Independence Day

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

- Patriot Abigail Adams, 1776

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 2011

While the Founders would obviously have no problem with discrimination against women, how many truly believe they'd be in agreement that corporations were people who had religious beliefs that allow them to discriminate against a class of citizens and be exempt from duly passed laws?

Certainly the five Catholic, male judges on the Roberts Court believe that it's perfectly fine for corporations to hold others (others of course being women) hostage to their own particular religious views.

And while the media and supporters got the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case wrong by insisting that it was a "narrow" ruling, it only took a day for that to be proven false and for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be correct (in calling it a "decision of startling breadth"):

In fact, it only took a day for the Court’s “narrow” decision to start to crack open. On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday. 

In light of its ruling on Hobby Lobby and a related suit, the Supreme Court ordered three appeals courts to reconsider cases in which they had rejected challenges from corporations that object to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services at all.

[snip] 

 It’s bad enough that the Court privileged the belief that IUDs and emergency contraceptives induce abortion over the scientific evidence that clearly says otherwise. With Tuesday’s orders, the conservative majority has effectively endorsed the idea that religious objections to insurance that covers any form of preventative healthcare for women have merit.

Just as bad, these males on the court actually lied about their ruling.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in a dissent on Thursday (signed by all the women on the court), noted, “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”

Sotomayor was referencing that accommodation was one of the reasons Justice Samuel Alito cited to justify his Hobby Lobby decision:

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government has to show it has pursued the least restrictive means to accomplish its goal. Alito claimed that because the nonprofit accommodation exists, that means the government has other ways to get women access to contraception that respects religious liberty. Yet only a few days later, he ruled that the nonprofit accommodation – again, signing a form – is also a violation of religious liberty.

Yep, that means that the often trotted out example of the Little Sisters of the Poor (with a name like that, how could anyone deny them anything?) can refuse to even sign a damn sheet of paper saying they want a waiver for providing birth control because: religion.

To recap: Corporations are people with religious beliefs. Their beliefs trump women's beliefs, women's rights under the law and women's health. Women can be discriminated against and have no rights against discrimination under the Constitution. And, it's perfectly fine for Supreme Court justices to lie in their rulings.

Happy Fucking Fourth, ladies!

SCOTUS rules that many corporations are people with religious rights and that they can discriminate specifically against women's health care because Eve was a dirty, dirty slut

Did you expect anything else?

Hey Supreme Court: No Bosses in My Bedroom

This:

Uncle Sugar!

 

("Uncle Sugar" link)

I have a question!

I was half watching Chris Hayes on MSNBC tonight and he was arguing with some anti choice guy about the Affordable Care Act provision which requires employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. I suppose this came up because the Supreme Court decided to take on Hobby Lobby's (and other for profit companies') objections to this provision.

Locally, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, the Diocese of Erie and several affiliated nonprofit groups have recently won an injunction against having to follow that same provision. Please note that the diocese themselves didn't need to follow that part of the act--only their nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities--you know, the ones that take taxpayer funding (and lots of it).

But Hayes, and no one else I see on my TV set asks the one question of the opponents of the provision that I want to hear. It goes something like this:

Sir/Madame: The Affordable Care Act requires larger companies and nonprofits to provide health insurance to people who work for them who, in turn, may or may not end up using it to cover contraception. The law requires companies and nonprofits to provide a paycheck to people who work for them who, in turn, may or may not end up using it to cover contraception. What is the fucking difference in terms of "morality"?

OK. For the sake of television they can leave out the "fucking" part of my question. But, seriously, what is the fucking difference? How are they not paying for contraceptives either way? In neither case are they actually being forced to purchase the contraceptives themselves and put it in the hands of their employees. In both cases they would be made to follow laws that everyone else must follow in terms of compensation to their employees. In both cases their employees end up getting birth control, and in neither case do they get to stone their employees to death (for the moment anyway) for being "immoral"--or for as Bishop Zubik and Cardinal Timothy Dolan have called it, "evil" and "facilitating scandal."

They are simply making it more expensive for their employees to get the birth control. If they really, really cared about the "morality" of their employees or being "pro life," shouldn't they fire their immoral workers? Of course they can't do that because they'd run out of employees as 62% of all women of reproductive age are currently using a contraceptive method.

And not having a ready pool of low paid women to exploit and impose your own religious beliefs on employ, my friends, would be bad for business.

"I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor"

While voting to shut down the government Saturday night, apparently some of the House members weren't just drunk on power. From a Politico Congressional reporter:

I'm not over exaggerating when I say I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor.
— Ginger Gibson (@GingerGibson) September 29, 2013

And from a Buzzfeed reporter on Capitol Hill:

I def saw more than 1 member of congress putting a few back on Penn earlier. Ran into 2 in the liquor store.
— KateNocera (@KateNocera) September 29, 2013

And before they even got drunk, they were already acting like drunken pigs:

[T]hey have added a “conscience clause” to the spending bill which takes away preventative care from women, which includes birth control.  

[snip]  

Friday afternoon, Republican John Culberson from TX got huge applause from his colleagues when he compared the GOP’s effort to destroy Obamacare to the heroes of 9/11. Culberson compared the House Repubs to the passengers on United Flight 93 who overtook the terrorists and got control of the plane on 9/11. Yes, Seriously.

This is your government on drugs Tea.

Song of the Day

Brought to you by International Women's Day.

Vote like your lady parts depend on it!

The Bishops Speak...

And guess who they want Catholics to vote for (without actually saying it, nudge-nudge wink-wink)?

From Selena Zito at the Trib:

Roman Catholic bishops in Pennsylvania are urging the faithful to remember the church’s teachings on marriage, education and religious liberty when voting on Tuesday, calling this presidential election a “historical challenge.”

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference chose All Saints’ Day to issue its election statement reminding Catholics that “most urgent political issues — ranging from the economy, immigration and abortion to global security — raise profoundly moral questions.”

“Because politics is the place where competing moral visions of a society meet and struggle, our democracy depends on people of conviction fighting for what they believe in the public square, yet doing so with an abiding respect for one another,” the bishops said.

Here's the statement.

And even though this is Zito is political reporter here, Zito the conservative columnist just can't resist the conservative spin:

The bishops warned against efforts to redefine the nature of marriage, to exclude parental authority in school choice, to encroach upon Catholic health care and social services and to erode religious liberty — an apparent reference to a Health and Human Services mandate on contraceptives and federal funding for abortion in Obamacare. [Emphasis added.]

There is no federal funding for abortion (except for rape and incest and when the life of the mother is in danger) - the Hyde Amendment has guaranteed that for decades.

And if there's any question whether federal funds can be used in Obamacare, there's an Executive Order that answers that question:

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

How could political reporter Selena Zito not know this?  And if she does, then it's simply dishonest to write what she wrote.  (Again, which is it with these folks at the Trib?  Incompetence or dishonesty?)

But let's move on to the Bishops' statement.  When they write:

Religious liberty itself – “our first, most cherished freedom” – is no longer secure. At first glance, this may seem otherwise because religious freedom is so deeply ingrained in our national history. But democracy has no special immunity to losing its soul by little steps. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great chronicler of early American democracy, observed more than 150 years ago, “it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life” – because the more the state provides, the more it inevitably controls.

Events have proven this true. In recent years a pattern of legislative and judicial actions has emerged in our country that undermines religious liberty and jeopardizes the contributions of religious bodies in the public realm. Government policies that seek to impose morally repugnant services on religiously affiliated medical providers...

And:

Consider today’s aggressive efforts to redefine the nature of marriage, to exclude parental authority in the choice of the best education for their children, and to force Catholic healthcare and social services to end their ministries unless they violate their religious identities through mandated support of practices contrary to the very sanctity of human life. [Emphasis added.]

Who do you think they want Catholics to support?  Notice how they framed the issue.  Now look at reality.

What's being discussed here is not The Church being forced to "end their ministries" in anyway.  It's about access to insurance (that they're not paying for) for women (who may or may not be Catholic but who work for a Catholic institution) who want contraceptives.  That's what the bishops oppose.  And in doing so, they're imposing their own faith in the name of religious liberty.

Amazing how faith, yet again, gets in the way of reality.

I was robocalled by The Catholic Association

Yesterday morning I received a recorded call by "Sue." "Sue" said she wasn't trying to tell me who to vote for, BUT instead of trying to get folks jobs, President Obama was spending his time trying to take away the religious freedoms of Catholics. Uh-huh. I'm not even sure the call mentioned birth control.

The recording said the call was paid for by The Catholic Association. I'm assuming that I got the call because I'm a super voter, registered Democrat in Western PA with a Catholic-sounding name(?). (What exactly would that computer algorithm look like anyway? First name "Maria"/"Angela"/"Carmela"/"Theresa" and last name ends in a vowel?)

I will repeat what I said back in February:

Let's get it straight. The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays. It does not, however, require religions, churches, parishes, dioceses, archdioceses, etc. to cover contraception -- they are exempt (if you're a secretary working for a church you're shit out of luck). What we're talking about are public institutions like universities and hospitals -- non-profit businesses (much in the same way that UPMC, for example, is a "non-profit") -- who take government money and who take money from the public being required to follow the law to not discriminate against women when covering their health care costs.

That's it.

If the Catholic Church does not want to follow the law, they can stop taking federal funds or they can get out of the business of running businesses.

That's it.

That's their choice.

(Jesus' choice -- from all available evidence -- would seem to be to sell everything and give it to the poor. Just saying...)

But, now I'll add this from a Republican-appointed judge's ruling in federal court late last month who upheld the Obama Administration’s birth control coverage rules:

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. [It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .

[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

Or as Think Progress explains it:

A key insight in this opinion is that salaries and health insurance can be used to buy birth control, so if religious employers really object to enabling their employees to buy birth control, they would have to not pay them money in addition to denying them comprehensive health insurance. An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

Cause that would hardly be "small government" now would it?

Video of the Day (for Mitt)

While Mitt Romney continues to flip-flop on his positions on reproductive rights, here's a video to remind everyone what's at stake. And, here's a link which shows that increased access to insurance for birth control under RomneyCare actually decreased the abortion rate in Massachusetts -- especially among teens.

 

There he goes again! Mitt Romney tries to flip-flop on abortion one more time.

In a not totally unexpected "shift" to the center, here's what GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the Des Moines Register Editorial Board in an interview yesterday:

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

Looks like Mitt wants to keep that gain he made with women in the polls after the debate last week -- a debate which utterly failed to address women's reproductive rights issues.

So who should women believe -- Mitt or Mitt -- when it comes to our lady bits?

Here's Romney on abortion...before he started running for president:

  Here's Romney at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994 (he and Ann wrote them a check for $150 that year):

Here's Romney on Planned Parenthood in 2012:

  Here's Romney earlier this year saying he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and that he supports "a pro-life policy":

“I’m in favor of a pro-life policy. The legislation that relates to abortion which is something that is going to have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the key decisions I’ll take as the president will be number one, stopping funding for Planned Parenthood, re-instituting the Mexico City policy which says our funds can’t be used for abortion around the world and appointing justices to the Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, hopefully reverse Roe v. Wade, and return to the states, the authority for making law with regards to abortion.”

Romney's folks are already walking back his comment to the Des Moines Register. Here's what Andrea Saul, Romney for President Press Secretary, tweeted yesterday via Katrina Trinko, National Review reporter and member of USA Today's Board of Contributors:

. @andreamsaul on Romney's abortion comment to DMR: Rom "wld of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life"
— Katrina Trinko (@KatrinaTrinko) October 9, 2012

So, again, who do women believe? Mitt or Mitt?

Was he lying to us earlier this very year or was he lying to the Des Moines Register yesterday?

  Who can believe one word that comes out of his mouth?

PA Congressman Mike Kelly Likens Birth Control Mandate to Pearl Harbor and 9/11

Rep. Mike Kelly in his natural habitat

US Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Butler, PA) commenting yesterday on the mandatory contraception coverage going into effect that day (via Talking Points Memo):

“I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack,” Kelly said, according to NBC. “I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.”

Yes, requiring all businesses -- including those owned by religious institutions -- to have insurance which covers women's reproductive healthcare needs is exactly like Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

If Kelly truly believes this, he should think seriously about jumping off the upper floors of a very tall building -- the way people had to at the World Trade Towers when they were attacked. Otherwise, he should think seriously about shutting the fuck up.

Missa Eaton is running against this assclown. You should think seriously about throwing her some bucks.

Here's what the Affordable Care Act does for women (when its not busy raping churches):

Gender Gap

"Democrats Winning Women Across The Board, Polls Show"

I can't imagine why on earth there's a gender gap...

Sally Kalson's Modest Proposal

An idea whose time has come. Guys, this one's for you:

"I solemnly swear to abstain from sexual intercourse with any and all human females, paid or unpaid, regardless of age, ethnicity, national origin and marital status, including my own wife, who hasn't let me near her anyway since this whole birth control thing began.

"I further swear to hold my sperm sacred for its zygote-creating potential and to account for every single one my body produces, verified by monthly tests and exams.

"My employer has the right to question me and see the test results, in order to avoid providing medical coverage for behavior he finds morally objectionable."

Read Kalson's entire article here.

Syndicator for Rush Limbaugh Suspends All National Ads For Two Weeks

After reporting that the total number of companies to drop their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh Show was up to 140 earlier yesterday, Think Progress announced that Rush's syndicator was suspending all national advertising for two weeks:

Radio-Info.com reports that Premiere Networks, which syndicates the Rush Limbaugh show, told its affiliate radio stations that they are suspending national advertising for two weeks. Rush Limbaugh is normally provided to affiliates in exchange for running several minutes of national advertisements provided by Premiere each hour. These ads are called “barter spots.” These spots are how Premiere makes its money off of Rush Limbaugh and other shows it syndicates.

Looks like when Rushbo slandered Sandra Fluke -- and by extension, the vast majority of women in this country -- he bit off a little more than he could chew.
Not Safe for Work:

Hillary Clinton on Extremists: "They all want to control women"

(Longer remarks here)

Transcript: "Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn't matter what country they're in or what religion they claim -- they all want to control women. They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and our own bodies. Yes, it is hard to believe, but even here at home, we have to stand up for women's rights and reject efforts to marginalize any one of us because America needs to set an example for the entire world."

Via USA Today:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waded into the debate over women's rights, warning a global audience that "extremists" are out to control women.

Clinton's remarks to the Women in the World Summit come as Democrats and Republicans fight over issues such as access to birth control.

Thank you, Hillary!

Two local boobs on the wrong side of history

Just in time for Women's History month, PA's Forced Ultrasound Bill and The Blunt Amendment allowing any employer to deny birth control coverage any insurance coverage requirement on moral whims objections both went down in flames. One would be tempted to decry Republicans again and their relentless War on Women, but we can't ignore the Democratic douchebags are who foot soldiers in this war too.

The Trouble With Harry

PA State Rep. Harry A. Readshaw (D, PA-36) not only cosponsored the odious Forced Ultrasound (Rape by Any Other Name) Bill, he was completely out of line when replying to a constituents' letter to him about it (blogger Amadi). He began his thoroughly condescending letter to her by addressing her by her first name only. He proceeds to divulge his daughter's private medical condition as a part of his argument and concludes by letting Amadi know that he's looked up her voting record. Amadi also notes that the letter is handwritten -- perhaps to ensure that there is no digital trail (I guess he neglected to find in his inquiries that she is a popular blogger). Please read her account of it here, including a photo of his correspondence). I'm embarrassed to add that he is also my Rep.

What's the Matter With Bob?

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) was one of only three Democratic US Senators to vote against killing the Blunt Amendment. One must suppose that he favored it on the basis of his Catholic faith -- even though it was so broad as to allow employers to willy-nilly ignore any insurance coverage requirement (and as noted by Sen. Barbara Boxer, allow insurance companies free rein to deny coverage on "moral" grounds as well -- like that wouldn't be abused). Here's Obama for America's take on the bill, Bob:


(Click to enlarge)
Hey! Wait a minute? Doesn't Bob work for us? I think we should all vote on what health care coverage we want to deny him. Please be as arbitrary and capricious as you like! Also, I agree with Marcy Wheeler that Bobby (as someone who's been on the public dole for many years) needs to disclose to us, his employers, details as to what his history of reproductive choice has been, including details on what kinds of birth control he and his wife have used and who paid for it, as well as whether he's used erectile dysfunction drugs, and who paid for it. It's only fair! After all, employers have a right to have a say in these matters.

Fun With Video: The Frothy Mix

Shit Santorum Says:



New Santorum Campaign Ad:



Documentary on Rick "Honey Badger" Santorum's Tenacity:

The War on Women, Part II: What's Wrong With This Picture?

Here's a photograph of the witness table at yesterday's House hearing on contraceptives:


If you don't get what's wrong with it, I'll spell it out for you:




Via Think Progress:

This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.

[snip]

Issa also dismissed the Democrats’ woman witness as a “college student’ who does not “have the appropriate credentials” to testify before his committee.

So what was the appropriately credentialed remarks like? Here's the testimony of the Most Reverend William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Shorter version: women's va-jay-jays are the mandated ham salad sandwich at a kosher deli -- I kid you not!).