You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Roe’ tag.
IMPEACHMENT
what Cohen means
fraud case in Khazakstan
SCOTUS
history re: one of the prospects
๐ย ๐ย Roe vs Wade
IMPERIAL FAMILY
NK
Tariffs
NAZI
libertarians (this was Glenn Greenwald’s role model)
kids in cages
REPUBLICANS
Jim Jordan
NRA
course reversed on newspaper shootings – flag
https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1014114066049191937
teaching Dsouza history
MEDIA
NYT, Cilizza
https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/1014094118195286016
NYT family values
Sinclair propaganda on The Hill
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1013568404807213057
US
what we want
000๐๐๐000
IMPEACHMENT
remedies thread
and now we know why the efforts to out the informant
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/997653430264061954
and a good comment
Trump Tower meeting
and not just Russia apparently
so
https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/997941288770170881
.
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/997656244075876353
COHEN MATTERS
IMPERIAL FAMILY
intentions
and in the same vein
about the informant
and in conclusion
shaking down the competition
and mysteries
end of the week
REPUBLICANS
how tax scam bill was cooked
well, in that case, okey dokey
where we are
https://twitter.com/annevclark/status/996823272686841857
MEDIA
๐ฆย pains
Chick Todd
https://twitter.com/KattyKissem/status/997549185112125441
NRA
๐ฆย wants their victims surveilled
and Ryan, arrested
Chief of police
political agenda
and interesting detail
NYDN
LEFTOVERS
https://twitter.com/stellaaaa/status/997837598486814721
poor cupboard boy
ROYAL WEDDING
since my feed is full, here’s the best of
and JK Rowling
our Mayor
on the same note – this happened
and
https://twitter.com/anylaurie16/status/997724314869809152
also
.
000๐๐๐000
The guy who signed away background checks for mental illnessย now tells us
what can you do, amirite? ๐คทโโ๏ธ
when we weren’t looking (because we weren’t supposed to talk gun control right after we weren’t supposed to talk climate change) ๐ย sprung this on us (well he did say during the campaign women should go to jail)
and with Joss Whedon’s reaction
and also quietly and anti-net neutrality FCC chair has been confirmed by Senate
but right now, we’re mostly supposed to STFU about gun control
but I’ll guess we’ll sneak in a word
or 2
or 3
and satire always helps
and another good one
Except for the Lone wolf part (i.e : white man, not terrorist) , good NYDN cover
and from Las Vegas
and from NYT
but for ย ๐ย this was another great news opportunity
Pat Robertson thinks 2A people don’t respect ๐
Puerto Rico still getting screwed – part of a long list
while ย is still patronizing the Mayor
in spite of
referring again to the status site
on the impeachment front
000๐๐๐000
comes from this tweet
http://twitter.com/#!/MotherJones/status/12838287345451008
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 Iย 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 theย Obama’s own Stupakistan. You know, the one Pelosi and others hailed asย a great step forward for women.
That Rs do not consider this good enough is significant, but one cannotย 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.
After endorsing Obama over Hillary, after cheering for the historical healthcare reform, it seems someone at Planned Parenthood finally read the small print.
This is a letter they sent a member
This is not what we worked for. This is not what we fought for.
I agree. You worked for defeating the first woman president.
You and I, and millions of Planned Parenthood supporters, fought
for a year to make sure that health care reform would provide
comprehensive coverage to every woman, man, and child in
America. We achieved some tremendous victories, including
defeating the Stupak amendment that would have banned private
insurance coverage of abortion for millions of women.
Someone missed the detail that Stupak eventually won – more than he really wanted
Now, a Stupak-like rule is back — and it came from the Obama
administration.
Now the rule is back? Did they sleep through the signing of the Jane Crow EO?
Well, it’s true, Obama did reach new heights of anti-Roe
but the decision announced by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services yesterday goes beyond even these
restrictions.The Obama administration has decided that no woman in the new
high-risk insurance pools will be allowed to obtain abortion
coverage beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the
life of the woman). Not even if she pays for that coverage with
her own money. .
It ends hilariously with
This is not what we fought
for — which means it’s time to fight back against the Obama
administration’s abortion coverage ban now.
Uh-oh! A petition! How so very scary! Some fight against Obama!
New source for this
Obama Administration Applies Stupak Amendment to High Risk Pools
his week, a commotion arose over the question of whether Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans, also known as high risk pools, can include abortion coverage. The Obama Administration responded immediately by imposing a total ban on abortion coverage in the pools that echoes the Stupak Amendment, even though nothing in the law requires such action.
.
Not Your Sweetie 
Recent Comments