You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Roe’ tag.

Rich and criminals try to get little people at each others throats again –

in this new meme that NY Post advances today – BP thinks it’s England you see. Maybe I’ll call them UK then..And notice how Murdoch’s NY paper phrases this from UK’s P.O.V (OBAMA DRAWS BP FIRE)

And during this attempt of billionaires to hide behind little people, Mississippi becomes the 4ths state with oil in their fresh water

and oil flows uncontrollably in the LA waters

.And BP-s UK’s lies keep being revealed – it’s 100 milllion gallons in the ocean now

while in Alabama, ocean view condos are worthless now

.In Florida, the attempt to put new limits on women’s right to choice was thwarted by Gov Crist’s veto – it’s an uproar of course!

.Stars and Stripes picks the Arlington Story

.while Newsday covers another funeral of a soldier

Wall Street Journal decries consumers tightening belts (bad for the recovery)

.and in South Carolina the strange Dem nominee is certified – they’re stuck!

.I’ll end with one piece of uplifting news re: oil-kill

Remember the good old times when Democratic candidates for POTUS were telling voters that women’s right to chose is at stake because of the SCOTUS nominations? I sound very old here – as I doubt Obama made this argument – although his strategists trumpeted on Obama TV that Roe was the “ace in the hole” to bring   back the women he demeaned in the primaries. We know how well this worked for them.

When Obama picked Sotomayor, he made a point in saying he didn’t even asked her about her views on women right to chose. I am old enough to remember when Democrats were accused of posing a “litmus test” on this – Obama ended this “R” worry.

In fact we are now sliding further down with this scary headline from WaPo

Abortion rulings could bring scrutiny of possible Supreme Court pick Wood

Suddenly, being for women’s right to chose (or as the RW an their media put it “abortion rights”) is no longer a Democratic principle, but a SCOTUS candidate “Achille’s heel”.

CHICAGO — If President Obama nominates U.S. Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, social conservatives say they intend to make her rulings on abortion rights the primary point of contention.

“That’s her Achilles’ heel,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which opposes Wood’s rulings on abortion. “It tells you that she’s probably not going to be selected, because Obama doesn’t have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate.

Let me repeat this again

Obama doesn’t have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate.

This is pretty much telegraphing that Obama is ready to sell women in the SCOTUS pick.

While it made a modicum of sense for Obama to declare that HCR was not about the abortion debate, to say that a SCOTUS pick can be about anything else is to practically send all women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

And while I don’t know much about Diane Wood, I get an idea from Glenn Greenwald’s simile

f one were to analogize the search for Justice Stevens’ replacement to the recently concluded health care debate, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood would be the public option.

Just as the truly left-wing health care approach (a single-payer system) was eliminated from consideration before the process even began, so, too, have the truly left-wing candidates to replace Justice Stevens (Pam Karlan, Harold Koh) been ruled out as “not viable.”  As a result, the moderate-progressive compromises (i.e., the public option for health care and Diane Wood for Stevens’ replacement) are falsely depicted as some sort of liberal extremism, merely because they’re the least conservative options allowed to be considered.

So, the standards – for everything – are moved to the right with the speed of light.

Women’s rights of choice have been dubbed “abortion rights” and they are now considered “the Achille’s heel” of a SCOTUS nominee. It’s a matter of time – very short – until they’ll be both outlawed and be reason for burning at the stake by our new overlords.

Women who voted for “the Feminist” – it’s on you more than it is on the men. Because you should have known better.

,

Page one of Washington Times wears this headline

Judge: Prayer day violates U.S. law

Obama to recognize national tradition

Ironically, the lawsuit leading to this decision was brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation against Dubya. But this is a perfect case of Jr.jr

The lawsuit originally targeted then-President George W. Bush and members of his administration, but Mr. Obama is now listed as the defendant because the president enforces the statute in question by issuing a proclamation each year declaring National Day of Prayer.

Because proclamations for National Day of Prayer are released through the White House press office, Mr. Bush’s former press secretary, Dana Perino, was originally listed as a defendant, but has since been replaced as a defendant by Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s press secretary.

The judge had decided yesterday

that the country’s National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity. Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb said the statute that created the National Day of Prayer violates the Constitution’s prohibition against the government establishment of religion

A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort ‘to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possibly in a pluralistic society.'”

Of course, out constitutional scholar/Messiah doesn’t believe in separation of powers nor separation of church and state as he had his flunkies declare

The ruling will not stop President Obama from recognizing, as he did last year, a national day of prayer, said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. Judge Crabb delayed the imposition of her ruling pending an appeal.

“We have reviewed the court’s decision, and it does not prevent the president from issuing a proclamation,”

This is the funniest part of the news

“President Obama is a constitutional scholar, and knows the issues at stake,” said the foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

Well, Annie, you should have paid more attention:

It was not the B0bots, but six million fundies staying home Election Day who elected Obama. Their pastors didn’t tell them to vote for a number of reasons – they were paid off before and after the election:

Before the election Obama did nothing to make his supporters in California to vote against proposition 8

Obama declared – repeatedly that abortion is not an issue of women’s freedom, but a moral choice.

During his campaign he pledged to extend Bush’s faith based programs, including allowing those federally funded groups to hire and fire based on faith.

He also openly courted the religious right using Reagan’s line “I know you cannot endorse me but I endorse you”

When congress was writing the stimulus, Obama personally asked House members to dump contraceptives funding from the bill

Obama’s Romneycare is establishing Scientology as the go to healer – prayers to be reimbursed as medical expenses

and also it restores funding for abstinence only programs education (i.e religious groups)

and culminating nicely with the Jane Crow Executive Order allowing religious hospitals/practitioners to discriminate against women, but protecting THEM from being discriminated against ( additional provisions to Hyde too)

and these were just a few I searched in my own blog.

Where were you, Foundation for Freedom from Religion when all these things happened?

Me? I learn to read the incoming threats from the way a candidate sells himself.

Bush sold himself as the first busines school graduate – he wrecked the economy.

Obama, the  first Constitutional scholar…. see how it works?

I have to confess,  grew up in a Newspeak country. 1984 was quite the reality (and also forbidden there).

I especially remember one blood curling moment when old people were interviewed on TV about the upcoming lowering of pensions – and they were saying how happy this makes them.

And still, I was in for a shock reading this in WaPo today

Before giving up the quote, I have to preface that it comes from a political strategist, and which is more a John-I concede for the sake of the war Kerry strategist – Mary Beth Cahill. She thinks women are the biggest beneficiaries of Romney care because

Democratic female House members understood this and refused to let this bill die. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and pro-choice women stared down those who would have weakened further a woman’s right to choose and refused to accept any compromise in the legislation that would undercut women’s rights.

And if this wasn’t enough, she takes it a notch higher

Abigail Adams would be proud. The Democrats remembered the ladies — and they will benefit from it.

You see. this type of fake-out is way ahead that what I grew up with. At least those people cheering for lower pension were telling the truth about the upcoming law. With Cahill as consultant, they would have told everyone they would get an increase. Like this opening paragraph

Some argue that passage of the biggest advance in social justice since the Voting Rights Act will rally the liberal base. That is in part because some of the biggest beneficiaries are American women, who are so often key to Democratic victories.

Some argue that you are full of it, Mary.

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.
:rofl:

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, et.al.

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
cynatnite
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.

Not Your Sweetie

December 2019
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031