Quantcast
Channel: reproductiverights
Viewing all 1340 articles
Browse latest View live

Arkansas Police Wrongfully Arrest Addicted Mom For Murder After Preterm Birth

0
0

Angela Miller, 23, probably wishes she'd never entered the land of God, guns, and apparently Gilead-inspired small town cops.

But for whatever reason she found herself pregnant in Arkansas -- where we're having to fight for access to medical abortion, leaving only one functioning abortion provider in the state.  

After she'd allegedly injected methamphetamine in a motel in Benton, a small town near the intersections of two interstates, she went into early labor on Tuesday, June 5th.  She was only 24 weeks along.  She had someone at the motel call 911 for her, and her baby lived briefly after its too-early birth under the care of medical professionals at Saline Memorial Hospital.  Sadly, at 24 weeks, it's a coin-toss in the best of times as to whether the baby will survive.  She lost the toss, and her child.

You might think that was enough of a nightmare, but it was only the beginning.

See, Angela was from a state that criminalized assaults against pregnant women, not assaults against fetuses.  She probably hadn't heard of the many women in red states arrested for poor pregnancy outcomes.  She probably felt safe being honest with the physicians trying to save her child about her drug use.

She wasn't in Oregon anymore, though.

Instead, the doctors felt compelled (as mandated reporters) to report anything that could possibly have been considered child abuse or neglect.  With this child having died after taking a breath (therefore not a stillbirth), the local police felt compelled to investigate and thought they could make a case, since the child had died a "person" even if what they claimed caused the death occurred before delivery.  They used 911 records from her call for help to go to the motel she was staying at, where they found paraphernalia for injecting methamphetamine -- their final piece of evidence, and compelling enough apparently for many locals interviewed.

Based on her statements to medical professionals, her medical records, and the evidence in the motel room, they arrested her for second degree murder and "introduction of a controlled substance into the body of another".   As soon as she was considered stable enough to release from the hospital -- Thursday, June 7 -- the proud cops took her to the Saline County Detention Center.  They triumphantly posted a media release about the arrest, even.  Mighty proud folks!

Fortunately, the Saline County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney schooled them for their errors in Angela's bail hearing today.  No, you still can't charge a pregnant woman for a crime committed against her own unborn fetus, even if the child lives a short time after birth.  Nor can you apply a law that was clearly designed to address drug-facilitated sexual assault to a pregnant woman for actions while she was still pregnant.  

The only remaining charges Angela faces, at least at this time, are for the drugs themselves.  Her bond has been set at $5,000, and while the prosecutor said they would continue to see what laws on the books applied, the charges based on ignorant police attempts to use laws designed to protect women against her at one of the worst times in her life have been dismissed.

But how many others will go through a similar experience after being honest with their physicians?

The solution to maternal substance abuse is not found in laws that scare women away from doctors when they need them the most, or laws that discourage them from full and frank disclosure.  I personally wonder if her arrest for the drugs isn't actually "fruit of the poisonous tree", if warrants were properly obtained, etc, but hope that if only convicted of a small drug offense she can still get the treatment she needs.  

Now part of that treatment is going to be for the trauma of thinking she might not get out of prison for decades, though.  Even if she is lucky in comparison to many that her overcharging was addressed quickly.  


PA-Gov: Gov. Tom Wolf (D) Builds Momentum To Stop HHS Alex Azar From Defunding Planned Parenthood

0
0

Received this e-mail today from Governor Tom Wolf’s (D. PA) re-election campaign:

Gov. Tom Wolf speaks with members of the media during a news conference at the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., Tuesday, May 23, 2017. Wolf says he'll nominate his insurance commissioner, Teresa Miller, to lead a new agency overseeing public health and human services programs. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
Gov. Tom Wolf (D. PA)
 

All women deserve access to comprehensive health care and the best medical advice available from their doctors -- without needing a permission slip from Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

But the Trump administration has proposed a new policy that would cut off access to care for millions of women and would demand that doctors and clinics that receive federal funding withhold information about health care options. And if clinics like Planned Parenthood choose to put their patients first and refuse to follow the new guidance, they could be defunded.

This misguided policy is a backdoor plan to defund Planned Parenthood and will put the health of women in jeopardy. That's why I'll do everything in my power to stop it. 

I recently joined 13 governors across the country in asking Alex Azar, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to reject this new policy that will harm women. Now I'm asking you to join me in taking action.

Tell HHS Secretary Alex Azar: "Don't defund Planned Parenthood." Sign your name now →

As Pennsylvania's governor, I've stood with women and with Planned Parenthood and even served as a Planned Parenthood clinic escort before I was elected because I believe we must protect women's rights to make their own medical decisions.

But President Trump, on the other hand, is playing politics with women's health. 

I'm ready to fight Donald Trump and his backwards agenda with everything I have. But I need you with me. 

Join me in sending a message: We can not defund Planned Parenthood. Sign the petition now:

https://secure.wolfforpa.com/dont-defund-planned-parenthood

Thanks for standing with me,

Tom

Click here to add your name.

Argentina takes a step toward legalizing elective abortion

0
0

Argentina has made extraordinary strides in expanding human and civil rights since thefall of its murderous dictatorship in 1983. That progress was especially notable during the administrations of presidents Nestor Kirchner (2003-2007) and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (2007-2015). During their administrations, they successfully brought to trial members of the dictatorial regime, enacted South America’s first marriage equality legislation, and steered the country to granting what is even today the world’s most progressive law recognizing and protecting transgender identity.

Nestor and Cristina Kirchner at campaign rally. Courtesy of the Argentine government. Creative Commons license.
Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, former presidents of Argentina

Nevertheless, the power couple were never able to advance one key right for women: control over their reproductive choices. Argentina has done a lot in this area, including mandating sex education in public schools, making birth control pills and “morning after” pills available at pharmacies without a prescription, and covering their costs under the national healthcare system.

But abortion? It is still a problematic issue in this nominally Catholic country. Although the Church has seen a huge drop-off of the truly faithful, the religious tradition and culture have proven resilient to some social changes. As would be expected, abortion-on-request is a line the Church insists that Argentina must not cross.


Of course, it’s not just a Catholic objection. Many people of other faiths, or no faith, find abortion morally problematic (as well as similar issues like gay marriage and transgender rights). Overall, however, the country has a progressive attitude about sexuality and reproductive rights; numerous surveys and studies have shown majority support for expanding the right to terminate a pregnancy. In a recent survey, one item really surprised me: men more strongly supported decriminalizing abortion than women, by 63% to 55%.

So the country has been jawing about this subject for ages and the politicians have been chattering as well but little real progress has occurred. Today, the politicos finally put their words into action and the lower house — the Chamber of Deputies (Camara de Diputados) — passed a bill which will permit elective abortion up to 14 weeks. It narrowly squeaked by in a vote of 129-125.

The next step is just like with our own Congress. The bill will go to the Senate where it will go through hearings and debates and such before a vote. There is no timetable yet for all that to occur. The Senate tends to be more conservative than the Deputies so passage is most definitely not guaranteed; progressive forces will be applying great pressure in coming weeks and months but the outcome is iffy, at best. Should the bill pass the Senate, it is pretty much certain to become law — President Mauricio Macri has promised not to veto it and has urged senators to vote their consciences rather than uphold the policy position of their respective political parties.


In the meantime, where does this leave pregnant women in Argentina? Well, it’s good news and bad news.

Argentina is much better than some Latin American nations, where women have absolutely no legal rights to abortion for any reason. It is permitted here under certain circumstances, mainly pregnancy due to rape or to protect the life or mental health of the woman. The rub is in the implementation of the laws that enable those options.

Although Argentine federal law has supremacy, it’s up to the provinces to carry it out. So some provinces are pretty good about complying but others do their best to thwart and obfuscate, much like our own Red/Blue states division. Bureaucratic hurdles make it extremely unlikely for a woman to receive a legal-and-safe abortion in much of the country.

Women march as part of Ni Una Menos campaign in Santa Fe, Argentina. Creative Commons license, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segundo_Paro_Internacional_de_Mujeres_-_8M_-_Santa_Fe_-_Argentina_-_Dianela_Gahn.1.jpg
Ni Una Menos (“Not One Less”) is a popular and powerful grassroots feminist movement in Argentina

Added to that is the personal reluctance of many medical providers — doctors, hospitals, nurses, and so on — to be involved in an abortion even when it meets the legal requirements that would permit it. There is no such thing here equivalent to Planned Parenthood with clinics specifically operating to ensure access to legal abortions.

Thus, Argentina has a very high number of clandestine abortions, with all of the legal and medical risks that that entails. Estimates are that somewhere between 300,000 and 550,000 illicit abortions are carried out each year, in a population of 43 million people. There were 43 deaths known last year due to illegal abortions but that number is likely way, way low. Because of the legal risks, complications and deaths are not reported as such but masked as due to some other underlying cause.

That, of course, is one of the arguments being effectively used by pro-choice activists and groups here, like Ni Una Menos: women are having abortions in Argentina anyway, regardless of the law, so why not make them safer?

That message got through to enough Deputies to allow today’s passage of the bill. We will see if the Senators can be convinced as well.


An English-language news site in Argentina, The Bubble, has written some excellent articles about abortion and Argentine law and politics:

Contraceptive Access: The State of Reproductive Healthcare Ahead of the Abortion Vote

Abortion in Argentina by the Numbers

Abortion: Lower House Passes Decriminalization Bill 

Pro-choice advocates' next big abortion rights case could change everything

0
0

Seven pro-choice actors have joined together to bring an omnibus challenge to a suite of Texas anti-abortion laws. The complaint filed in federal district court in Texas alleges multiple grounds for unconstitutionality. It’s a critical test of how courts will apply Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a 2016 decision that clarified the “undue burden” test courts use to determine the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. To withstand a court’s scrutiny, such laws must verifiably further a valid state interest, confer benefits that outweigh burdens imposed, and be based on credible evidence.

The plaintiffs in this follow-on case are targeting six types of legal restrictions. 

The first target is TRAP laws—that is, targeted regulation of abortion provider laws—that aim to make providing abortions as difficult as possible for medical professionals. These laws can take the form of arbitrary restrictions on who can provide services and where—i.e., mandating all abortions past 16 weeks take place in a hospital or surgical center—as well as onerous licensing, inspection, and reporting requirements.

The second genre: Laws that bar abortion providers and patients alike from taking advantage of technology that permits telemedicine and medical advancements in pharmaceutical-induced abortion. Right now, doctors can’t even use telemedicine to provide state-mandated information. In-person requirements, especially when paired with waiting periods, make obtaining an abortion even more costly, at a minimum.

Third are the laws that shame people seeking abortions, impose unnecessary delays, and compel physicians to provide misleading or even false information to patients. The fourth legal target of the suit is the sub-category of such laws specific to minors, including parental consent requirements regardless of parental estrangement or abuse. Here, there’s a middle ground win available: It’d be acceptable just to expand the list of people permitted to give consent for a minor to include guardians and grandparents, the complaint notes.

Last come the laws that criminalize abortion providers themselves and the biggie, the General Appropriations Act’s Limitation on Abortion Funding, as it’s been applied by the University of Texas system. UT uses that law as a pretense to deny credit to students for internships and placements at organizations that so much as facilitate abortion access.

They’ve lodged a wide-reaching complaint, but the plaintiffs have covered their bases when it comes to standing, or their right to challenge the laws: In addition to health organizations, there’s a doctor among them. They’ve also laid out every possible constitutional objection to each law.

The genres of anti-abortion laws directly challenged constitute an undue burden on pre-viability abortion access, the plaintiffs argue, in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. That’s the notion at the heart of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion: The Court determined that the 14th Amendment protects personal liberty, including an individual’s right to choose.  Doubling down, the plaintiffs allege each law also also violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 

Plaintiffs Dr. Bhavik Kumar and Whole Women’s Health Alliance allege that Texas’s information-related mandates and pre-abortion ultrasound requirement violate their First Amendment free speech rights. 

An organization at which University of Texas students would otherwise be placed, Lilith Fund, is key to the challenge to the General Appropriations Act’s Limitation on Abortion Funding. It argues that the law, as applied by the university system, is unconstitutionally vague and violates students’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association.  If successful, this challenge could open the door for other as-applied challenges, which can be brought to change how the law is applied or prevent it from being applied to certain actors—even if the law itself stands.

This omnibus attack on abortion restrictions in Texas could take a very long time to wind through the system given the range of laws challenged and the three-pronged “undue burden” test, which a court will have to apply to each type of restriction. But a win will be worth the wait.

ME-Sen: Angus King (I) Builds Momentum To Stop Trump's Title X Gag Rule

0
0

Received this e-mail today from U.S. Senator Angus King’s (I. ME) re-election campaign:

For decades, Title X funding has played a critical role in making health care services available to millions of women, men and young people – services like contraception, colon cancer screenings and basic checkups. But the Trump administration has announced plans to turn its back on years of bipartisan support for Title X, jeopardizing essential services.

President Trump’s proposal would force health care providers like Planned Parenthood to withhold medical options and information from women – or lose necessary funding. This is a reinstatement of what’s called “the gag rule”– and it would have devastating consequences.

We can’t let women’s health care access fall victim to our partisan political climate. The impact would be immediate, long-lasting and frankly life-altering for too many. Will you join me in speaking out?

Please, add your name to urge President Trump to stop the Title X gag rule.

In today’s conversations about Title X and Planned Parenthood, the issue of abortion is highly politicized – but the fact is, federal funding doesn’t go toward abortion services as it is. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s services have nothing to do with abortion at all. There’s nothing partisan about early-detection cancer screenings. Nothing partisan about STDs or pregnancy tests.

This policy has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with women’s health care and family planning rights being treated like a political football.

In Maine, more than 60% of women accessing Planned Parenthood’s services view the organization as their primary care provider. President Trump’s new policy would divert funding from quality, affordable service providers like Planned Parenthood, which provide women with a full range of health care and contraceptive options, toward lower-quality centers. This isn’t good for anyone.

Will you join me in pushing back against this attack on women’s health today?

Please, add your name to urge President Trump to protect women’s health care access.

Thank you for standing up for health care.

Angus

Click here to add your name.

SCOTUS says it's likely unconstitutional to make 'crisis pregnancy centers' admit they're unlicensed

0
0

California passed an act requiring licensed crisis pregnancy centers to list resources and unlicensed centers to post a notice stating that they’re unlicensed. An anti-choice coalition—a licensed center, an unlicensed center, and a crisis pregnancy center organization—challenged the law in federal district court in California, claiming it violates their First Amendment freedom of speech, and asked the court for a preliminary injunction to block its implementation.

The district court found it unlikely that the challenge to the law would succeed and so denied the request; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court. But now the Supreme Court’s reversed in a 5-4 decision written by right-wing stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas.

There’s a lot that’s frightening about this ruling. Including the fact that even Thomas’s summary of the legislation in question makes it seem reasonable or even benign, although, obviously, the majority decided it’s not just unreasonable but likely unconstitutional.

The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices. Licensed clinics must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services. The question in this case is whether these notice requirements violate the First Amendment.

The majority decides the notice requirements likely do violate the First Amendment. (In assessing the propriety of a preliminary injunction, they don’t have to [nor should they] reach the merits of the underlying challenge, just determine the likelihood of success.)

A First Amendment crash course: When it comes to speech, there are content-based regulations and content-neutral regulations. When something’s a content-based regulation, it’s directed at the message conveyed by speech; a content-neutral regulation targets how speech is expressed, put simply. Content-based regulations are presumptively unconstitutional; to withstand judicial review, the state has to prove they are (1) “narrowly tailored” and (2) “serve compelling state interests.”

down Theocracy Road with Kardashian Law as democracy dies in darkness

0
0

x

And dominionism continues its onward march to allowing a theocratic (local) state determine women’s reproductive rights as the rigging of the end of democracy continues to operate like a game show.

x

x

x

Yet the replacement of Kennedy with a staunch conservative would mean the overturning of Roe is a strong possibility. Of course, we do not yet know who Trump will pick, but he’s pledged to select his nominee from a list of people approved by the conservative legal movement who are generally believed to be anti-Roe.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the law dean of UC Berkeley, wrote in 2016 that the replacement of a justice like Kennedy with a conservative would mean there “almost certainly will be a majority to overrule Roe v. Wade and allow states to prohibit abortions.” Jeffrey Toobin, the legal writer for the New Yorker, tweeted that he thinks Kennedy’s replacement by Trump means “abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months.”

Depending on the “women’s” vote, whether inside or outside the Senate, the GOP will ensure that the Blue Wave will have a higher peak. The real battles will come as Trump’s crimes become more public (more pardons) and the implications for corporate hegemony post-Citizen’s United will get worse (or more profitable).

x

Still, especially in contrast to the turbulence of the 1930s and 1960s, there can be little doubt that Kennedy’s tenure helped sustain a fair measure of stability. He and the court have served as a bulwark for the rule of law in a world often set against it.

As a result, his retirement will spark chaos. Keen to reshape American life on a startling scope and scale, conservatives will race to confirm a reliable vote. Things will get ugly — very ugly. Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance. So do many other famous precedents.

Accordingly, the court’s very legitimacy is now up for grabs. Signs suggest that President Trump aims to move the court so far to the right that half the nation will inevitably deem it an avowed enemy.

The confirmation battle ahead will place the court under crushing pressure. And if the result is a muscular, immodest conservative majority, the center will not hold.  

The future now rests with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has shown sustained concern for the court’s legitimacy, but whose votes place him far to Kennedy’s right. Will his court truly remain open to all Americans? Or will it speak for only one viewpoint?

The law will get shaped regardless of thinking about votes, and sans extraordinary events, a misogynist state will prevail and more bigotry will find more shelter. The removal of a median justice (for example Kennedy) might not have the same effect as his effect on majority opinions or the effect on the law itself. Some writers have tended in that direction. And as with Masterpiece Cake, we’ve seen a peculiar brand of textual cowardice/caution in the context of the First Amendment.

The more interesting question is whether justices “care”. And more importantly, what is the overlap between legislative and judicial ideological spaces, considering the gross incompetence and criminality of the current executive branch. As with Justice Roberts’s flubbing of the oath of office for POTUS 44, consciousness is much more complicated, if not complex.

Understanding the content of judicial opinions, specifically, understanding where in ideological space the policies and rules adopted in an opinion rest, is therefore of great interest.

[...]

As we have shown, the two-step process of collegial judicial decision-making means that – assuming justices care about the disposition of a case in addition to the rule they announce –the median justice has great power over the judgment in a case, but the same is not true for the content of the majority opinion that sustains that outcome. Instead, our argument suggests that the majority opinion will reflect the views of the median justice of the opinion majority.

law.utexas.edu/...

kim_kardashian_donald_trump_ny_post.jpg

The Cardassian Articles of Jurisprudence was the written code of Cardassian law. This code included articles governing the treatment and rights of prisoners in the Cardassian system of jurisprudence.

Under the articles, an officer would caution the individual being arrested that, "You have the right to refuse to answer questions, but such refusal may be construed as a sign of guilt." The document also allowed the arrest of a suspect without informing him of the crime he was accused of.

It also provided for spouses of the accused to disassociate themselves from the accused by testifying against them. Cardassian trials were for show, as the verdict and sentence had already been determined in advance. There was no appeals process. (DS9: "Tribunal")

Reproductive Rights Amendment, Civil Rights Amendment, Pardon Amendment & EQUAL RIGHTS Amendment

0
0

This isn’t much of a diary but I just thought this argument needed to get into our political discourse.  

At this point we need to realize that hoping for the Judicial Branch to protect certain rights is not a given.  It really never has been.  Roe v. Wade was just judicial precedent, but as history has shown us precedents can be relegated to the heap of history by new precedent.  The Civil Rights Act is just that, an Act of Congress, which again can be done away with and if Congress feels its not important or the judicial doesn’t respect historical carve outs.  The only thing that will stop the Executive, Legislative and Judicial from playing volley ball with these rights is to write the damn rights into the Constitution.  Hell the last Constitutional Amendment had to do with how Congress pays itself.  Is that really more important than a women’s rights over her reproductive life?  Or more important than the rights of our minority communities or lgbtq community? And finally lets take the argument away of whether any President is above the law.  Lastly at the bare minimum we should get at least one more State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.  It only needs one more State to ratify it.  It needs to be done tomorrow.  These are fights we should have and want to have in the coming elections.  Lets start to put these Republicans on the defensive.  Let the American people decide whether these things are important.  If they thought how Congress pays itself was important, well I think this is the battle field we should be willing to fight on.  It will be a long haul, but we need to start now to begin that process.  We definitely shouldn’t be scared of the fight.  


The Women's Choice Act: time to go on offense.

0
0

Roe v. Wade was an important decision, a milestone for women’s reproductive rights. It was not, however, entirely positive for the women’s rights movement. Ever since Roe, we have been in a defensive crouch, trying to protect the right to choose from continual attacks at the judicial and legislative level. Unfortunately, those attacks have had significant success and are now poised to overturn Roe entirely. We can no longer count on the courts as a shield to protect women’s rights.

The good news, and it’s important good news, is that two-thirds of Americans support Roe. Polling on abortion rights can be complicated, but the fundamental holding, that a woman in her first trimester should have the right to choose, is very popular.

So what do we do if we can no longer count on the courts? We go on offense in the court of public opinion, and specifically in the legislature. Enter the Women’s Choice Act:

“Any woman in her first trimester of pregnancy may choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy.”

Simple. One line. It can be proposed at the state or federal levels and should be proposed on both.

Yes, this is a little oversimplified. Yes, it’s not at all a sufficient guarantee of women’s reproductive rights, failing to cover anything beyond the first trimester.

But two-thirds of Americans support this position. Let’s act like it.

Two-thirds of American voters want Roe v. Wade to stay the law of the land

0
0

While conservative rags have opinion pages blaring headlines like "Overturn Roe v. Wade,” two-thirds of American voters—67 percent—say it needs to be preserved. And that's from a poll taken before Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote on abortion on a closely divided Supreme Court, retired.

KFF poll on Roe v. Wade

Again, these results are from the Kaiser Family Foundation's health tracking poll taken before Kennedy retired, before we learned that Donald Trump would have the opportunity to steal another Supreme Court seat. Trump has not only pledged to overturn Roe, he's endorsed criminalizing abortion and punishing women. That's what Trump wants to happen with this seat.

So the 42 percent of voters who "say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports access to abortion services" is likely to increase significantly now that the threat is so very real and so very imminent.

Good news? There are two 'pro-choice' Republicans in the Senate. Bad news? One is Susan Collins

0
0

Misogynist-in-chief Donald Trump doesn't have to have free rein in picking the next Supreme Court justice, the one who could end Roe v. Wade and women's autonomy over our own bodies. That's because there are two Republican senators, both women, who could block any anti-choice nominee he put forward. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have anchored a good part of their political careers around being basically the last two pro-choice Republicans standing.

Both are under a great deal of pressure right now, being lobbied by White House counsel Don McGahn to fall in line. Both are insisting that they would never do such a thing. "I am not going to suggest that my opportunity as a senator in the advise and consent process is somehow or other short-cutted just because this is a Republican president and I'm a Republican," says Murkowski. Collins insists that she isn't going to be bowed by partisan pressure because "it's a Supreme Court nominee; […] This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. It matters."

It does matter. It matters to things like keeping protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It also matters to women's health care in very specific ways, starting with abortion and including access to contraception. So it mattered when these two senators voted for Neil Gorsuch, who sat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and who twice sided against the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act in both Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius and in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.

It makes Susan Collins' spokeswoman saying that Collins won't have a "litmus test" for a nominee more than worrisome. When it's followed up by bullshit like "When Senator Collins evaluates judges, she always looks at their judicial temperament; qualifications; experience; and respect for precedent, the rule of law, and the Constitution," and "These are exactly the same criteria she applied when she evaluated President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, President Obama’s nominees, and President Trump’s most recent nominee," then you know Collins is setting herself up to be a rubber stamp for Trump again.

Don't let her get away with it. She helped torpedo Trumpcare because the people of Maine made her do it. Make her do the right thing again.

Do you live in Maine? You have a powerful voice in stopping Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Click here to write Sen. Collins.

I Meant to Write, But I've Been Busy Trying to Save Democracy

0
0

I haven’t blogged in a really long time.  I’ve meant to write.

I had planned a blog to reflect on the five year anniversary since Wendy Davis took to the floor of the Texas state Senate and filibustered for 10 hours and 45 minutes to prevent a bill that would severely limit women’s access to abortions.  How she donned those pink sneakers and stood telling her own and others’ personal stories. How she was admonished for breaking rules and at 10:07 pm she was given her “third strike”. And when her voice was silenced, how others, like Sen. Kirk Watson and Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, tried to use parliamentary procedure to run down the final two hours.   And then after Sen. Van de Putte’s question was ignored and she pointedly asked, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognised over her male colleagues?" how the gallery erupted in shouts of “Let her speak” and “Hell no we won’t go” and the clock ran out on SB5. But now, five years later reproductive justice in under attack in state legislatures.  And with the announced retirements of Justice Kennedy, it seems that it is only time before Roe v. Wade is overturned.

I had planned a blog to celebrate Pride and the third year anniversary of marriage equality becoming the law of the land.  I wanted to give a shout out to my friends who I profiled in last year’s Pride blog who are now engaged to be married.  (Congratulations, Craig and Daniel!).  I had wanted to write about how friends and family gathered at an herb farm in Western Massachusetts to watch two young women stand under the chuppah and promise to love and honor each other for the rest of their lives.  But then the Supreme Court ruled that a homophobic baker can refuse to bake a wedding cake under religious grounds and I felt like the clock was moving backwards.

I wanted to write about Trump and Session’s policy of separating children from their parents at the border.  How these parents are fleeing unimaginable horrors and seeking asylum for themselves and their children. How the US decided that it was somehow okay to rip these children away from their mothers, some still nursing infants, and place them in detention centers.  How when elected officials demanded to be let in to see what was happening to these children, they were turned away. Then Trump reversed his order by signing an executive order (the policy could have been changed with a phone call), but without a plan to reunite the children and furthering another hateful policy - prolonging the detention of families seeking asylum.  But then I joined Lawyer Moms of America and helped to organize a nationwide campaign to #DelivertheMessage to Senators and US Representatives telling them that we as moms and lawyers will not stand idly by while the Constitutional guarantee of due process is jeopardized by this president. I heard the cries of children in detention centers and was distraught.

Then Justice Kennedy announced his retirement (after the Supreme Court also dealt deadly blows to organized labor, upheld Trump's Muslim ban and gave fake pregnancy centers stronger free speech protections than real ones) and I had to sit down and write.  There’s been a feeling of despair lately. Like our democracy is under attack and we don’t know if it will survive. The news is bad and it’s coming at us from all angles. But we are not helpless and it is not hopeless. In times like these we can’t wring our hands and dream of what might have been.  We cannot throw up our hands and say, “It’s too big. I can’t solve it.”

Jewish tradition teaches us that we are not obligated to complete the work of repairing the world, but we are not free to abandon it, either.  John Lewis reminded us that our struggle is not of a “day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime.” He rallied us to make noise and cause some #goodtrouble.  And Dan Rather, whose voice has become a beacon of truth, reminded us that all is not lost: “Turn to your left and right and see the long lines of fellow citizens. Look behind you and see the formidable artillery of wealth and power that is on YOUR side. Take a deep breath and feel the cool air of hope and justice in your lungs, and then march forward.”

In times like these, I believe that we need to focus on what we can do.  And what we can do is work to elect Democrats to the House and the Senate.  If we take control of the House, we stop Trump in his tracks legislatively. If we win the Senate, as well, we stop the confirmation of judges who wish to turn back the clock on equality and justice.  We have no time for despair. We must get to work.

Find a swing Congressional district near you.  Then get out.  Knock doors. Make phone calls.  And donate. If you live in or near my Congressional district, New Jersey’s 7th, contact Tom Malinowski’s campaign and get involved. Please, do not litmus test these candidates. Do not allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. The house is on fire and we do not have time.  It’s all hands on deck. (And sorry I’m mixing metaphors - these are trying times.)

So I’m sorry I haven’t written, but I’ve been busy trying to save our democracy.  I hope you will join me.

You can contact me at LisaM4Change@gmail.com

 

Women on the Move

0
0

   In 1943, a group of women in Berlin mounted a dangerous, public resistance to the Nazi regime. When the Nazis rounded up around 2000 Jewish men who were married to Gentiles, those wives immediately began to congregate outside a building on Rosenstrasse where their husbands were being held.  When threatened with gunfire, the women would sometimes disperse, only to quickly reassemble. They persisted in their protest until, in about a week, the Nazis released all the men. (link)

  A radically different, but equally successful, protest sprang up two years ago in Poland, a majority Catholic country.  Women squelched the consideration of a law that would have made obtaining an abortion even more difficult than it already was. A few of the women began their protest by walking out of Mass.  Then, the next day, Black Monday, thousands of women, wearing black, left work and took to the streets.  Within a few days the government backed down. (link)

  Neither of these swift victories could have been predicted.

  Just a few weeks ago, Irish women produced a stunning upset, though one that was much longer in the making.  Despite polls predicting “too close to call,” the predominately Catholic electorate voted 66.4% Yes! for reproductive freedom. The women and their male supporters had been organizing since 1983, when the “fetus has equal rights with the pregnant woman” clause became part of the Irish constitution. (link)

  In the United States women struggled for more than a century for the right to vote.  In 1913, thousands of suffragettes marched in Washington on the day before President Wilson’s inauguration. They passed through throngs of jeering men who abused them in one way or another. About one hundred women were hospitalized. The success of the “parade” gained support for their cause.  When they were imprisoned and force-fed they gained even more sympathy. Finally, several years later, they achieved national suffrage. (link) 

  Many Black women, who suffered under the twin injustices of racism and misogyny, threw their support behind the fight for women’s suffrage despite being mistreated by most White women, including those who were suffragettes. 

  The Women’s March of 2017 is a descendant of the 1913 suffragette parade, though much more massive, in fact, worldwide, and also somewhat more inclusive. It was shockingly nonviolent.  For those demoralized by the results of the 2016 election, participants and witnesses alike “re-moralized” themselves.  Many moved on to further political action, such as running for office.

  We women have proven that we have the courage to fight against impossible odds, organize quickly, and even more importantly, persist as long as necessary.  We will be calling on these strengths for today’s struggles.
 

Trump's failed ghost-hunting judicial nominee just got a promotion at the Justice Department

0
0

Remember Brett Talley, the laughably unqualified Trump judicial nominee and ghost hunter? The one who has never argued a case in court, did not disclose that his wife works for the administration in his nomination paperwork, and left a long electronic trail of right-wing political blogging that included praising the KKK? He was forced to withdraw his nomination when all this came to light, even though the Senate Judiciary Committee had already approved the nomination! But don't worry, he landed on his feet.

In fact, he got a promotion, from a  junior position at the Justice Department to becoming an assistant U.S. attorney.

In May, Talley made an unusual career move. Though he had virtually no experience handling criminal cases, he is now working as an assistant US attorney in the eastern district of Virginia, prosecuting low-level immigration and drug cases. It's just the kind of entry-level federal position someone aspiring to be a judge someday might angle for. A Justice Department spokesperson wouldn't say why he made the job change, and Talley didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Immigration. Great. It's also worth reconsidering Talley's former position in light of the Supreme Court vacancy. He was deputy assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Policy, on one of Trump's "beachhead teams," staffed by Trump "loyalists placed at federal agencies in positions that didn't require Senate confirmation, where they were intended to be the 'eyes and ears' of the White House." This is the guy who loves the KKK and pledged totally fealty on his blog to the NRA after the Newtown school shooting that killed 26 elementary-school children and teachers, writing "I pledge my support to the NRA; financially, politically, and intellectually. I ask you to do the same. Join the NRA. They stand for all of us now, and I pray that in the coming battle for our rights, they will be victorious."

What was his job at the Office of Legal Policy? Vetting judicial nominations.

So when Sen. Susan Collins says Trump assured he that he wouldn't ask any nominee to commit to voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, keep in mind who he chooses to have picking judges for him.

Do you live in Maine? You have a powerful voice in stopping Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Click here to write Sen. Collins.

Monday, Jul 2, 2018 · 8:29:51 PM +00:00·Joan McCarter

The Virginia U.S. attorney’s office responded to this story with a tweet disputing Mother Jones’ reporting that Talley is now employed there. 
 

The next Supreme Court justice could gut Medicaid and Planned Parenthood

0
0

Campaign Action

The threats to health care in America in general and women's health in particular from the Supreme Court just got a lot more dire with Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. And it's just what far-right radicals have been waiting for, the chance to turn their favorite hobby of literally making a federal case out of every grievance out of the certainty that some day they'll have the Supreme Court they need to reshape our society. And here we are. Ironically, one of their projects has been to curtail the rights of others to sue and they're very close to succeeding in one effort—preventing healthcare providers from suing over Medicaid's coverage decisions.

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that providers could sue over Medicaid reimbursement rates, with Kennedy dissenting. Over the past nearly three decades, that decision has been narrowed, but provider lawsuits are still allowed. Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University law professor, explains that Kennedy “was willing to leave the courthouse doors open in Medicaid cases, whereas the conservative majority is willing to shut it— mean, really slam it." And if that door is slammed shut, she says, "it's certainly possible that a state would start hacking away at its program. There would be no deterrence at all."

That includes Planned Parenthood, which serves as the primary care provider for millions of people with Medicaid nationally. Right now both Kansas and Louisiana have asked the Supreme Court to determine whether Planned Parenthood can sue if they are exclude from the states' Medicaid programs. There's a circuit split on this issue; two federal appeals courts have ruled that the states can't exclude Planned Parenthood while a third says that Planned Parenthood cannot sue Arkansas over exclusion. Conflicting circuit court decisions is traditionally what the Supreme Court requires in taking such cases, so here we are.

This confirmation fight isn't just about Roe v. Wade, though that's what Republicans like Susan Collins would have you believe, so that she can continue to pretend that it's this one single issue that Donald Trump won't use as a litmus test for his choice. With a wink and nod, she and Trump can pretend that abortion is off the table so her vote doesn't hinge on that.

Meanwhile, a nominee that will vote to take healthcare away from millions of people will get her approval, because no one said anything about abortion.

Do you live in Maine? You have a powerful voice in stopping Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Click here to write Sen. Collins.


OH-Gov: Betty Sutton (D) Keeps Up The Fight To Protect Women's Health From Trump's Supreme Court

0
0

Received this e-mail today from Lt. Governor nominee, Betty Sutton (D. OH), on behalf of the Cordray/Sutton ticket:

betty-sutton-f2931c8b074dcafc.jpg
Betty Sutton (D. OH)
 

I’m not going to pull punches. When I heard the news that Justice Kennedy was stepping down from the Supreme Court, my heart sank.

And I realized immediately that the stakes are higher than ever to make sure Mike DeWine never becomes governor.

Add your name right now and join me in standing up for Ohio women and fighting for their reproductive freedom.

For 7 years, Mike DeWine and Republican extemists have waged an unprecedented war on women’s health. From the Governor’s office to the legislature, they’ve passed bills and pushed policies restricting a woman’s right to control their own bodies, lives and futures. And don’t forget their obsession with defunding Planned Parenthood. Over and over again, they’ve tried to eliminate funding. Mike DeWine refuses to stop—even after courts ruled his efforts unconstitutional.

So Rich and I are fired up. No matter who Donald Trump picks for the Supreme Court, we promise we’ll do everything in our power to stand up for Ohio women.

But we can’t do it without you.

Will you add your name and join me in this critical moment?

Let's stand up and fight back together.

Thank you,

Betty

Click here to add your name.

From North America’s beacon of freedom on Independence Day

0
0

With today being Independence Day, Americans turn to thoughts of freedom: freedom of the press, freedom to not be shot, freedom from being embarrassed by the head of your country, freedom from misspelled presidential tweets, freedom to believe in science, freedom from Putin, freedom from the cone of silence, freedom from government-endorsed bigotry, freedom from childish spats with other countries, freedom from a hate-filled global-warming-denying television network that doubles as presidential adviser, freedom from a political party that loves guns more than children, freedom from a political party that wants nothing more than to take away women’s reproductive rights, and even freedom to smoke a little weed if that’s your thing.

With that in mind, I hope you enjoy this photo I took in North America’s beacon of freedom—Canada.

Will Lisa Murkowski be as worthless as Susan Collins or lead against Trump's Supreme Court nominee

0
0

The Senate has a lot to do and not much time to accomplish it in before the election in November. They have to go to conference with the House maniacs to save the farm bill, and with it food assistance to millions. They have a mess of appropriations bills to work through, and kind of importantly a bill that will keep the government operating after September 30. And now, according to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Supreme Court nomination that must be completed in the next several weeks.

That's got one key senator in the Supreme Court fight a little pissed off. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is one of the last supposedly pro-choice Republicans standing, though you wouldn't know it by her previous judicial confirmation votes. But now Murkowski is maybe looking for a way to avoid having to take a crappy SCOTUS vote.

"In order to get all these things you need to have a level of cooperation," said Murkowski. "And I don't want us to once again fall into this great divide because we are arguing over this vacancy."

She means cooperation from the Democrats, which she knows is going to be hard to come by because she's not going to pretend (like her buddy Susan Collins) that the nominee will be any way acceptable to them and might be bad enough that even Joe Manchin or Heidi Heitkamp wouldn't be able to hold their nose and do it.

There is something she could do, of course. She could lead. There are at least two others who are supposedly uncomfortable with Trump and his policies (but so far not his nominees). So if she wants to get legislative work—and her energy bills—done, she should recruit them to work with the Democrats and delay this nomination. She'd certainly have no problem getting even Democrats like Joe Manchin or Heidi Heitkamp to go along with a delay, not as long as there's Republican back-up.

She can't play it like she and Collins and John McCain did with their anti-Trumpcare vote last year, waiting until the last possible minute to derail it. It has to happen now.

Live in Alaska? You have the power. Sign and send a petition to Sen. Lisa Murkowski: Save Roe v. Wade. Oppose any anti-choice Supreme Court nominee.

OR-Gov: Gov. Kate Brown (D) Keeps Up The Pressure On The Senate To Reject Trump's SCOTUS Nominee

0
0

Received this e-mail today from Governor Kate Brown’s (D. OR) re-election campaign:

Friend,
 

Yesterday, I stood with Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and Sen. Jeff Merkley as we came together to talk about what is at stake with the vacancy that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement leaves on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Trump administration has promised to overturn Roe v. Wade, and this appointment will be their chance. That’s why we NEED you to raise your voices and put pressure on the U.S. Senate NOT to confirm a Supreme Court justice who would undermine our reproductive rights, our access to health care, and our progress on so many other fronts. Add your name to my petition >>

I’ve fought my entire career to protect access to reproductive health care. In Oregon, under my leadership, we succeeded in passing legislation to codify Roe v. Wade into law in our state. My opponent, Knute Buehler, voted no on this critical legislation.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin predicts that abortion will be illegal in 20 states in 18 months without a Supreme Court that will protect the right to reproductive choice. And if we don’t protect the governor’s office here in Oregon, we could see our own protections rolled back as well.

It is appalling to me that the federal government wants to rob individuals of the right to complete medical information and full access to critical health services that they rely on.

That is why we need your voices to ensure that this vote on the Supreme Court nominee is not a strike against women and families across America. Add your name: let the U.S. Senate know that they must stand up for the fundamental rights of women across the country by voting NO on Trump’s nominee.

Let’s fight, fight, fight -- and together we can do it!

Thanks,
Kate

Click here to add your name.

This Week in the War on Women

0
0

Given his infamous “grab ‘em by the pussy” comments, I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that 45 is now disparaging #MeToo and joking about sexually assaulting Sen. Elizabeth Warren.  The bigger problem is the crowd of people — both men and women — who cheer him on.  We’re going to be dealing with them long after he’s out of office.

As always, this diary is a group effort.  Thanks to Besame, Angmar, BMScott, elenacarlena, and the rest of the WOW crew for links and discussion.  I’m fighting a minor migraine at the moment, so I may not be around as much as usual tonight.

Reproductive Rights:

It’s not just about abortion:  the next Supreme Court may put the right to contraception in danger.

Lizz Winstead describes her own experience being deceived by a fake “crisis pregnancy center.

Young women are sending wire coat hangers to Sen. Susan Collins to remind her of the stakes in the upcoming Supreme Court nomination.

Fundamentalism is coming after us — and women, as always, are their first targets.

Workplace Issues:

When it came out that the BBC was underpaying Carrie Gracie in comparison with her male colleagues, they offered her a belated raise.  She resigned instead.  They have now back-paid her the money she was owed, and she donated it to the set up a fund for women fighting pay inequity.

Violence and Harassment:

Jarrod Ramos was just the latest mass shooter who left multiple warning signs in his behavior toward women.

Deepa Narayan:  India is the most dangerous country for women.  In Delhi, some women are fighting back.

Harvey Weinstein indicted on additional charges, including predatory sexual assault.

A South Carolina sex crimes investigator was himself accused of sex crimes toward multiple women that he was supposed to be protecting.  Det. Troy Allen Large died a few months ago, but the department stands accused of refusing to act on the allegations

The Buddhist group Shambhala International is dealing with reports that prominent teacher and author Sakyong Mipham had coercive sexual relationships with female students.

Twice, Debra Ann Rivera asked a judge to take away her abusive ex-husband’s guns. The judge refused, and the ex used the guns to kill Debra and two others.

Media:

Director (and Monty Python alum) Terry Gilliam has previously disparaged the #MeToo movement.  Now he’s whining about how he’s being victimized by diversity.

x

Uncategorizable:

The University of Adelaide took some ribbing over an ad that wasn’t even theirs— it was for Renewal SA, a South Australian government program.  But when an ad with the Adelaide logo appeared next to the picture, the punchline was just too good to resist:

x

Good News and Action Items:

Environmental engineer Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo won Mexico City’s mayoral election by a landslide on 1 July, earning nearly 50% of the vote in a field of 7 candidates. She will take office on 1 December.

Amnesty International: Email the Indian Health Service and ask them to ensure that Native American women have equal access to care after sexual assault.

The period is not a luxury:” petition by German women, who want sanitary supplies to be low-tax necessities like food, instead of being taxed as luxury items.

Viewing all 1340 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images