Posted by: Donna
Dangerous ruling for women. SCOTUS wrong to strike down common- sense abortion law.
— Cathi Herrod (@cathiherrod) June 27, 2016
Oh, Cathi Herrod and Center for AZ Policy, never change! Here is CAP’s statement on Monday’s 5-3 SCOTUS decision invalidating a 2013 Texas law that placed onerous restrictions on abortion providers, under the laughably transparent guise of “protecting women’s health”:
Phoenix – “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt means women undergoing an abortion will not have the same common-sense safety precautions in place as they would for any other medical procedure.
That’s a lie. The laws passed by anti-choicers in Texas and elsewhere requiring expensive outfitting of clinics that provide abortions, even if only via medication, with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment and wide hallways, etc., were not applied to other medical facilities.
To give the abortion industry a blanket exemption from laws applicable to every other medical facility is unconscionable.
Nope. Didn’t do that. The Court found that the Texas law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions and that the “protecting health” justifications were rubbish.
Abortionists like Kermit Gosnell are celebrating today because they can continue to prey upon women and put profit above women’s health and safety. Gosnell is the abortionist who sits in prison today for operating a clinic that ignored basic health and safety requirements similar to those ruled invalid.
Kermit Gosnell: Patron Saint of anti-choicers. He was able to prey on low income desperate women in large part because of barriers anti-choicers put in their paths to safe, early terminations, among them the Hyde Amendment that prohibits Medicaid funding of abortion.
Women deserve better.
No shit. Hence the decision in favor of women’s access to health care and against nosy meddlers like the people at CAP and their counterparts in Texas and elsewhere.
Ultimately, the facts that abortion hurts women and takes the life of a preborn child will prevail. Those facts are irrefutable.”
They always get around to admitting that it was never about “women’s health” to begin with; it was about making it difficult for women to obtain an abortion. Shockingly, the SCOTUS majority saw that too.
Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services has more from the lying liars:
“Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient’s own home,” Breyer wrote. And colonoscopy, which he said normally takes place outside a hospital or surgical center “has a mortality rate 10 times higher than abortion.”
But Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said the comparison among procedures is “fallacious and non-logical.”
“It isn’t their job to determine what and how regulations are imposed,” he said. “That is a legislative function.”
But Biggs, a Republican candidate for Congress, acknowledged he approaches the issue from a particular bias: He is opposed to all forms of elective abortion and wants to overturn the historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which concluded women have a constitutional right to abortion.
Herrod, who has consistently said all the laws her organization proposes are about protecting women’s health, also was not persuaded by Breyer’s points about unregulated childbirth being more hazardous than abortions.
“We can’t address every issue that’s out there,” she said.
Actually, Cathi, you could address that one pretty easily, if you cared about “protecting women’s health” as much as you say. Childbirth is the alternative to abortion that you want to impose upon women, so why wouldn’t you want that to be as safe as possible? The lack of concern for that is…telling. And Biggs just doltishly came right out with his own preference for banning abortion, despite prefacing it with a string of big words in a farcical attempt to make himself appear smart and statesmanlike.
While I do think that anti-choicers have convinced themselves that their cause is just and in the ultimate best interests of women – whom they believe uniformly have no legitimate aspirations in life aside from marriage and motherhood – it is clear that they never even believed their own bullshit on these “protect women’s health!” restrictions. So why should anyone else?
Posted by: Donna
I was disappointed to see AZ Republic‘s Linda Valdez had gotten lured in by the anti-pot hysteria, as she is now leaning against legalization in Arizona based on it. In a recent column Valdez repeated the usual logically fallacious and oft-debunked claims against legalization coming straight from the leader of the anti campaign, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.
Sadder still, the bad faith arguments and fear mongering were accompanied by Valdez blatantly appealing to emotion and seeming to operate from the assumption that her personal experience and perceptions are universal.
Arizona’s medical marijuana law is a farce that’s disproportionately used by young men who claim more pain than their years would justify in order to gain a steady supply of high…
…Sure. People have been seeking ways to get high for millennia, but legalizing marijuana is not the same as repealing Prohibition.
Alcohol was legal, widely used and commonly accepted before Prohibition. The same is not true of marijuana.
It continues to carry the taint – and counter-culture glamour – of being an illegal substance. You can have a glass of wine at Grandma’s Thanksgiving table. Passing around marijuana cookies is a different matter.
Making marijuana fully legal for adults represents a major step and a significant validation of use.
I really don’t care if adults want to smoke themselves stupid. But don’t forget: We all pay a price for layabouts and bad parents…
Posted by: Donna
I've tried to understand the DNC's strategy to engage younger voters and I'm at a loss.
— deray mckesson (@deray) June 19, 2016
DeRay Mckesson is a great activist, who is running for Mayor of Baltimore under a platform of civil rights, social justice, and reforming policing. I have no beef with him. I do think his statement about the DNC and youth outreach is misguided, though. And not just because of how, in recent months, the Democratic National Committee has been relentlessly characterized as corrupt, in bed with oligarchs, and engaged in election rigging if not outright election theft on behalf of Hillary Clinton, on the basis of zero evidence.
No, what I want to know is, why this sudden interest in young voters, who have never been particularly interested (statistically) in showing up for elections in most of our lifetimes? Hell, per the chart I posted atop this post, from this Census report, it appears that lots of not-so-young Americans (up to age 45 and above) have also been biffing off on election day from the mid-20th century on. I wasn’t exactly a regular voter until well into my mid-thirties myself, and I’ve prided myself on paying attention!
Here’s a Washington Post interactive tool that shows you just how bad it is.
Voter turnout is notoriously low in midterm elections compared with presidential election years, a trend that typically favors Republican candidates. Voters who fall into demographic groups that have traditionally been Democratic strongholds — young adults, African Americans and women — have wider turnout gaps than other groups, a challenge that Democratic candidates must negotiate every midterm election year.
This goes back decades, and I have a hard time believing the blame for it can all be laid on the DNC or Democratic candidates, who are trying to get elected with the voters who are likely to show up in the election. Not when Republicans made a concerted effort, starting in the Seventies (from my earliest memory) to make “Democrat” and “liberal” dirty words and the coolest kids in the media (looking straight at you guys like Lewis Black and Jon Stewart) ridiculing partisan political participation throughout the 90s and 2000s.
I do want the Democrats at the national and state level to be laser-focused on registering new voters, which is the best way for us to do the “outreach” that the naysayers insist we need to do, and it would sure help if said naysayers would stop trying to destroy the Democrats, such as by farting on Democrats, literally.
If you don’t like Democrats and don’t want to be one, fine. Do your own thing. Make your own party. Just don’t spend your entire life trashing, mocking, and maligning us, but then wondering why “the DNC” isn’t performing election miracles to your satisfaction.
Posted by: Donna
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) June 15, 2016
Read every bit of this Storify stream of tweets.
So that when you get that catch in your throat, where you feel like you have to nod your head and agree with the frothing white man before you that, yes, oh yes, the holy importance of the Second Amendment, you can then catch your breath and say, no. No, white man, your Second Amendment is, was, and always has been racist bullshit.
Stuck with it we may be for now, due to the difficulty of changing the Constitution, but there’s no reason whatsoever for reasonable people to worship this awful throwback from a time when white men were expected to participate in patrols to hunt down runaway slaves. And there’s no cause to accept that angry (for whatever reason) people should have unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction out of a misguided adherence to Constitutional purity.
Posted by: Donna
.@Nate_Cohn if Dems go to total open primaries, they should just disband their state parties altogether. No point if joining is unnecessary.
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) June 14, 2016
MSNBC’s Joy Reid pointing out an obvious and important truth
Despite the Democratic primary having unequivocally ended on Tuesday with Hillary Clinton’s sweeping victory of the very last contest in DC, Senator Bernie Sanders has refused to concede the race and his campaign is pressing for several concessions to his “revolution” at the DNC Convention, among which is calling for opening all Democratic primaries to “independent” voters even if the Republican ones remain closed. Joy Reid rightly notes that such a move, if it were even possible to implement in each state (where election laws vary), would grievously undermine the Democrats.
The argument in favor of this, from what I’ve been told by Sanders supporters stung by his loss, is that non-Democrats being able to vote in Democratic primaries would push the party in a more progressive direction. It is true that most unaffiliated voters actually tend to show strong party preference in their voting, along with their partisan counterparts, it’s a mistake to believe that only the left-leaning unaffiliateds would gravitate to open Dem primaries, especially if the Republican primaries remained closed.
This is the point New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn made in the tweet that Joy Reid responded to. We know that Bernie Sanders, despite his liberal stances that won him the support of more self-identified liberals, also did better with conservative Dem voters in heavily white areas. In most cases, this happened in fully closed primaries, while conservatives in states where voters can select any ballot tended to select Republican ballots. But when primaries are “semi-closed”, meaning open only on the Dem side, the conservative effect appears to be amplified.
Exit polls in Oklahoma, which allowed independents to vote in the Democratic primary for the first time, showed Mr. Sanders winning among people who wanted more conservative policies than Mr. Obama, or who trusted neither Mr. Sanders nor Mrs. Clinton in a crisis. These are probably not voters who are getting fired up for the Democratic revolution.
It’s possible that some of the Democratic voters showed up to vote for a Republican, but found themselves turned away.
Perhaps they showed up to vote in a local or statewide primary. Maybe some decided on mischief and were meddling with the Democrats.
Or, they might have simply wanted to register displeasure with a Democratic Party that has largely left them behind.
In 2012 Mitt Romney won 53% of “independent” voters in Ohio to Barack Obama’s 43%. Something to consider before throwing open Democratic primaries to those voters with an eye toward making the party more progressive. You could argue that making the party more conservative to appeal to unaffiliateds in swing states would be the way to go but that is the opposite of the argument Sanders and his most ardent liberal supporters are making in favor of opening primaries. I guarantee that those voters didn’t prefer Mitt Romney by ten points because President Obama wasn’t promising enough free college! Luckily, Obama won reelection in Ohio by three points on the strength of Democratic voters (38% of total voters, 93% of whom voted for him).
You don’t have to be a Democrat to be a progressive and you can certainly advocate for the environment, LGBT and reproductive rights, a living wage, etc., and just be involved in your community in a positive way without registering with any party. But there is one group in this country that is specifically organized in opposition to the Republican Party, and in favor of most of the things progressives support, and that is the Democratic Party. Allowing voters who refuse to join it a great amount of influence in selecting Democratic nominees in the hopes of defeating Republicans is folly. Democrats are herding enough cats as it is, without having to expend valuable resources trying to determine which of a bunch of lone wolves are on our side or not.
Posted by: Donna
If there’s anyone who should definitely just be keeping their yaps shut right now, it would be conservative Christians but, no.
Quoth Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod in the Phoenix Business Journal:
“The terrorist attack on fellow Americans Sunday morning was an unspeakable tragedy and we pray for the families who are mourning such great loss. We all grieve with them.
This is not a time to discuss policy. There is a time to debate the best public policy for all Arizonans, but this is not it. Let us bring comfort to and show compassion for the victims by not politicizing it and allow time to grieve.”
I’m almost going to regret asking this but, who the hell appointed her the arbiter of when things should be politicized? Herrod wants everyone to be silent in the immediate aftermath of a mass murder driven by hatred of gay people (and possibly by the murderer’s own self-hatred and shame stemming from being raised in a conservative culture) but when have you ever known her and her crowd not to politicize the shit out of things immediately and without regard to factual accuracy? (Ahem, Planned Parenthood “sting” videos?)
On Herrod’s Twitter page she approvingly retweeted two things. The first was a statement by her counterpart in Florida, John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council: (more…)
Posted by: Donna
Joanna Castle Miller’s post on the shyness of Hillary Clinton supporters has gone viral:
The point in the last paragraph about no obvious support for Clinton on social media also describes the basis upon which I’ve seen people posit that she must be stealing the election. “I don’t know anyone who supports her!”, declares more than one Bernie supporting dudebro I have encountered, failing to even consider that there may be a reason no one willingly admits their Hillary support to them. It may have to do with their own behavior and not the “election theft” they insist is incontrovertibly proven through the confirmation bias provided by the people they know. (more…)