Of course, the problem is on “both sides”.

22 Mar 2012 11:06 am
Posted by: Donna

AZ Republic Political Insider couldn’t resist the false equivalence in covering yesterday morning’s morning’s press conference at the State Capitol, where Democratic lawmakers called attention to HB2625, the crazy anti-contraception bill that the “pro-life” GOP majority is pushing. It being a press conference, the people presenting it used strong language to get their point across.

Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, called the bill “asinine” and described Republican lawmakers supporting the bill as “Rush Limbaugh Republicans” with “fundamentalist, Taliban-like religious beliefs.”

“Tea party Republicans are launching an all-out attack on women’s health and women’s rights,” Lopez said. “We need to quit wasting time legislating their version of morality.”

The context of the bill is still causing confusion, even among lawmakers. Several of the Democrats opposing the bill mentioned that it would require women to prove to their employers that they are taking birth control pills for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.

“The most disturbing part of this is having to get permission and give personal medical information to your employer,” said Rep. Matt Heinz, D-Tucson, a physician.

I don’t see the problem with anything said there. The bill is asinine. The Republicans in the AZ Lege are of the same ideological temperament as Limbaugh. And it’s not a stretch to compare American social conservatives with the Taliban. The difference in religiosity, misogyny, and authoritarianism is in degree, not in kind. They aren’t the Taliban. Yet.

When the Dems were done and walking away from the podium, Rep. Debbie Lesko, prime sponsor of the No Slut Pills if Your Boss Says No Bill, rudely hijacked the podium along with CAP attorney Deborah Sheasby.

But bill sponsor Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, standing at the back of the news conference, called them “liars.”…

…They said this bill is not about limiting women’s rights, but about protecting employers’ religious freedoms.

“My bill does one thing and one thing alone,” Lesko said. “It allows an employer with religious objections to opt out.

We got it, Debbie. A bill that is specifically about denying birth control coverage is really about religious freedom of employers. Their religious freedom to limit women’s rights. Who’s the liar, Debbie?

But this was the tweet sent out to promote the Insider piece:

Dems’ news conference re:contraception evolves into name-calling by both parties.

If only the issue were politicians not using their indoor voices instead of an outrageous attempt by one party to deprive women of dignity, autonomy, and basic health care.

6 Comments

  1. Comment by Timmys Cat on March 22, 2012 6:02 pm

    Hee, I liked the GOP dude who led her away from the podium. All he needed was a white lab coat and stethescope around his neck.

    Watsa matta Deb Deb? Did your handlers have you convinced since you’re a rising Tea Pootier that no matter what you did it was right and pure? Me thinks that Little Debbie is more upset at everyone calling her out on what POS she wrote, rather than the context
    Sorry dear, the days of faceless AZ Gooper autocracy are ending . You embarrassed yourself.

  2. Comment by Timmys Cat on March 23, 2012 10:03 am

    Sen. Lopez has harsh words! A wimmins! The Republic haz concerns! Time to roll out a Robb fog to show who’s the adult and why libs are so misguided.
    “It’s alive!”

    Interesting that paper didn’t really get into the fact that a state Rep. whos bill is being criticized does have a lawyer for a partisan LOBBYING group by her side while she defends her bill. Why not question Lesko if she works for CAP or her constituents in Glendale? How will this bill help them?
    Interesting too that a GOP handler just happened to be there. Why not ask him what he was doing there at the right time?

    Yeah I know, we’re talking the Republic here. Wiffle ball!

  3. Comment by Mike Slater on March 24, 2012 6:51 pm

    As a conservative I could care less what Sen. Linda Lopez has to say about anything.

  4. Comment by dude on March 26, 2012 12:35 pm

    I’m sure Senator Lopez really cares what you think too, Mike.

  5. Comment by Chris Fadley on May 7, 2012 3:48 am

    Who picks the people on the board in charge of the maps?

    AZ Constitution
    PART 2. THE LEGISLATURE § 1. Senate; house of representatives; members; special session upon petition of members; congressional and legislative boundaries; citizen commissions Section 1. states:
    Independent Redistricting Committee consists of 5 members.

    Member 1 = Picked by the Majority Leader of the State Senate. (R)
    Member 2 = Picked by the Minority Leader of the State Senate. (D)
    Member 3 = Picked by the Majority Leader of the State House. (R)
    Member 4 = Picked by the Minority Leader of the State House. (D)

    Then the hand picked appointees, equally divided must choose the 5th Member, who will lead the commission.

    Member 5 = Chairman of the Committee

    ———————————————————————————————-
    AZ Constitution states:
    “At a meeting called by the secretary of state, the four independent redistricting commission members shall select by majority vote from the nomination pool a fifth member who shall not be registered with any party already represented on the independent redistricting commission and who shall serve as chair. If the four commissioners fail to appoint a fifth member within fifteen days, the commission on appellate court appointments or its designee, striving for political balance and fairness, shall appoint a fifth member from the nomination pool, who shall serve as chair. ”
    ———————————————————————————————-

    Pretty clear, maybe the people who legislate our laws, should first know the laws they control, maybe “reading” them after ALEC writes them would help? maybe?

    I’d settle for them following and enforcing the laws we have.

    They clearly don’t have the competence to create legislation to force their agenda down our throats with a super majority and also do the job they were elected to do.

    Once again, for the Republicans reading this…. They picked the members themselves, and law clearly states the committee’s ‘independent’ status, for sole purpose of eliminating the party in power from influencing redistricting.

    ——————————————————————————————-
    AZ Constitution states:
    “(15) Party registration and voting history data shall be excluded from the initial phase of the mapping process but may be used to test maps for compliance with the above goals. The places of residence of incumbents or candidates shall not be identified or considered. ”
    ———————————————————————————————-

    AZ Supreme Court upheld the AZ Constitution and reinstated the Chairman, and definitively shows a clear violation of the oath she took to uphold the Constitution and laws as the State of Arizona’s Governor.

    ———————————————————————————————–
    AZ State Constitution states:
    “The independent redistricting commission shall have sole authority to determine whether the Arizona attorney general or counsel hired or selected by the independent redistricting commission shall represent the people of Arizona in the legal defense of a redistricting plan.”
    ———————————————————————————————-

    We by law are supposed to be defending the Committee Chair. By not doing so, accompanied with even more litigation that has been expressly barred from the process would further violate our state constitution.

    How is that possible? Who enforces the law when super majority of prude stupid idiots violate the Constitution they took an oath to protect and defend?

    Our forefathers only gave us one tool to fix it, an election.

    Maybe we could elect people based on “competence and tolerance” over pink underwear and legislating solely to litigate established law.

    Arpaio is same, compare his legally defined job description, authorities, and jurisdiction to his actions without any federal investigations, his incompetence and flamboyance costs us in litigation, we pay. Leave Obama’s birth certificate to the professional idiots.

    (p.s. the math says Hispanic citizens could essentially control all elected positions within the decade — which provides the missing peice: Motive.)

  6. Comment by Chris Fadley on May 7, 2012 3:50 am

    It’s not both sides.

    It’s ONE side, and they are willing to destroy it rather than give up control.

    Not easy to negotiate with ignorant officials on the take for some football tickets and golf, selling us out under the guise of being elected.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment