Archive for contraception

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

Next In The Hobby Lobbyish SCROTUS Crosshairs: LGBTQ Everything?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

DNR
Jonathan Martin, sitting in for young and on holiday Steve Kornacki, had the most satisfying segment on the Hobby Slobby SCROTUS hot mess than we are likely to see in a while - it was a table of experts on many topic … then went there with LGBTQ!

It is near-shocking that we aren't even a month out from SCROTUS champion decision to let corporations tell a female employee if and what kind of birth control she can expect to be paid for by her insurance company. To which some of her own wages and probably taxpayer dollars are already contributing to … so she may end up paying for her method of birth control two or three times by the end of the lament about how badly SCROTUS Screwed Women again.

I'mSorry

But back to the expert discussion. One of the best moments has to be the charming and Lady Parts Advocate Gabi Domenzain, she carried the mantle well for the sisterhood, methinks. Chris Geidner and Justin Snow were perfection for back-up and their passions.

It is tremendously heartening to know that these youngish persons, so different culturally and otherwise, can look ahead to what the Regressive Right is trying to do - with utter SCROTUS compliance, and fight back! They are the right age to have grown up with someone of different ethnicity, sexual preference or even belief IN religious beliefs.

They don't necessarily take one look at a dude like Barack Obama, clutch their pearls (or nuts) and scream "Anti-Christtttt!!" on sheer instinct, in other tone.

Get used to it GOP … your era has come, gone and will heretofore only be visited in 'pensive mausoleums or luxe cemetery hilltop location location locations.

braceyourselves

Perhaps somewhere near a member of the SCROTUS that got you to those heights.

 

The inimitable Horsey, The L.A. Times

The inimitable Horsey, The L.A. Times

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

SCOTUS rules for Freedom of Tyranny

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

women's rights vote 2014 scotus decision freedom of religion

Freedom, freedom, freedom schmeedom. The concept is losing its meaning, especially in light of the Supreme Court's warped perception of the word. My reaction to their ruling on contraception and "freedom" of religion is still hampered by my inability to respond with anything but sputtering noises and involuntary twitches, bursts of banging my head against the wall, and convulsing into tears of outrage. Freedom my ass. What about our freedom to not have your damned religion shoved up our atheist and/or non-Christian hineys?  Bam! And that was just a hiccup. I'm shutting up now.

By the way, conservatives, how's that outreach thing going for ya these days?

Anyway, instead of ranting, which would be nothing more than stream-of-consciousness outbursts at this point, I'll leave it to the Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because, despite evidence to the contrary, our voices still matter. The Times headline for this batch of letters is, notably, "Don't want more Hobby Lobby decisions? Then don't elect conservative presidents":

The U.S. Supreme Court's distressingly improvident 5-4 decisions in this year's religious rights cases should surprise no one. They are the price we have paid for suffering disproportionate conservative appointments to the high court from 1980 to 2008, when Republicans occupied the White House for 20 of those 28 years. ("Supreme Court, citing religious liberty, limits contraceptive coverage in Obamacare," June 30)

All who despair over the Supreme Court's unseemly bowing to religious zealots — especially when certain faiths' tenets are allowed to trump enlightened medical care — should remember this in 2016: If a Republican is elected our next president, look for the court's conservative judicial activism to endure far beyond his or her term of office.

Robin Groves, Pacific Palisades

***

I am losing confidence in our system of three branches of government. Two of them seem no longer to be working for us.

The Supreme Court increasingly seems to be operating as a political body, rendering decisions that make questionable judicial sense unless one happens to be a corporation that has taken on "person" status or a religious group that wishes to impose its specific beliefs on its employees. These decisions are becoming more questionable as our do-nothing Congress functions less like an elected body responsible to the people and more like a robot body created and manipulated by wealthy donors.

As long as our lethargic electorate keeps reelecting these legislators, our president is left to act alone and the court decides in an increasingly predictable way, we will see the continued eroding of our beloved constitutional form of government.

Bette Mason, Corona del Mar

***

If there's a silver lining to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, it's that the decision will energize progressive voters to flood the polls for the foreseeable future as well as fuel boycotts against businesses that use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Jerry Weil, Seal Beach

***

Will someone please explain to me how forcing your religious beliefs on others, who may or may not agree, is freedom of religion? Sounds more like tyranny to me.

Barbara Buckner, Laguna Niguel

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Years of Living Misogynistically

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

 

misogyny

Syllabification: mi·sog·y·ny

Pronunciation: /məˈsäjənē

NOUN

Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women: she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny

Welcome to 2014 - the year Misogyny went mainstream. Yesterday, the highest court in the land codified women's place as second class citizens into law with its misdirected and horribly wrong decision in the Hobby Lobby case. But the five Christian men on the court took it even a further step by saying that corporations religious rights trump the rights of said corporations' actual living, breathing female employees'!

And this isn't the first time the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas-Kennedy court has ruled against women's rights, but it just might be the straw that broke the misogynistic camel's back.

Jessica Mason Pieklo, senior legal analyst at RH Reality Check, who joined me on the show this morning to talk about the mansplaining from the bench yesterday wrote about it:

Having firmly established that closely held corporations (and probably publicly traded ones as well) can assert religious objections under the RFRA, the Court turns its attention to the birth control benefit specifically.

And here is where the Court’s deeply ingrained misogyny shines brightest.

Justice Alito writes that the Hahns and the Greensthe families who, respectively, own Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobbyhave a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception and that their religious beliefs provide both that they offer insurance coverage for their employees, but only insurance coverage that conforms to those religious beliefs. Justice Alito takes this as an opportunity to misstate the coverage requirements of the ACA. “Before the advent of the ACA, they were not legally compelled to provide insurance,” wrote Alito, “but they nevertheless did soin part, no doubt, for conventional business reasons but also in part because their religious beliefs govern their relations with their employees.”

Of course, the ACA does not require employers to provide any health insurance coverage for their employees. Instead, the law requires those employers that do provide health insurance coverage offer that coverage equally for both men and women.

This a la carte  type of coverage, where employers maintain ultimate veto authority over the scope of employee benefits, is of course the endgame to all these contraception challenges, and by opening the door to religious objections like Hobby Lobby the Court has set the stage for just that. The parties in Hobby Lobby sincerely, and wrongly, believe that emergency contraception and some forms of intrauterine devices (IUDs) act as abortifacients. But according to Alito, it doesn’t  matter that the Greens and Hahns are wrong. All that matters is that they sincerely believe they are right.

We don't have to go back any further than Thursday of last week to find another anti-female ruling from this court. Unfortunately, in McCullen v Coakely, a unanimous out-of-touch bench found that the first amendment rights of anti-choice protesters to harass, accost and assault any woman attempting to visit the doctor of her choice to have a constitutionally permitted procedure trumps that woman's first amendment rights. Brazenly misogynistic, even if the female members of the court went along with the insanity.

As Jessica Mason Pieklo also wrote, it's as if the women seeking medical care in question didn't exist at all!

The trope of anti-choice protesters as “plump grandmas” helped the media and the U.S. Supreme Court not just gloss over the very real threats of violence that abortion providers and patients face, but also erase providers and patients from the Supreme Court’s analysis almost entirely.

Since 1977, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) has documented eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 arson cases, 399 invasions, 100 acid attacks, and 663 bioterrorism threats targeting abortion providers and their facilities. A September 2013 survey of U.S. NAF members found that nearly 90 percent of providers had a patient entering their facility express concerns about their personal safety. At the Daily Beast, Sally Kohn reminds us that within an hour of the 1994 murders of abortion clinic workers in Massachusetts, which led to the eventual creation of clinic buffer zones, a woman called one of the clinics attacked and told the staff person who answered, “You got what you deserved.” Meanwhile, Donald Spitz, the director of Pro-Life Virginia, thanked John C. Salvi publicly for his murders as throngs of supporters cheered along enthusiastically outside the prison holding Salvi.

On Thursday, a unanimous Supreme Court looked past all that history—because, as Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority pointed out, the violent face of the anti-choice movement was not before the Court in McCullen. The “gentle” grandmas were.

It's enough to make you want to scream!

There are just two (among, unfortunately, many) examples of  misogyny coming down from the highest court in the land, both with the backdrop of religion- the oldest bastion of misogyny in the world. And it's not only good old Amerikkan Christianity. Just last week, we saw some good old-fashioned Biblical-type anti-woman action from the M&M's - Mormons and Muslims.

One of the great problems in our world is patriarchy. The late James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, put best in song, “It’s a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World.”

Patriarchy assumes that men are made to lead and women are simply cooperative and reproductive subordinates.

These assumptions come to light in all kinds of ways, but especially through religion — the various faiths that treat women as though they are not equal to men.

(...)  There is a direct link between Kate Kelly, a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter day-Saints, who was excommunicated on charges of apostasy, and Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death for her supposed apostasy.

And the link is deeper than the charge of abandoning one's faith.

(...)  One dared to say that women could exercise religious authority where men are the “elders” and keepers of the Kingdom.

The other, standing before an all-male court, refused to renounce her faith.

In both cases, men were the judges and held the keys to life and death - literally, in Ibrahim’s case.

I invite you to read the entire article - "Hey religion, your misogyny is showing," written by Randal Maurice Jelks,  a professor of American and African-American studies at the University of Kansas and co-editor of the blog The Black Bottom, and published at CNN.com.

Of course, misogyny in American isn't only limited to the Supreme Court and the world's religions. It's apparently ingrained into the sick minds of mass murderers as we learned from the Isla Vista- Santa Barbara massacre  just over a month ago. At least in the aftermath of that sickening tragedy, we had some pushback with the #YesAllWomen hashtag campaign.

Global misogyny is on display in Nigeria, where hundreds of school girls were kidnapped by the militant group Boko Haram who believe that girls should not be educated, but are to be used as cooks or sex slaves. Just this week, to little if any fanfare, it was announced that the missing girls may never be found due to the lack of immediate action to find them.

Of course, we need look no further than Washington DC to find the most egregious example of misogyny. It's based on inaction. The fact that women, to this day, have no constitutional right to equality. The Equal Rights Amendment has still not been ratified!

Although on her She's History segment on Thursday mornings Amy Simon has told us the history of the ERA, it's worth reviewing, so I hope you will.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Those are the few simple words that could change things here for we, the women of the United States of America. It's long past time to do this already.

Also on the show today to discuss this and more, the fabulous female known as GottaLaff of The Political Carnival.

We also checked in on the action outside the FCC, where some street theater was taking place this morning to call attention to the proposed assault on Net Neutrality. I discussed it with FreePress.net's Craig Aaron. BTW, you can still submit your comments on these proposed changes. Just visit SaveTheInternet.com.

Tomorrow, we'll delve into the other decision the Court got wrong yesterday, dealing with public service unions, as AFT president Randi Weingarten guests. We'll also talk with Crooks & Liars' Susie Madrak...  radio or not!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Motherhood Is Not a Hobby!", says Rep. Gwen Moore #MotherhoodIsNotAHobby

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

femfist

Congresswoman Gwen Moore just blew my socks off with "Motherhood is not a hobby!" aka #MotherhodIsNotAHobby … get Tweeting!!

It was of those increasingly rare moments of live cable news that you just pinch yourself to believe are real.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore, in fine voice and ready to fight(!) despite MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin's overly pessimistic "Nothing ever gets done …" attitude.

HellNo

MSNBC Cycle co-co-host Josh Barro chimed in, speaking of possible grandfathered plans about … I know I'm yawning myself, but then on to Elizabeth Plank subbing for the Right Winger Drop In Guest that messnbc still manages to pull off on occasion during daytime. The old Winger D.I.G. -- often staged and frequently capable of delivering mighty fine punditry fireworks. Not needed today.

Enjoy. I feel like I'm sharing a Stones bootleg (which I do also have, confessional moment) instead of a ubiquitous 3:28 of morning schmoe and mika. You're welcome, I can hear Laffy saying in this position.

If every liberal woman doesn't agree with me on the perfection of Congresswoman Moore's declaration, "Motherhood Is Not a Hobby!", I'll find a gardening hat to eat.

For some background perspective, a block from Craig's hour of morning MSNBC yesterday closer to the non-schock of the decision under derision.

I guess these days we go #MotherhoodIsNotAHobby on it? GO!!

There is a GOP War on Women, and liberal dames, we can't be snoozing at the wheel. Lace up your Wendy Davis pink runners and …
Seriously, GO!!!

When you get back, Laffy and Nicole Sandler will have finished their rockin' sisterhood-is-powerful Radio Or Not Segment from this morning. Yeah!

cartoon-elizabeth-warren-we-can-do-it-600x1024

It's already available, have a read and a listen to Years of Living Misogynistically. 

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare