You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘jane-crow’ tag.

comes from this tweet

the first I set my eyes on this morning. It seems the Rs are not content with the Jane Crow provision eliminating public insurance, they want termination of pregnancy to cease to be a medical expense all together.

Explains the article

They view it as a Trojan horse for the elimination of private insurance coverage for abortion. If they’re right, tens of millions of Americans could see their health insurers stop covering abortions.

The article goes in a detailed analysis of the effect of this proposed bill on tax deductions for abortions, and therefore loss of incentive to cover it. Wait, why do I  have a feeling of deja vu?

Nowhere near is the fact that the Hyde amendment is already enshrined in an executive order, Obama’s Jane Crow EO.

What the Rs are doing now (and btw, a D is co-sponsoring this), is merely spreading around some more of the  Obama’s own Stupakistan. You know, the one Pelosi and others hailed as  a great step forward for women.

That Rs do not consider this good enough is significant, but one cannot  write about extending the Hyde amendment and ignore this event. At least, not in good faith, Mother Jones.

Stupak does get a paragraph in the story, but Obama’s name is nowhere to be seen.

This article seems a Newspeak effort, designed not so much to inform about a new bill proposal as to – once again exonerate Obama of his betrayal.

We already knew that Obama’s bailout to insurers came with the jane Crow’s CEO – protecting bigots’s rights of refusing to provide legal care for women for reproductive medical problems.

It turns out the church gets another bite of this

Health bill restores $250 million in abstinence-education funds

We are now finding about all the “little noticed provisions” our media kept hidden until it was time to placate the GOP (like the fact that it’s a GOP bill to begin with)

A little-noticed provision of the health legislation has rescued federal support for a controversial form of sex education: teaching youths to remain virgins until marriage.

The bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor programs aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by focusing exclusively on encouraging children and adolescents to avoid sex.

Well, of course we knew Obama owed the religious right from election time, but one would have thought Proposition 8 and Jane Crow EO would have settled that bill. But it seems there was a demand in cash as well.

That, and poisoning the minds of the young with nonsense. Which may lead to pregnancies than are then segregated from coverage, by the same nifty law.

Because to them, it makes sense

“We’re very happy to see that funding will continue so the important sexual health message of risk avoidance will reach American teens,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, a Washington-based lobbying group. “What better place to see such an important health issue addressed than in the health legislation?”

Indeed, where? In church? Fiction class? Mental health hospitals? Nah. Romneycare is it!

B0botland has a tough time justifying this. The OP felt the need to editorialize

on edit: I think this was one of the deals that was made to get some blue dogs on board.

Of course, poor babies.

Others see the glitch:

Why, why, why do Democrats have to pander to religious nuts like this?

Not just abstinence, but abstinence until marriage. I am 41 years old and never married. I’m supposed to be abstaining? Really?
Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
11. I’m 53 and never married. Yeah, we’re supposed to stay virgins.

I fixed that problem in 1974.

and even some of the intended victims

I’m against telling young people to wait until MARRIAGE to have sex.

It’s not just stupid and impractical, it’s bigoted since most states don’t allow gays to marry.
7. That’s a lot of money to make sure teens get pregnant n/t

Some are fed up

Caving and pandering you can believe in. And, happy karma, Obama,

How’s that working so far?

Vut some have faith in the goodness of the bill

5. If this is not a good thing to have in this bill, why do the cheerleaders

keep telling me it is a good bill?

One can imagine that if this part is considered bad, there must be other bad parts as well? I think a quarter-billion dollars is big bucks, but hey, that’s just me.

I never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself. dhlawrence
6. Are you suggesting we throw out the baby with the bath water?
The law needs work…not gotten rid of, IMO.

I have never saw so much work in selling a fixer upper.

Now, I ony have one question: I know there was a big fight over giving Viagra to felons. It didn’t pass, BTW as Reid thought it was not serious (not as serious as abstinence)

he Levitra legislation did not get a rise out of Democrats. “Offering an amendment dealing with Viagra for rapists?” Majority Leader Harry Reid asked, struggling for words. “I mean, this is — this — this is — this isn’t serious.”.

So, what I want to know is: can unmarried men use Viagra (covered in Romneycare)? Obviously they can – but do they need to be given a talking to by the recipients of the abstinence grants? Just so they can “think twice” about it? or rather this is just for Jane Crow – as women clearly need to seek the advice of their clergymen or their doctor in making any decision.

In a sea of media that frames the women’s choice debate in right wing terms, NPR tries to say it has a clue even as they use the wrong title:

NPR Changes Abortion Language

Whether they are aware or not, the mere fixation on “abortion” as opposed on “reproductive rights” is putting them solidly in the right wing camp – even as they rey to paint themselves as unbiased. These are the “don’t”s

Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain.” [An actuality is a clip of tape of someone talking. So if a source uses those terms, NPR will not edit them out.]

But if that’s not clear enough that they adopt the RW talking point, here are the “do”s

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.

Again, maybe I missed the fact that, in accordance with the Jane Crow climate in the country, NPR is slipping further to the right by adopting “abortion rights” as the acceptable neutral term.

Or maybe it had to change the language to accommodate Obama’s

The president supports abortion rights.

You know, an action so uniquely his, a word had to be invented – like “clinching the nomination” meant getting it by not winning it.

In the case of reproductive choice it’s touting it while giving it the Norquist treatment (getting down to the size where he can drown it in a bathtub)

Note to NPR, media, politicians and assorted lunatics: what we have to fight incessantly is our right to chose as well as having legal  medical care delivered to us.

The “abortion right” is something you made up, because you hope the word is going to get a rise from your coveted audience.

Here is a good analysis of how “abortion rights” came about

Here’s how they do it. First, they smear pro-choice activists as “pro-abortion”

Step two: use the words “abortion rights” to define our struggle

BZZZZZT! Wrong again. Our struggle is for full equality, which means total control over our bodies. Choosing whether or not to reproduce is a private matter and a private choice; as such, I firmly believe that the state should have no rights over my ovaries whatsoever. That includes my access to birth control, the morning-after pill, fact-based sex education (not the kind that tells you condoms cause AIDS, thank you very much), and yes, abortion….

I thought it was a good idea to give a prominent placement to the signing of the Jane Crow order. Especially as it was done stealthily, but an official photo-p was still available. And in light of the phenomenal chutzpa of statements like this one by the AP

The president supports abortion rights.

The entire illustration that had to be cropped out was this

My original banner

will eventually return, as the stealing of our votes was the crux of all that’s happening today (No one steals an election to do good)

But for now, as our voices are being silenced on this outrage from someone who campaigned on

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice
Act. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield. And Planned
Parenthood will not yield.”

I feel that photo should be front and center. (I tried to post it on the side of the page, but it came up squeezed and unclear)

MsLeaderThat’s what a feminist looks like!

Update In 2011 the conscience rule has been slightly revised to only permit bigots to deny terminations of pregnancy, not treatment for AIDS HIV and contraceptive as well. Somehow, the women are still paying for bigotry of others.

As seen in today’s tabloids entry, Rahm already dictated WaPo about the EO which means that the deal was already in place ad the EO already written when the “cliffhanger” appeared to take place. It was all choreographed, Stupak was to hold on to the very end so as to justify the goody he was about to receive,

Obama issued an EO henceforth known as the Jane Crow EO that does far more than repeat the Hyde amendment as propaganda would have you believe

Also, I’d like to stress the point from the NOW resolution about Hyde being the so called law of he land

Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law — it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill.

Obama’s EO treats it as law and then it re-states W’s conscience rules (where doctors can refuse care if they are RW) and protects THEM from discrimination while discriminating against women

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, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) 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.

New protections= beyond W’s Hyde’s Stupak, OK?

When W left the “conscience rule” behind him, at the end of 2008, Obama refused to comment on it

Later, in that best heckled HCR speech, Obama made sure to promise that the conscience rule will stay

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

So, the deal with Stupak was in place from the get go – it was just a “don’t throw me in the briar patch” little game they played on women.

If Stupak didn’t exist, they would have had to invent him. Just like Lieberman on the Public Option.

Just so Planned Parenthood can say they were sorry Obama was forced to issue such an EO.

“We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Oh, and you have to love how often the word “segregation” is used

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements,

Here’s a B0bot on it

7. Trying to wrap my brain around Obama, our nation’s first black president

writing an Executive Order basically “segregating” and codifying inequality for half the population of the US.

Do I have this right?

And what does that say about how low this President would stoop to get this bill?

And on B0botland I also  found this comment:

25. What the hell did they expect? Obama is MALE.
No man is going to protect the rights of women as they do the rights of men. EVER. And any woman who voted for BO instead of Hillary should have known better. I’m beyond the abortion age and having to worry about it, but for all the 20-30-40-something females who didn’t vote for Hillary, you’re about to get another lesson on how NOT to vote (how many lessons do you need? another 60 years worth?). Women have had to fight for every freakin’ right we have and it  was never handed over graciously by any man…trust me. If women don’t stick together, things will never change and the MEN WILL continue to negotiate what we can and can’t do with our bodies. Do any of you actually believe Hillary Clinton would have done this? Hell NO she wouldn’t have.

But you all have HOPE, right?   I guess this is that “Change” you were all promised. I hope you’re all happy.

Oh, why wouldn’t they be happy? here’s what Mr change gave them

“While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented,” the White House statement said.

And they ARE happy. This was written as the EO was announced

An executive order would be a win-win…

Per MSNBC-The executive order will explicitly say that the health care bills passed by the house and senate would adhere to the Hyde amendment which says no federal funding would go towards abortion.

Lynn Woolsey and her pro-choice colleagues approve of this potential executive order and think it’s a GOOD thing as do all the other Dem. congressmen speaking on MSNBC. So we’d get MORE than enough votes for this bill AND we’d have language re: abortion that some think is less restrictive than the current Nelson amendment.

Hooray! We made out like bandits!

Oh, and to those of you who decided to take it on Stupak – it;s a waste of time. Like Lieberman who was villain of the week last December, cleansing the bill of PO as Obama had promised his handlers, so did Stupak did his bidding yesterday.

Obama got to play defense while delivering a long desired payback to women for daring to oppose him in several elections. This was personal, sweeties, make no mistake. Thanks for your help NARAL, Planned Parenthood and assorted B0botesses.

Oh, and there was a bit of payoff to these guys for helping install him in the White House

I was writing back then (November 2008)

We already know the gays paid part of the price. I am waiting to see how women will pay the balance.

This is after all, the Year of the Penis.

Not Your Sweetie

January 2020
« Dec