jack Kelly Sunday

While the headline for Jack's column this week may turn out to be true, little else is.

Let's jump right in:

The member of Congress most responsible for our current economic troubles may pay for his sins in November.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. No one insisted more strongly on the lax lending standards at the heart of the subprime mortgage crisis. No one fought more vigorously against oversight of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), whose bankruptcies accelerated the economic collapse.

"The issue that day in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong," wrote Donovan Slack of the Boston Globe Thursday. "Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannie's and Freddie's financial integrity ... Now, it's clear he was wrong."

So much Jack-spin in such a small Jack-graf. This is such an old chestnut that Frank has already responded to it. In March of 2009:

[T]he Republican history on this subject appears to end in 2003. I understand why they find later events unpleasant, since those events document the gathering series of policy mistakes that the Republicans made which ended in their being repudiated in 2006, and re-repudiated in 2008. In their view of the world, the last relevant thing that happened was a statement I made in 2003 in which I said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not in crisis. I did say that. And I would have said it as well – and may have – about Wachovia Bank, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and dozens of other financial institutions in America and elsewhere which were not in fact in crisis in 2003. [emphasis added]

He went on:

What happened subsequently, in the years the Republicans wish to ignore because they cannot defend what happened – is that the Bush administration pushed for even more subprime lending, Alan Greenspan refused to use congressional authority he’d been given in 1994 to regulate it, and the House Republicans blocked any efforts to legislate against it. In fact, as quoted in a story in the Bloomberg News, when the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase significantly the number of loans they bought for people below median income, I objected saying that this would be good neither for the borrowers who could not repay the loans nor for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Incidentally, Donovan Slack of the Globe (who Jack quotes) while heaping lots of blame on Congressman Frank also wrote:

But Frank said that putting blame entirely on him is unfair — and several independent analysts agree. They said Republicans also failed to take warning signs seriously enough to avert disaster, despite controlling the White House and both houses of Congress between 2003 and 2007, a crucial period leading up to the Fannie and Freddie failures.

Something of Slack's that Jack didn't quote. Same with this:

When the Democrats won control of the House in 2006 and Frank became chairman of the Financial Services Committee the following year, one of the first measures he helped pass imposed tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie and prevented them from taking on too much risk.

“It’s the Republican line. They say it happened on my watch, but my watch began in January 2007,’’ Frank said. “The mistake I made was a nonoperational one — I wasn’t in power. From the day I became chairman, I think we did everything we could.’’

By the time Frank’s bill passed, it was too late.

Indeed for not fighting vigorously against oversight of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this is an odd charge considering that Frank sponsored the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 which, according to the CRS summary:

Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Act) to establish, in place of the present Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), headed by a Director (Director) possessing general supervisory and regulatory authority over the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the federal home loan banks ("the regulated entities").

Jack, like some other conservative critics, conspicuously ends his history of the lending crisis at the punctuation ending Barney Frank's 2003 statement while his chairmanship of the Committee started 4 years later.

In any event, the whole "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac created the crisis" is more or less bunk.

From Businessweek in 2008:

There’s a dangerous — and misleading — argument making the rounds about the causes of our current credit crisis. It’s emanating from Washington where politicians are engaging in the usual blame game but this time the stakes are so high that we can’t afford to fall victim to political doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real estate bubble and subprime meltdown. It’s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits.

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity.

So Jack's arguments (that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac is to blame and Barney Frank is responsible for that) are both old and incorrect.

How much of a surprise is that?

Planned Parenthood PAC's Slate Card

In light of the recent Bubble/Buffer Zone opinion, here's Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania PAC's handy voter guide for today:

http://pppavotes.org/voters-guide.php
.