Catching Up, Part X – The War on Women’s Rights, Part II

Image via Wikipedia

It started this year with the “forcible rape” language in the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (which has since been removed).  Next was Joe Pitts’ (R – PA) “Protect Life Act” which could, because of very broad language, allow doctors perform any abortion regardless if not doing so could be fatal to the woman in question.  As with the previous bill, supporters of this bill say it only clarifies existing law.

Currently, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a woman with a life-threatening condition cannot be refused treatment at any hospital in the country even if the treatment involves an abortion.  Under Pitts’ proposed law, this would change.  A doctor could potentially deny a woman an abortion even if that abortion would save her life.  The doctor would also be able to refuse to transfer the woman to a facility which would provide her the care necessary to save her life.

In South Dakota, Governor Dennis Daugaard is likely to sign a bill that would extend the time a woman is required to wait before being legally allowed to go through with an abortion from 24 hours to 72 hours.  During this time, a woman would be required to attend mandatory counseling about why an abortion is a bad idea.  His justification is that women should wait more time and counseling to ensure they are making the correct choice because the decision is “very important.”  He’s correct in the regard that it is a very important decision.  However, it’s no business of the government to get involved in that decision.  The decision should be solely between the woman (or couple) in question and her doctor.

A loophole caused by vague language in a Utah bill could potentially result in women being charged with assault or murder if “reckless behavior” results in a miscarriage.  The bill was prompted by an isolated incident of a teenager who paid someone to beat her up in the hopes of causing her to miscarry.  However, because of the bill not containing clear and concise definitions of what would constitute “reckless behavior”.  A woman could potentially be charged with murder if her unborn child dies because she does not leave an abusive relationship.  Women have enough trouble, both emotionally and financially, leaving an abusive relationship.  This idea would only greatly increase this burden.

Abortions are already extremely emotionally difficult decisions and in many cases they can already be a financial burden as well because of the continuing limitations being placed on women being allowed to obtain financial assistance if they are poor.  We need to stand up and be counted in opposition to these fascistic theocratic viewpoints that erode the civil rights and the equality of women.  These are NOT the kind of laws we should be pushing for in an America that is founded on and who’s laws are still based on the Constitution.

– “Left of Center”

Catching Up, Part IX – The Lies Against Planned Parenthood

Just when one thought the Republican controlled House of Representatives could go no further, this happens.  Someone tries to pull off a fake “sting” undercover video inside Planned Parenthood like they did at ACORN.  No truth, substance or merit to the allegations being levied.  No verification yet if the “video evidence” was creatively edited together as was so shamefully done in the ACORN case.  Yet what do Republicans do?  Denounce the fact that it’s become okay to throw together a clearly biased and almost certainly false or exaggerated hit piece against an organization that does so much good?  No, Republicans instead moved right to calls for immediately ceasing all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Why?  Of course, the false clarion call of abortion.  A battle they already legislated and lost decades ago, but one they’ve continued to fight regardless.  Despite the reality that the “video evidence” is a mockery of investigative journalism at best and despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of any crime having been committed.  Going on nothing more than thin and uncorroborated circumstantial evidence they want to immediately remove the primary source of funding for one of the organizations most crucial to the health care assistance of poor and under-privileged women and children in the country.

Planned Parenthood is funded via Title X of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 which is itself an amendment to the Public Health Service Act of 1944.  Yes, it’s true that the organization assists women in getting abortions.  However, that is only a small part of their operation.  Attacking them for one out of the many necessary and useful services they provide is just another notch on the Republicans belt in their war against women and anyone who isn’t white and rich.

In over 800 clinics across the country, Planned Parenthood provides low cost health care services to poor women, children and families.  These services include providing breast, cervical and testicular cancer screenings, pregnancy screenings and counseling, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, sex education, menopause treatments, vasectomies and other reproductive system surgeries and yes abortions.  All to Americans who would potentially not be able to afford these services, some of which could potentially save their lives.

So, the fact that Republicans want to effectively bring an end to the organization’s ability to operate in this country over a minor portion of the services they provide is positively repugnant.  Where would these Americans go for these essential health services if the Republicans succeed? Private insurance?  No, because many of them don’t have that option because they can’t afford it.

So the Republicans would leave these  only remaining options are (as very appropriately said by former Florida Rep Alan Grayson) – Don’t get sick or if you do, die quickly.  That’s not the America I want.  It’s not the America that any American should want.  It’s not the America that we should be aspiring to.   It’s most certainly not the America the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Stand with the logical, the rational, the just and support an America that does it’s best to help those less fortunate — Sign the petition —

– “Left of Center”

Related Articles:

• http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/25/thanks-sarah-planned-parenthood-gets-upsurge-in-donations
• http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/299,1586
• http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mike-pence-rails-against-planned-parenthoo
• http://crooksandliars.com/breaking-news/house-votes-de-fund-planned-parentho

The Conservative "Icon" on Collective Bargaining Rights

Image via Wikipedia

“They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are fobidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world… “ – Ronald Reagan

Can someone please let Scott Walker and all the other Conservatives know that their demi-god would have been to the left of them on this issue?

– “Left of Center”

Catching Up, Part VIII – The War on Women's Rights, Part I

Image by ge'shmally via Flickr

In the 2+ months since Republicans took control of the House, they have accomplished absolutely nothing of substance. Instead they have passed several bills that directly attack the rights, welfare and private lives of women.

The first is HR3 or the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”.  Current law states that Federal funds can only be used to pay for an abortion in the case of rape or incest.  This bill would seek to drastically limit those exemptions.

The language is, as is common with these types things, overly vague. Under the new law a woman would not be able to get an exemption unless the rape was “forcible” in nature. Though there is no attempt to clearly and specifically define what this means.

Instead, what Republicans really intend with this law is to strip away any chance of an exemption and leave any woman who is on Medicare, Medicaid or any other Federal medical assistance program forced to pay for an abortion out of pocket.

Sadly, the people that this would affect are at lower middle class or impoverished income levels meaning they would not be able to afford an abortion and would have to try to borrow the money from friends or a family  member.  The chances of someone at that income level being able to qualify for any kind of loan is low.

Leaving women who are raped by a stranger or a family member in the cold and forced to go into debt to pay for an abortion is both an attack on women’s rights and the mental welfare of both the mother and the child.

What are the chances the child will have a loving home if raised by a woman who sees her rapist and re-lives their attack every time they look at their child?  What long-term emotional scarring would that give to both the child and the mother?

Certainly, this is a worst case scenario but the fact that it even has a chance of becoming a possibility in the United States turns my stomach and it should cause the same reaction for any clear thinking rational individual.

Thankfully at this time, this and any other bills that Republicans try to pass have no chance of making it past the still Democratic Senate or the President’s veto pen.  However, doesn’t it at least concern you that sometime in the future when Republicans inevitable regain control of the Presidency or both houses of Congress that they could actually pass this abominable idea?

– “Left of Center”

Catching Up, Part III – Congress (sort of) Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Dateline December 18th, 2010

After 17 years it’s finally happened.  Congress has repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the law that allowed for gay & lesbian Americans to be forced out of the armed services regardless of their record has been stricken down.  Well, sort of.  Repeal, though passed by both the House and the Senate, still hinges on the top brass of all branches of the US Armed Forces to actually move forward on the matter.

Certainly this is a step in the correct direction but it could be months or years before this is actually carried out.  Until then, LGBT Americans are still subject to dismissal even if they are heroes simply because of what they do in their private lives that should be nobody’s damn business.

American society has always been behind the curve on societal changes regarding those whom we deem different that “make people uncomfortable”.  Slowly, but surely, we do eventually come around.  It took over 100 years to properly implement equality and civil rights into law for African Americans and other minorities.  LGBT rights are the new legal civil rights battle for the 21st century and I know we’ll get there in time.  Unfortunately while we drag our feet we look ridiculous and backwards to the rest of the world.

– “Left of Center”

Injunction Against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, Part II – The Reaction

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

Earlier, I covered the facts regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Federal Judge’s ruling. Now let’s review what the predictable Conservative reaction will be. This one is too easy. The primary vector the Republican Tea Party and it’s associated talking heads will use will be nothing more than two words – “judicial activism”.  This very statement gives light to their sad and obvious irrational misunderstanding of how our Federal Government is structured.

As anyone who passed high school history (and/or government) class should have learned, there are three branches to our government. The Legislative Branch is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This body writes bills and votes on them. The Executive Branch – The President, Vice President and their respective cabinets and staff. Once Congress passes a bill, it’s sent to the President to be signed. Once the President signs the document, it is considered officially law.

Here’s where the Conservatives that constantly throw around the idea of “judicial activism”. The next branch of our government is the Judicial Branch. Their job is to review bills passed into law by the other two branches and decide based on the Constitution (and precedent set by previous rulings) if the items in question are legal! So when Conservatives whinge about “judicial activism”, they are protesting the fact that the Judicial Branch is doing it’s Constitutionally appointed duty!

So, despite that reality, individual Americans who subscribe to the Republican Tea Party mantra are under educated in matters of civics, political science will still echo the cries of “judicial activism” coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al. What excuse do those individuals have? Do they not understand the function of the Judicial Branch any better, or are they intentionally ignoring the reality of their job for the purpose of making people afraid and angry? Has anyone else noticed that Conservatives only cry “judicial activism” when it’s a decision they don’t agree with, but they seem to have no complaints or concerns about the Citizen’s United decision?

– “Left of Center”

Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Part I – The Decision

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

In a surprising, but completely proper decision, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips has issued a “worldwide injunction” against the US military preventing any further enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. For 17 years many have been stating the obvious about this legislation. It is flatly Unconstitutional.

The Judge ruled that because service members have been discharged for the contents of private communication, prevented from discussing their off-duty activities, and most importantly have had to skip joining political action groups that support their views for fear of reprisal. This constitutes, in her legal opinion, preventing individuals from petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

Aside from these findings, to anyone rational and clear thinking, that this law abridges the freedoms of some Americans by creating a separate but equal group of individuals. This is an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The law also infringes on the 1st Amendment free speech protections of gay and lesbian Americans by forcing them to keep their personal lives veritably classified for risk of being both disgraced and essentially fired from their job, regardless of their disciplinary record.

Continued…

– “Left of Center”

Sources: AOL News | Christian Science Monitor | Full Text of the Ruling

An Instance of Responsible Regulation

Image by TranceMist via Flickr

Following the bursting of the housing bubble, the economic crash of 2008, and to a lesser degree the financial reform bill of 2009, mortgage brokers & lenders were forced to abandon (at least temporarily) the most prevalent and profitable form of predatory lending, the variable rate mortgage.

It was only a matter of time before a new low-life anti-consumer practice was thought up to replace the variable rate mortgage. That time is now, with the introduction by a select group of lenders including Freehold Capital Partners, of the home resale fee. This is a rider or buried clause included with the purchase of a home that legally binds the seller of a home to pay the original mortgage company up to 1% of the profits from the sale of the house even if you’ve paid off your home.

That money should go entirely to the homeowner and yet once again, big businesses are burying terms and conditions in contracts that take power away from individuals in the interest of profits that they are not entitled to. Thanks to responsible early action in Arizona, California, Florida, Texas and several other states, this practice is already banned. Thankfully Congress is taking up the debate to make this illegal at a Federal level.

This is a prime example of where the Tea Party is wrong about regulation. This is a good idea. This is the right thing to do. If you purchase a home and then at a later date choose to sell it, any profit you earn from that sale should be yours and only yours.

– “Left of Center”

Related Articles

• Bill Introduced To Ban Home Resale Fees (techdirt.com)

Ms. O’Donnell, Let’s Learn A Bit About You, Part II

Continuing with our discussion about Ms. O’Donnell, we are going to further examine Ms. O’Donnell’s stances on various topics.

Ms. O’Donnell is an advocate of teaching creationism in our schools.  For anyone who wants to talk about liberty and the public, you never mix religion with the public or government (that is a theocracy for those keeping track of definitions).  Ms. O’Donnell correctly highlights that theory of evolution is a theory (after all, that is what is called now).  Scientific theories have their appropriate place in the classroom as they follow a rigorous scientific method of examining empirical data.  However, she wants to have creationism as part of the curriculum in public schools.

How about abortion for the ladies out there?  She opposes abortion even in severe cases like rape and incest (there are a few other prominent politicians and party-backed individuals with this nonsensical behavior).  Ladies, you and old who value freedom, take note of someone within your fellow sex and their beliefs.  I’d have some concern if I were any of you who value the free ability to make your own choices (and live with that choice).

Now I understand that she has made statements only recently regarding if she is elected, “it’ll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs.”  That goes without saying, there are more links and articles  to validate her statements (which she only made recently mind you).  We’re talking about Ms. O’Donnell’s stances only, nothing more (I am concerned less about what the rest of the article says, I am merely using it a reference to her statement and it will only be treated as such).

My quick analysis of Ms. O’Donnell over the two posts relating to her are not meant to be an attack, negative.  They are meant to be commentary, but also meant to be informative.  I strongly feel that with any person running for office, regardless of what state, county or federal office they are running for, the proper stance for “We The People” is to truly understand and know with whom we are dealing with.  Honestly, with some of her ideals and stances, as a “Classic Liberal” I see someone who is more than willing to violate the freedoms of all.  That is someone who can not have my backing (as with most, if not all politicians today).

– “Classic Liberal”

Comparison of Reactions to DADT Vote

Image via Wikipedia

Two disparate viewpoints from the Senate floor in regards to the vote on the Defense Spending Authorization bill containing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: