Archive for abortion rights

Chris #Christie finally admits that he supports Hobby Lobby decision

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

chris christie squawk box hobby lobby

Chris Christie on whether he agreed with the the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court, on July 1 on CNBC:

"Who knows? ... Why should I give an opinion on whether they're right or wrong?"

How straightforward of him. What confidence! Way to take a stand, Governor Hubris. Dance around the issues much?

chris christie dancing

"The fact is that when you're an executive, your Supreme Court makes a ruling and you've got to live with it unless you can get the legislative body to change the law or change the Constitution. The point is: Why should I give an opinion as to whether they were right or wrong? At the end of the day, they did what they did. That's now the law of the land."

Now here's Chris Christie on whether he agreed with the the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court on July 17, at a meet and greet at MJ's Restaurant in Marion, Iowa (key word: Iowa):

Christie, responding to a Cedar Rapids man at the event:

"Do I support the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case? I do."

Well that only took two and a half weeks. How blunt and direct of him. Way to go, Gov. Panderer! Oh, and way to appeal to women. What a leader. I wonder how many times he licked his finger before putting it in the air to check who would donate to his 2016 presidential campaign the political wind direction.

HuffPo:

Thursday was the first time Christie had expressed his view on the decision. In fact, a day after the Supreme Court ruled, he told a CNBC host that he would not be sharing his opinion at all.

So Governor Rude-y McArrogant flip-flopped. Who does he think he is, Marco Rubio? Willard Romney? A dolphin?

flipper weather vane

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Poll-itics: SCOTUS approvals near lowest "in 14-year trend"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

poll-itics smaller SCOTUS

SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS, what are we going to do with you? Well, here's an idea: Elect Progressive presidents who will replace right wing extremist Supreme Court justices (and other judges) who decide cases that are turning this country upside down.

This Supreme Court has:

  • ruled in favor of prayers in city council meetings (read: Christian prayers);
  • eliminated buffer zones around abortion and contraception medical centers in Massachusetts so that women can now be intimidated and threatened literally within an inch of their lives;
  • weakened unions by ruling that they could not force home-care workers to join them and pay dues;
  • and, of course, allowed Hobby Lobby and other family-owned businesses to decide what kind of birth control their employees could use based on their bosses' religious beliefs. Not the workers' beliefs, mind you, because apparently, corporate religion trumps that of the individual.

And don't get me started on Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions allowing corporate money to attempt to buy elections the way Willard "Mitt" Romney buys car elevators.

According to Gallup, this has affected the court's popularity. Democrats in particular are not too thrilled with this SCOTUS. If that's the case, you know what to do: Vote. In droves. Swarm the polls. Help to register other voters and get them to the ballot box, too.

gallup scotus

Gallup:

Americans remain divided in their assessments of the U.S. Supreme Court, with 47% approving of the job it is doing, and 46% disapproving. These ratings are consistent with approval last September, when 46% approved and 45% disapproved, and rank among the lowest approval ratings for the court in Gallup's 14-year trend. [...]

Republican approval of the Supreme Court is up 21 percentage points since last September, from 30% in 2013 to 51%. Independents' approval shows little change, going from 47% to 46%. Support among Democrats, on the other hand, is down [...]

Americans' current views more closely reflect the court's own ideological divisions in these two recent decisions, rather than its bipartisan unanimity.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Your Weekly Upchucks: Shocking Religion News

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Nauseous from shocking religion news

Please welcome back regular guest contributor, author of Being Christian -- a racy novel that explores the dark underbelly of the right-wing Christian world -- and the go-to blogger on shocking religion news, hypocrisy, and all things church v. state (weekly upchucks), K.C. Boyd. You might remember her from her earlier posts.

You can link over to her site here for the rest of this post. It’s well worth a look, because I left out a ton of great upchuckable stuff, including antidotes! These are but a few of her weekly "where religion meets your rights" collection:

Your Weekly Upchucks: The place where religion meets your rights

– by K. C. Boyd

This was the week when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are not only ‘people but that they’re people with a kind of ‘superior’ Christianity that all too closely represent the Taliban. Lady Liberty lost something dear this past week and our great American forefathers weep from their graves. More pointedly, We The People lost important liberties this week and we lost them because too many good people have stood out past elections – - elections that determined the make-up of this particular court.

My Upchucks are more abbreviated than usual – - not because there are fewer and certainly not because it was an insignificant week, but because I am away ‘celebrating’ the 4th. Watch for the next Upchuck on July 21st and in the meantime, train your eyes and ears on the theocrats that would have our souls and our country. If we let them.

It Can Happen Here

Abortion

Education

  • Don’t Let Creationism Hit You In The Arse, Ass: Ken Ham Says Secular Schools Are ‘Churches of Atheism’ After Homeschooled Grads Cant Get Jobs.

Elections

  • Sixteenth Upchuck? God Help Us:  Could he possibly represent America less?? Little Bobby Jindal Courts Religious Right with His Eye On ’16

Same Sex Issues

  • Spew Fit For A TheoracyGay Couples May Soon Have to Choose Between Getting Married and Not Getting Fired

Sausage Makers And Their Sausage

  • State Hate: Mike Lee (R-UT) Agrees With Scrotal Decision Because Women Use Birth Control ‘Largely For Recreational Behavior’
  • That’s Just This Week Chuck: While You Were Paying Attention To Hobby Lobby, Five States Made It Harder To Get An Abortion

Supremes And Lower Courts

  • Festering Ka-Ka: With Hobby Lobby behind us, here are four other festering church-state issues
  • Narrow Decision My BippySCOTUS has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision

Theocracy Rising

  • Dark Ages Drek: They’re coming for your contraception and that’s not hyperbole.
  • God’s Army Of Pukers: 82 Corporations Set To Drop Birth Control Coverage( fyi,#5 iis the company who engraved Scripture on all US rifle sights sent to the Middle East)
FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Dear pro-forced birthers: "What causes more abortions than not having contraception?"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion choice pro-forced birthers

Pro-forced birthers don't seem to have much depth, knowledge, or insight when it comes to how babies are made, how contraception works, or what women's health care agencies actually do.

Here's a tweet I just received, along with my reply:

Here is one of many excellent replies:

'Nuff said.

Sadly, "Franky's" tweet is typical of so many I receive from pro-forced birthers about women's reproductive rights, with one exception: He was civil.

With that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Jonah Goldberg's column on the Hobby Lobby case takes as given the distortion of scientific facts at the core of the case. ("Alito agrees: Your birth control is not your boss' business," Op-Ed, June 30)

Overwhelming evidence has shown that emergency contraception does not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and does not cause the termination of an existing pregnancy. Therefore, emergency contraception it is not an abortifacient, contrary to what the Supreme Court justices and Goldberg contend.

Such uncritical endorsements of distorted science are the source of much misinformation, as I have discovered in my own research on barriers to access to emergency contraception. It is sad that the highest court in the nation has propagated this false belief and created another barrier for access to safe, effective and evidenced-based pregnancy prevention.

Tracey Wilkinson, MD, Los Angeles

..

Goldberg compares requiring employers to provide contraceptive health insurance to their employees to hypothetically requiring these companies to pay for their employees to attend a "Game of Thrones" convention.

Goldberg ignores the fact that every time a couple engages in unprotected intercourse, they are putting the woman's life at risk. According to a study published in the medical journal the Lancet, 18.5 women died in childbirth for every 100,000 live births in the U.S. in 2013.

The intimate relations between couples are no mere game. The ability to obtain and use contraceptives is a matter at the heart of family life.

Goldberg and the five men who make up the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the recent Hobby Lobby case have shown the world that they place little value on the lives of women.

Eleanor Egan, Costa Mesa

..

I suspect that because Hobby Lobby is so deeply religious, it would not support a woman's right to have an abortion. What causes more abortions than not having contraception?

Sarah Maze, Orange

Via .ecobumperstickers.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Your Weekly Upchucks: Shocking Religion News

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

nauseous, upchucks

Please welcome back regular guest contributor, author of Being Christian -- a racy novel that explores the dark underbelly of the right-wing Christian world -- and the go-to blogger on shocking religion news, hypocrisy, and all things church v. state (weekly upchucks), K.C. Boyd. You might remember her from her earlier posts.

You can link over to her site here for the rest of this post. It’s well worth a look, because I left out a ton of great upchuckable stuff, including antidotes! These are but a few of her weekly "where religion meets your rights" collection:

Your Weekly Upchucks: The place where religion meets your rights

– by K. C. Boyd

Abortion And Other Women’s Issues

Education

  • Upchucking Upstarts: Defended by Beckett Fund (of Hobby Lobby infamy,) Christian Preschool Ineligible For State Grant, Americans United Says
  • It’s 9 a.m. Chuck. Do You Know Where Your Children Are And What They’re Learning? The ascent of Glenn Beck’s favorite “historian” is terrifying.

Elections

  • My Country Tain’t Of Thee Hate Spew: Georgia GOP candidate Jody Hice:  Muslims not protected by the First Amendment

Fifty Shades Of Hate/Bring On The Revolution

  • Constitutionally Challenged Barf-Head: Southern GOPer Says Only Christians Should be Protected by Constitution

Fifty Shades Of Loony

  • Revolutionary Reflux: Oath Keeper tells Fox News radio that God gives Americans the right to disobey gun laws

If Media Is The Message

  • Dumbed Down, Puked Up: Watch This Fox Host Push Four Myths About Hobby Lobby In 17 Seconds

Lies, Propaganda And Similar Hoodwinking

Military

  • Crusading Christers v Constitutional Chuck: The fundamentalist American Family Association has gathered more than 100,000 signatures of those who think the military should be able to practice their religion on duty, or at least not be barred by an Air Force Instruction from declaring their beliefs to anyone and everyone in their military workplaces.

Religion Gone Bad

  • Freaking Fat Puke: Religious freedom has turned into conservative code for imposing Christianity.

Same Sex Issues

  • So Porn-Free He Makes His Wife Watch For Him. For Real, Chuck: Former (ahem?) porn addict Phil Burress up in arms over Macy’s Pride support

Sausage Makers And Their Sausage

  • Tasting Vomit: What Christer Congress(men) Think :Tim Huelskamp Predicts Marriage Equality Will ‘Destroy’ Marriage And The Family
  • Can’t Make It Up-Chuck: Big tent-ing it in NC: NC GOP lawmaker tells gay colleague that he’s like a pedophile or animal rapist

Scandalous

  • Are. You. Even Kidding My Chuck? While church volunteer was molesting girl, TN pastor diverted cops, lawsuit claims

Supremes And Lower Courts

  • Supremely Vomitous: SCOTUS Just Made It Harder For Women To Exercise Their Right To Choose

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Kate Kelly: She actually is history!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

kate kellyImage via

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When the June 2014 story broke of Kate Kelly, I immediately thought of Anne Hutchinson.  Kelly, is a long-time Morman and human rights lawyer.  She is fighting for equality in the Church (what a concept!) and the founder of Ordained Woman which is a group of gals who want to preach in their own (Mormon) church. Kelly was convicted of apostasy (the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief), and ex-communicated.

anne hutchinson pic

Anne Hutchinson was convicted of heresy (an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teachings) and sedition (actions or words intended to provoke or incite rebellion against government authority) and was banished!  And she, like Kate Kelly, was ex-communicated from her Church. But this was back in 1634.  HER crime?  Preaching to women and challenging "church doctrines".

Twilight Zone music here…

Ms. Hutchinson, nurse, bible teacher, midwife and all around multi-tasking Mama, was not your average, quiet, submissive housewife and mother of the Colonial period. No.  She was the Mother of The First Amendment.  Via Cornell:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.  

Pregnant with her fifteenth child and forty-six years old, Anne Hutchinson STOOD before a panel of male judges who said to her:

"Mrs Hutchinson, you are called here as one of those that have troubled the peace of the commonwealth and the churches here; you are known to be a woman that hath had a great share in the promoting and divulging of those opinions that are the cause of this trouble."

Kate Kelly was told - also by a panel of male judges- the following (via NBC):

"The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.  In order to be considered for readmission to the Church, you will need to demonstrate over a period of time that you have stopped teachings and actions that undermine the Church, its leaders, and the doctrine of the priesthood."

Kate Kelly heard this from her church the same week the Supreme Court struck down the McCullen v. Coakley law that created a buffer zone around abortion clinics. SCOTUS said the "pro-life" peeps' First Amendment rights were being violated. Free speech, right to protest, oy veh. I wonder if any of Supreme Court judges have seen the documentary "After Tiller".

How could SCOTUS mistake free speech for harassment?  And of course, THEY are enjoying THEIR buffer zone around THEIR building. Via the NY Times:

“Many women have abortions because they feel they have no other option or because they are pressured by a boyfriend or parent,” said Eleanor McCullen, a plaintiff in the case, McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168. “Today’s ruling means I can offer loving help to a woman who wants it, and neither of us will go to jail for the discussion.”

LOVING HELP! DISCUSSION?

So Kate Kelly was ex-communicated for basically "trying to persuade other church members..."  and Anne Hutchinson was banished for having a "belief different from the establishment" but the "pro-lifers" are allowed to"persuade - HARASS -  women who have a belief DIFFERENT than theirs??

As  Radio Or Not's Nicole Sandler says all too regularly: "It's Opposite World".

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Kinky Flashback Friday!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Get your head out of the gutter. It's Kinky because today's "Flashback Friday" segment features Ray Davies of The Kinks!

I had the honor of interviewing him a few times, but today we went back to our first meeting, at Los Angeles' KSCA fm 101.9. I can't find the exact date, but it was somewhere around 1995 or 96. Ray had just published his book X-Ray: The Unauthorized Biographyand was in town for a series of shows called "20th Century Man" which wound up being the blueprint for VH1's Storyteller series!

Needless to say, that interview was one of the highlights of my career. If you listen and hear a bit of flirting going on, you're not mistaken. A few months later when Ray was back in LA, we actually went out to dinner. Nothing more, in case you were wondering. He was a perfect gentleman.

In the first hour of today's show, we looked back at some of this years' Supreme Court decisions. A great rundown of the bigger decisions rendered in 2014 is published here, courtesy of the NY Times.

We'll have to wait until Monday for the final two decisions for this term-including the Hobby Lobby case, but I'm still reeling from yesterday's unanimous decision in McCullen v. Coakley that ruled the buffer zone around abortion clinics in MA violated the First Amendment.

If you read only one article about this flawed decision, check out Jessica Mason Pieklo of RHRealityCheck's  "Don’t Tread on Grandma: The Supreme Court Reframes the Abortion-Free Speech Debate in ‘McCullen’." I can't sum up that article with a short excerpt, so please read the whole thing so you have all the facts. As Pieklo warns,

I hate to say it, but it gets worse: Next term, the Roberts Court will hear the case of Elonis v. United States, a case that questions the constitutionality of laws that criminalize online threatening speech. At the heart of Elonis is a fight over what is and is not a “true threat”—the very question also at the heart of the emerging legal challenges to targeted, individual instances of clinic and provider harassment under the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and state-level anti-harassment and anti-stalking laws. The majority in McCullen points to these kinds of laws as proof that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not narrowly tailor its buffer zone law enough. If states and localities are so concerned about clinic violence, Roberts writes inMcCullen, then they should look first to these laws, which in the Court’s opinion are far better suited to address instances of violence and harassment. Of course the opinion in McCullen is silent on the looming threats to even those protections.

We couldn't let the week end without awarding one more idiot the "World's Biggest Asshole" award. No, it wasn't the Boehner for declaring that he'll sue President Obama for his executive orders; it wasn't Rush Limpballs for calling the African Americans who voted for Thad Cochran in MS's GOP senatorial primary "Uncle Toms for Thad" or for his calls for the impeachment of President Obama for "doing things that Nixon never even imagined." It wasn't even Glenn Beck for dealing with his stress about Cochran's defeat of teabagger McDaniel by shooting his gun!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare