Eugene Robinson: ‘What Is The GOP Thinking?’

Please read his WaPo op-ed. There are several things he presents that I haven't seen explicitly said elsewhere. Here's a tiny sample:

...

At least there are some in the [Republican] party who recognize how much trouble Republicans make for themselves by breaking the armistice in the culture wars and launching battles that cannot be won. It looks as if the nation will have to stand by until GOP realists and ideologues reach some sort of understanding, which may take some time.

...

Indeed. There's scarcely any point in getting worked up about all the stunts the GOP is pulling this week. The only one that might have real consequences is McConnell's threat to eliminate the possibility of filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, and it's not clear to me that he would win that one hands-down.

Robinson again:

...

You might think the [anti-abortion] demonstrators already had reason to cheer. The abortion rate is at “historic lows,” having dropped by 13 percent in the decade between 2002 and 2011, according to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The main reason is that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, which suggests logically that if Republicans really want to reduce abortion, what they should do is work to increase access to birth control.

...

Every time I've pointed this out to a rank-and-file Republican, s/he has waved hands in the air and ranted about some other imaginary cause for the reduction in the number of abortions. I know people need to pat themselves on the back for how effective their political stunts are, but American opinion on abortion in the four decades since Roe has been all over the map, and it's a simple fact that if you're not pregnant, you don't need an abortion.

Robinson:

...

At issue, apparently, is that, in making exceptions for abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, the [failed House] bill specifies that the rape must have been reported to law enforcement. This restriction cannot help but bring to mind the grief Republicans suffered in 2012 over Senate candidate Todd Akin’s appalling attempt to distinguish between “legitimate rape” and some other kind of rape.

...

Republicans need to recognize... c'mon, it isn't that difficult... that any time they attempt to compromise a woman's ability or legal permission to obtain an abortion when she has been raped, they are only confirming in the public's mind that they, GOPers, truly are waging a War on Women.

The problem for Republicans is, as Robinson points out, that whenever they win big in an election, the entire radical-conservative faction of the party (and it is a faction; not all Repub's are like that) runs out and screams and shouts in its intention to punish not only Democrats but also moderate Republicans for their reasonable recognition that, one, some abortions are inevitable in a just society, and two, they probably can't force everyone to do what their most conservative wing would like. Reality is a b!t<h, ain't it, GOPers?

DC Circuit: ACA Contraceptive Mandate Does Not Impose Burden On Religious Groups

Via Richard Lyon at Kos, we get the word from CBS-DC:

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a challenge to Obamacare that would have enabled non-profit religious organizations to avoid government-approved contraception programs.

In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the challenged regulations do not impose a substantial burden on religious groups.

...

Now it only remains for the Supremes to reverse... [/sigh]

What Would It Take To Drive A Woman To A ‘Second Amendment Solution’?

Read this opinion piece by Robin Marty at TPM for a few examples of anti-abortion legislation possible (not likely, I think) if we end up with Republicans dominating both houses of Congress.

Remember: under Roe, a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, subject to some restrictions which the current Congress and Supreme Court seem hellbent on extending. Those efforts notwithstanding, the woman's right is constitutionally protected, as a fundamental right to the integrity of one's own body should be.

Remember also that most of the same zealots who want to ban abortion also want to ban or severely restrict contraception. Even most Republicans whose lives I know anything about use contraception. Banning contraception is madness.

All you anti-abortion women-hating maniacs, think about what your approach means:

You are already prepared to declare women who have miscarriages murderers; several state legislatures have already attempted to do just that (e.g., Kansas, Georgia). (You almost certainly view me, along with every other supporter of a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion, a murderer.)

If you go forward with this... if you render many women and supporters of women's rights murderers under your obscene new laws (or under no law at all, as happened in Dallas in September; please read about this astonishing incident)... if women are already deemed murderers for suffering miscarriage, a phenomenon thought to end 10% to 20% of all pregnancies through no intent of the woman... what do they have left to lose by going after you?

Right. You give women motive, you give them opportunity, and in this society, means are truly no problem. Have a nice day. [/sarcasm]

Watch Bill Moyers As He Interviews Linda Greenhouse And Dahlia Lithwick On Hobby Lobby And The Supreme Court...

... but put your credit card and your bullhorn out of reach first, because you may find yourself thinking you need to make a trip to DC to engage in a bit of civil disobedience... no, just watch the video to inform your own condemnation of this decision, its consequences even in the short term, and the whole bloody Catholic Supreme Court as currently configured by GeeDubya Bush and Barry Obama. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you are a reader of this site, this interview will make you angry!

Court Gives Broader Scope To Contraceptive Ruling, All 3 Female Justices Object (MAJOR UPDATES)

Very briefly, 'cause it's an AP article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Thursday allowed, at least for now, an evangelical college in Illinois that objects to paying for contraceptives in its health plan to avoid filling out a government document that the college says would violate its religious beliefs.

...

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied Wheaton's request and made the college fill out a form that enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

...

So now the sheer obscenity of the Court's conservative majority position has divided the Court along... well, gender lines as surely as partisan lines. Great. Just great. [/irony]

And having for the most part gotten what they wanted regarding abortion, they're targeting contraception. If I were a woman, I wouldn't expect them to stop there.

Conservatives, including the five Justices (plus one Justice normally not so conservative) in the majority of this ruling, make several outright misrepresentations of contraception:http://www.thenation.com/blog/180509/supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=onsite

• It is a real stretch to say that any modern contraceptive method is an abortifacient. As a matter of scientific fact, they don't.
• Many institutions (e.g., Hobby Lobby) who rant on forever about contraceptives for their employees nonetheless do business with China, where family size regulation by abortion is not uncommon.
• The consequences of an unintended pregnancy brought to term can be devastating to young women, poor women and working women. The consequences (both circumstantial and psychological) of an abortion as opposed to an unwanted child are, despite contrary claims, almost always positive.

In other words, since the Hobby Lobby ruling, it's going to be open season on women of childbearing age. Ladies, prepare for second-class citizenship, or prepare to fight like hell!

(Now may be a good time for a contribution to Planned Parenthood if you're in a position to afford it.)

ADDENDUM: also very much worth reading is Lyle Denniston's post at SCOTUSblog.

AFTERTHOUGHT: this is a women's issue, of course, but it is much more than that: it is a constitutional separation-of-powers issue. It looks very much to me as if the Supreme Court is gradually using traditional judicial review to supplant parts of congressionally passed and presidentially signed laws, as well as to overrule legal executive orders to countervail their effect on policy. If I were president, or if I were in Congress, I'd be plenty angry!

AFTERTHOUGHT: still think it's "only" a women's issue? Think again, this time about a statement by Zoë Carpenter at The Nation:

... Business owners now have a new basis for trying to evade anti-discrimination laws and their responsibilities to their employees. Religious liberty is already the rallying cry for conservatives looking for a legal way to discriminate against LGBT Americans; other business owners have tried to use religion to justify opposition to minimum-wage laws and Social Security taxes. Faith groups are already trying to capitalize on the Hobby Lobby decision out of court; on Wednesday, a group of religious leaders asked the Obama administration for an exemption from a forthcoming federal order barring federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Introducing religious belief as a basis for legal action eviscerates the freedom-of-religion clause of the First Amendment... we don't have to guess what will happen; it's already happening, and we can watch the whole sorry business unfold right away.

AFTERTHOUGHT:  Melissa Harris-Perry explains How the Supreme Court Undermined Women's Citizenship. (H/T l'Enfant de la Haute Mer, in comments.)

Supremes On Hobby Lobby (And Similar Corp's, Partnerships, Etc.): F*** The Law, You Can Do Anything Your Corporate Religious Beliefs Tell You

From Sahil Kapur of TPM, the decision was, of course, 5-4, along partisan lines. Justice Ginsburg says the Court has "wandered into a minefield"; she is right, of course, but it's worse than that: the Court has already tripped a mine and the explosion has started. Here's an excerpt from Justice Ginsburg's opinion (please don't stop here; read her entire opinion):

In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.

Justice Scalia
Father Antonin

Ginsburg also noted that "... the case, brought by the Christian owners of the retail chain Hobby Lobby, marks the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has exempted a for-profit corporation from a generally applicable law on religious grounds."

As best I recall, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," i.e., Congress cannot declare an official religion for the nation, nor can they prohibit people from worshiping as they damned well please. But as of today, what Congress may not do, business entities may freely do, imposing the practical consequences of their own religious beliefs on their employees, even in defiance of laws passed by Congress... and the Supreme Court will back them up as they do this.

What's next? How long before Hobby Lobby (and similar businesses) send around a general memo that all employees who want to keep their jobs will appear Sunday morning at Holy Smokes Catholic Church for the early service? And when they do, will the Supreme Court back the companies, on the grounds that the RFRA is violated when employees attend a different church, or no church at all?

Is anyone else reminded of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale? Do not, for even a moment, think "it can't happen here"!

---

AFTERTHOUGHT: a bit more reading and contemplating led me to ask and answer this question:

Q: What makes Burwell v. Hobby Lobby like Bush v. Gore?
A: Both rulings contain explicit self-limiting text that restricts the use of the decision to the current case only, i.e., neither can be used as precedent to rule on cases evoking similar underlying legal principles... because, says the Court, there are no underlying principles to be invoked.

Bush v. Gore:
[from the Court's Opinion]

• Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
[from the Court's Syllabus]

• This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandate e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

[from the Court's Opinion]

• In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

Let's simplify the latter a bit: the decision is NOT to be applied generally to any old insurance-coverage mandate that conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs, but rather only to the contraceptive mandate in the ACA. Why is the applicability to be thus restricted, when the entire context is virtually the same? Because we [the Court] say so, that's why.

The Court majority's duck-and-cover on the whole issue is breathtaking: their restriction of application is essentially arbitrary, but they want to be sure no one uses it as precedent in another future case... just as they did in Bush v. Gore. I am no lawyer, but if I were, I suspect I'd find this little tap-dance both incompetent and determined to effect a specific outcome to the detriment of women's health. This song-and-dance really sucks; we deserve better from our highest court.

What Is Wrong With This Conversation?

Chris Z, Jane's boss (of either sex): Here are your options for our company's medical insurance. Please select one by Tuesday.

Jane X, female employee: Hmm... I want a medical insurance plan that covers contraception. I want to use the morning-after pill. If my husband has a plan that covers erectile dysfunction medication, and we've already had as many kids as we want, I'd better be prepared. I don't see such a plan listed among my options. The Affordable Care Act requires that I be offered that option.

Chris: You can't have it. I am opposed to morning-after contraception on religious grounds. It's my company, and I won't offer a plan that covers that.

Jane: But I'm paying the premium. The law doesn't require you to pay for the plan, only to make it available.

Chris: I won't do it. It's against my religion, and this is a company of God-fearing people.

Jane: But it's not against my religion, and I'm as religious as you are. I'm the one paying for the coverage, not you, and the ACA requires that coverage. It's the law.

Chris: If you persist in demanding something I believe is immoral, I'll take the matter to federal court.

---

News Report: OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A federal judge granted an injunction Friday that prohibits the government from enforcing the federal health care law's requirement that insurance coverage include access to the morning-after pill and similar contraceptives on almost 200 religious organizations that have filed a class-action lawsuit to block the mandate. ...

---

Jane: But what about my religious freedom? You're requiring me to abide by the tenets of your religion. There was never such a clause in my contract with you. All I'm asking is that you comply with the law.

Chris: Well, I guess you'll just have to work for someone else. Please pack up your desk. An HR representative will see you to the door.

---

What is wrong with this conversation? Everything!

(NOTE: Chris and Jane are wholly fictional. The court ruling is not.)

DC Circuit Strikes Down Obamacare Birth Control Mandate

In yet another instance of pure partisan politics manifesting itself on the federal bench, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Obamacare requirement that employer-provided insurance must offer women coverage for birth control. From Julian Hattem at The Hill's RegWatch Blog:

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the birth control mandate in ObamaCare, concluding the requirement trammels religious freedom.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled 2-1 in favor of business owners who are fighting the requirement that they provide their employees with health insurance that covers birth control.

Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.

...

Judge Brown

Janice Rogers Brown is a George W. Bush appointee, presumably paying off the man and the party who elevated her to the federal bench. But put aside that all justice is politics in this awful age. The ruling interests me not only for its consequences (how many business owners will suddenly get attacks of Catholic conscience and opt out of insuring their female employees on a footing equal to male employees) but for its implied assertion about the nature of protected religious freedom.

Let me pose a parallel example. I oppose war under almost all circumstances, arguably on religious grounds; therefore, under this court's reasoning, I should be able to decline to pay the share of my federal income taxes that underwrites the U.S. military. How well do you think that would work out for me?

Law has to be about actions, not beliefs. Religion is intrinsically about beliefs. Whatever I believe about war, it is no violation of my First Amendment rights to tax me to pay for the US Army just as everyone else is taxed for that purpose. I can pick and choose what I believe as a matter of religion or conscience. I cannot similarly pick and choose what taxes I pay. Those businessmen aren't even being asked to pay for the contraceptives; the government will do that. They just want, allegedly as a matter of religion, to decline to participate altogether.

If this decision stands, I want my tax exemption, as surely as those Catholic businessmen get their exemption from authorizing... not purchasing; the government does that and not the business... contraceptives for employees. In all fairness, neither of us should get the break; otherwise, no law involving government funding of any activity unpopular with any religion, or opposed by anyone's conscience, could ever be sustained.

I'm sorry; there's no way a government could operate on that basis. If these Catholic businessmen are prepared to violate the law as a matter of civil disobedience and uncomplainingly go to jail to sustain their conscientious objection, I might have some respect for them. Otherwise, make 'em comply like everyone else.

'There's Got To Be A Morning After...'

... pill, that is, with all due respect to Maureen McGovern's song. Pam Belluck at New York Times:

A federal judge on Friday ordered that the most common morning-after pill be made available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger. But his acidly worded decision raises a broader question about whether a cabinet secretary can decide on a drug’s availability for reasons other than its safety and effectiveness.


In his ruling, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York accused the Obama administration of putting politics ahead of science. He concluded that the administration had not made its decisions based on scientific guidelines, and that its refusal to lift restrictions on access to the pill, Plan B One-Step, was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”

He said that when the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, countermanded a move by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 to make the pill, which helps prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse, universally available, “the secretary’s action was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”

...

I am willing to admit that there are different meanings wrapped up in the concept of "adult," but there is really only one significant physical meaning for a woman, and it should be the meaning reflected in all American law: if a female human being can become pregnant, she is an adult, regardless of her age, no ifs, ands or buts. And every adult human female should have unrestricted access to contraceptives, including morning-after pills of all sorts.

If you believe otherwise, ask yourself two questions: 1) am I an adult human female under that criterion? and 2) am I deciding for myself and only myself whether to avoid pregnancy? If you answered YES to both questions, fine: it's your decision. If you answered NO to either question, you may hold an opinion, but you may not compel a decision on the part of another person. Got it? Good.

(H/T ellroon.)

Rachel Maddow Discovers: Myth Rmoney Is Absolutely, Totally, Completely LYING About His Position On Contraception, With The Help Of (Among Others) Sitting Republican Senators

I missed this segment five days ago when it broke. I was foolish to put it aside, briefly so I thought, when it happened. Rachel Maddow was appropriately diligent about the matter, and found the truth: Rmoney is lying about his position on the Blunt Amendment, and hence about women's access to contraception through their employer-provided health insurance. Despite repeated disclaimers by Rmoney and other Rmoney surrogates (including, e.g., Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)), Rmoney would, in fact, allow employers to prevent women from obtaining contraception through their employer-provided health insurance. Contrary to what he and his surrogates have said, he believes it is, indeed, the business of employers... religious institutions or otherwise... to make that decision for a woman.

Please view Ms. Maddow's segment. And, as GeeDubya Bush once said, you "won't get fooled again." I know many women for whom this is a go/no-go issue, so it is very important to know that Myth is LYING about it. Please watch Maddow's segment, and be enlightened if you aren't already.

Lying, motherfucking bastard. Scheming, selfish, deceiving bastard! Lying-straight-in-your-face BASTARD!

Wednesday Morning, 3 4 A.M. — Rmoney Still Doesn't Believe You Should Have Contraceptives As Part Of Your Government-Backed Health Care Plan

Thank you, Messrs. S & G, for an album title that has been meaningful to me more times than I care to count. For an hour or more, I was stuck with no exit from a dream of my Vietnam days, a horrifying variation on an English country house mystery except it was half a world away, with the inhabitants of the house... American GIs like me and an assortment of Asians... being killed off one by one, not in combat but rather murdered horribly by an unknown serial killer, and I was determined to stop the murders. Except... I have no "Vietnam days" in my past. IRL, I never went to Vietnam; I was 4F draft status for good reason. I've never even watched more than a couple of Vietnam war movies, and those under pressure from friends. Uncle Sam never taught me hand-to-hand combat skills, though I had them in this brain-driven movie of a past I never experienced. If anything good came out of my dream, it was that I learned that war is every bit as devastating, horrifying and gut-wrenchingly destructive as I ever imagined... or in this case dreamed. I'm very glad the Vietnam War... the real one as well as the one I dreamed... is behind us. Tomorrow night, I may think twice before taking that very effective OTC cough suppressant before bed... it's lovely not to be kept awake coughing, but not at any price!

So... "tree full of owls" ain't got nothin' on me. I checked my email, the usual assortment of serious political material, utter political crap, Planned Parenthood mailers (I love those, because they tell me that Rmoney hasn't gotten rid of the organization that is life's blood for millions of American women... yet), etc. One of the Planned Parenthood mailers, from the Action Fund, was Executive Vice President Dawn Laguena's take on Rmoney's truly frightening intentions if he becomes president: I'd rather go through that awful dream a dozen times than have even one woman, let alone millions, subjected to the deliberate evisceration of an org on which she depends for health care. Here's Vice President Laguena, from the letter:

Mitt Romney said a lot at tonight's debate that I disagreed with. No surprise there. But I am stunned by this brazen lie:

"I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not."

I shouldn't be shocked, but I am — I can't believe that Romney would be so dishonest when speaking directly to undecided voters. He has been outspoken in his support for the Blunt amendment, which would give bosses the power to deny women coverage for birth control. And just last month, Paul Ryan was asked about the birth control coverage requirement. His response? "It will be gone. I can guarantee you that."

And tonight Romney went on national television and lied about where he stands. ...

...

"I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not." That's our Mitt!

In a completely different manner of speaking from that of Mr. Rmoney, neither do I: contraception is absolutely middling, mainstream health care, essential to women in career roles or in stay-at-home Mom roles. This is not rocket science. One way and another, women must have contraception available to them, and as for whether the government should order that it be provided, it should, on a simple economic basis if no other. Contraception costs vastly less money than unintended children... the issue here is that children at the wrong time can disrupt the life of a woman and her entire family. A woman, actually a family, but overwhelmingly an individual woman, must be fully empowered to plan when and under what circumstances she bears children. To deny a woman control of that choice is to impose upon her second-class citizenship... actually, second-class humanity. I wish the fundagelicals would think about that when they proclaim their intention to decide for everyone else whether and when to have children. "In Adam's fall, we sinned all..." unless, just maybe, you don't believe there was an Adam, or was ever a commandment from G*d to do whatever fundagelicals tell you.

But contraception has to do with SEX, and Mr. Rmoney knows his base well: they would never have sex, except to procreate... unless of course it's a second Wednesday night in a month with a full moon; see Rule 142857-B. In any case, SEX is bad, or at least SEX is bad when women or gays or non-Christians or unmarried people or anyone not just like the Rmoneys have it. So they feel called by G*d to stop SEX under those circumstances if they possibly can. One would think that as self-proclaimed Perfect Americans, they would have more commitment to personal freedoms. But no. They don't.

"I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not."

Mitt is a scary guy, never scarier than when he threatens to intervene in your sex life.

Unlike Mittens, I don't believe employers should tell someone... pretty much ever... that they can't have contraception through their employee medical insurance plan.

There has to be a line in the sand. Restrictions on abortion were probably inevitable (if still deeply, perniciously wrong); restrictions on contraception are outside the pale.

Send Mitt home on Nov. 6. Don't he and Ann have some babies to make, or something?

(Jeebus, now it's almost 5:00 A.M. ...)

Romney On Abortion

Rmoney flip-flops on one more issue, presumably so he won't be confronted with it until he is president. Here's David Dayen of FDL:

First, Romney said this:

My position has been clear throughout this campaign,” Romney said. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother... . This is a matter in the courts, it’s been settled for some time in the courts.”

As Igor Volsky pointed out, throughout the campaign, the exceptions that Romney delineates (and so I don’t have to reiterate, read here my position on exceptions) have never included the health of the mother, only the life of the mother. Health means something entirely different, especially to the anti-choice movement. When the late-term abortion ban was being legislated during the Bush Administration, a guy named Paul Ryan said that such a health exception “would render (the ban) virtually meaningless.” And of course, the Republican platform, which all Presidential nominees basically control, makes no mention of any exceptions in endorsing a full abortion ban.

Mittens goes on to disclaim presidential involvement in this issue. As if...

I am tired and in pain, and Mitt Rmoney is forcing me to write about abortion. If nothing else clarified what Rmoney would REALLY do regarding abortion if he is elected president, his choice of Paul Ryan, an unabashedly no-exceptions guy on abortion, should tell you all you need to know.

The Supreme Court in Roe did not rule that one or another law protects a woman's right to choose abortion if that is what she thinks best: it did rule, rather, that a woman has a constitutionally protected human right to choose abortion. What is settled is not the political issue; what is undeniably settled is the human rights issue. A woman, because she is a human being, has a right to control her own body.

A government can, of course, take that right away from her by force; it wouldn't be the first time. But if they do so, in this country, in the present day, they can expect my unreserved resistance... by any means necessary... to protect that right.

Personhood And Paul Ryan

You all know about the various "personhood" laws passed or advanced in Virginia, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nevada and Missouri. You also know about states which have abortion-related requirements intended to be so burdensome as to discourage women from having one: for example, in Texas, there's a forced transvaginal ultrasound ("hey, he said 'vagina'!") and a requirement of "informed consent" (informed of a series of blatant falsehoods, of course) for a woman seeking an abortion.

Of course there's a proposed national "personhood" law. Just as a reminder, Roe v. Wade was ruled on a constitutional basis; the Supreme Court proclaimed the right of a woman to control her own body regarding matters as serious as childbirth as a constitutional right... it's not merely a federal law that can be arbitrarily changed by a GOP-dominated Congress. (Of course, later Supreme Courts have chipped away at the right, but they have not overturned it.)

So... who in Congress is behind the national "personhood" movement, favoring a federal "personhood" law or amendment? Watch Rachel Maddow; she'll tell you. Here's a hint: he not only opposes all abortion, even to save a woman's life... he also opposes all forms of contraception.

Who could that be? what kind of low‑life scum could hate women that much?

Good News: Courts Dismissing Challenges To ACA Contraceptive Rule

Sarah Lipton-Lubet at the ACLU Blog of Rights:

...

Just one day after a federal court in Nebraska threw out a lawsuit brought by seven anti-Affordable Care Act attorneys general, a federal court in D.C. did the same in a case filed by a religiously affiliated college. On Wednesday, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by Belmont Abbey College (the first of the two dozen challenges to the birth control rule).

This isn’t the first time that Belmont Abbey College has thumbed its nose at federal laws designed to stop discrimination against women in health care.  In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that the College was discriminating against its employees based on their gender because it withheld coverage for prescription birth control, which only women use, while providing insurance coverage for other prescription drugs. But as far as we know, the college is still resisting the EEOC’s decision and has yet to come into compliance. So it came as no surprise when it challenged the administration’s contraception rule, despite the fact that the rule is on solid legal footing, while the college’s claims are bogus.

...

If Belmont Abbey had its way, as jams pointed out in comments a couple of days ago, its male employees could still get their Viagra, but its female employees would be deprived of birth control.

If this is intended by the College as civil disobedience, it's a damned poor example: it forces people who don't hold the expressed opinion to put themselves at personal risk for that opinion. I propose that the College be assessed a small fine, starting at, say, $5.00 a day the first day, doubling every day until they come into compliance. Ultimately, the fact is that ACA is the law, and we don't get to decide which laws we obey and which we ignore, without incurring penalties.

Here We Go Again - House GOP Tags Must-Pass Bill With Anti-Contraceptive Rider, Threatens Shutdown

If you had told me when I was a young man that one day, one of America's major political parties would repeatedly introduce amendments to must-pass legislation attempting to make contraceptives less available to women, I wouldn't have believed you. If you had told me during or after the Clinton presidency that the GOP would one day threaten not one but two government shutdowns as blackmail in the run-up to an election, I'd have laughed you out of the room. Yet that is exactly what's happening. Sahil Kapur of TPM informs us of the GOP insanity:

...

House Republicans renewed their effort Wednesday by advancing a measure through the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee with a rider to roll back President Obama’s contraception mandate. Authorized by the Affordable Care Act, the rule requires employer-provided health insurance plans to cover contraception without co-pays, with carve-outs for churches and religious non-profits. Republicans on the panel defeated a Democratic amendment to strip the provision, suggesting they’re willing to pick the fight.

...

Senate Republicans have clearly indicated their preference for avoiding the fight altogether, and extending funding for government programs through the election at levels the parties agreed upon during last August debt limit fight. Under pressure, the House GOP leadership appears to be warming to that idea, lest they be held accountable for inciting a government shutdown weeks before Election Day.

...

Republicans took a beating earlier this year after their failed push to roll back Obama’s contraception rule in its entirety, a battle that yielded significant gains for President Obama among women voters. The GOP eventually backed off, recognizing the toxicity of the issue. ...

Just another battle in the GOP War on Women...