Great minds think alike

Jill Filipovic writers over at RH Reality Check:

Dear Rep. Franklin,

I applaud your efforts to support the rights of zygote citizens of Georgia by criminalizing miscarriages and investigating every instance of fetal death as a potential crime. The bill you are trying to pass is clear that the Georgia State Assembly knows that life begins at the moment of conception, and that any fertilized egg that dies is a human death that we should all grieve. I couldn't agree more, and I would like to help.

As I'm sure you know, more than 50% of fertilized eggs --Georgia citizens! -- naturally don't implant, and are flushed out of the body during menstruation. I am personally concerned that my own murdering woman-body may have flushed out some human beings, and I may have flushed them down the toilet without knowing that I was disposing of Georgia citizens in such an undignified way. This must be remedied. I would like to be sure that I am not killing any more Georgia citizens -- and that if I am, they are able to receive a proper funeral and not a burial at sea, and that our state police can dedicate valuable time and resources to investigating their deaths.

To that end, I attach a picture of my latest used tampon. I am preserving this tampon, as well as all of my other tampons, pads, feminine hygiene products and soiled panties from my current menstrual cycle, so that the Georgia State Police can come collect them as evidence. I would also be happy to drop the specimens off at your office, should you want to examine them yourself.

Please let me know if I can make an appointment to give you these items. Or, since I appreciate that you are a very busy man, please let me know when the police will be by my home to collect them, as my next cycle is rapidly approaching and they are starting to smell. I cannot keep them in my refrigerator for much longer.

Thanks for all the work you do to further the pro-life cause.

Funny....disgusting...and I said it first -- in 2005, 2006, and last Saturday.

I call dibs.

So what did I miss?

Wow. I go to work and am offline for blogging for 24 hours, and the governor of Wisconson makes an even bigger ass out of himself on a prank call. Not even the twisted minds behind Crank Yankers could have done something this beautiful:

For the most part, Walker sounds like the dweeby kid from chem class who's just been invited out to the after-game malt shop get-together by the football quarterback. But when he talks about getting the Democrats back under false pretenses of negotiation just to get them into the state so Republicans can vote, all bets are off.

Meanwhile, over in Indiana, another union-buster state, an assistant attorney general has been fired after a Twitter-fight with another Tweeter in which he advocated the use of live ammunition to mow down protesters in Wisconsin. That other Tweeter just happened to be a writer for what is now becoming even more indispensable reading, Mother Jones:

On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn't end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.

As one of 144 attorneys in that office, Jeff Cox has represented the people of his state for 10 years. And for much of that time, it turns out, he's vented similar feelings on Twitter and on his blog, Pro Cynic. In his nonpolitical tweets and blog posts, Cox displays a keen litigator's mind, writing sharply and often wittily on military history and professional basketball. But he evinces contempt for political opponents—from labeling President Obama an "incompetent and treasonous" enemy of the nation to comparing "enviro-Nazis" to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi "brownshirts" on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as "a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up" by local police. A "sensible policy for handling Afghanistan," he offered, could be summed up as: "KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!"

Early Sunday, Mother Jones sent an email to Cox's work address at the Indiana attorney general's office, asking if the Twitter and blog comments were his, and if he could provide context for some of them. He responded shortly after from a personal email address: "For 'context?' Or to silence me? All my comments on twitter & my blog are my own and no one else's. And I can defend them all.

"[Y]ou will probably try to demonize me," he wrote, "but that comes with the territory."

To be sure, in the current political climate, partisan rhetoric has run hot online—and the Constitution guarantees everyone's right to such rhetoric. Nonetheless, a spokesman for the Indiana attorney general's office, Bryan Corbin, told Mother Jones that Cox's statements were "inflammatory," and he promised "an immediate review" of the matter. "We do not condone any comments that would threaten or imply violence or intimidation toward anyone," Corbin added.

As Blue Girl points out, you have to wonder what those who have had dealings with Cox over the last decade are thinking, particularly in cases regarding things like women's rights, collective bargaining, working conditions, or even free speech that doesn't agree with his.

You want Teabaggers in positions of authorty? Jeffrey Cox is what you get.

And the ever-burgeoning "EEEWWWW!!! Lady Parts!!!" caucus is On The Job -- in Georgia, where Bobby Franklin wants you to be put to death if he determines you had anything whatsoever to do with causing your miscarriage; in South Dakota, where women seeking abortions will be forced to be lectured by the Christofascist Zombie Brigade before obtaining one; and in Nebraska, where the legislature is playing "Mine's Bigger" with South Dakota in terms of Killing for Life, with even crazier "justified homicide" legislation. In Nebraska, you won't even have to know the woman seeking the abortion in order to barge in and kill the doctor. ANY third party, like, say, Scott Roeder, will be allowed to do so.

This is Teabag America, folks. And it's only the beginning.

And where ARE the jobs, anyway?

UPDATE: Legalized murder is spreading to Iowa now, too.

Under proposed legislation in Georgia, if you have a miscarriage, you will be investigated

I've been saying for years that by the time Christofascist Zombie Brigade is done, you'll have to send your used tampons to the government for inspection to make sure there are no fertilized eggs in them.

Proposed legislation by Georgia state representative Bobby Franklin goes far beyond banning abortion:

According to this law, any human intervention other than delivering a living fetus is a crime. Every physician must make an equal effort to save the life of mother and fetus, but if the fetus does die after such an effort, it isn't a crime. It allows an exception for spontaneous abortion AKA miscarriage--but only if there is no human intervention involved.

That banging sound you hear is me beating my head against the stone wall of sheer stupidity.

It goes on to state that any attempt to remove a fetus from the mother except to facilitate a live birth is murder. The doctor MUST do everything to save the life of both fetus and mother, but if the fetus doesn't survive despite this, it's not a crime. Abortion is now a form of murder.

I can see so many issues with this bill.

There are situations where you can't save the life of both fetus and mother.

* What if the woman learns that she has cancer and must terminate the pregnancy in order to get treatment? No exception for that in this bill.

* What about a case where the woman is hemorrhaging, the bleeding can't be stopped and the doctor must save her and abort the fetus? No exception for that.

* What if she has a partial miscarriage, and is bleeding heavily. Must she wait until her body naturally ejects the dead fetus, even though carrying a dead fetus can lead to septic shock? Doesn't sound like there's an exception for that.

* What if it's an ectopic pregnancy? You cannot save the fetus and the mother in such a case.

* What if the woman is told she's carrying an anecephalic fetus with only a brain stem which will be non-viable outside the womb? Must she carry that fetus full-term?

It gets worse. Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can't tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it. Yup, we've been waiting for someone to suggest this--and Franklin has.

Here is the bill, and here is the Uterus Police clause, from section 2.14:

Preparation and filing of reports of spontaneous fetal death shall be as follows:
(1) When a dead fetus is delivered in an institution, the person in charge of the institution or that person's designated representative shall prepare and file the report;
When a dead fetus is delivered outside an institution, the physician in attendance at or immediately after delivery shall prepare and file the report;
When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs
211 without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is
212 required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare and file the report within 30 days; and
(4) When a spontaneous fetal death occurs in a moving conveyance and the fetus is first removed from the conveyance in this state or when a dead fetus is found in this state and the place of fetal death is unknown, the fetal death shall be reported in this state. The place where the fetus was first removed from the conveyance or the dead fetus was found shall be considered the place of fetal death."

Just another dispatch from the Republican war on women.

Real women vs. misogynistic Republican men

California Rep. Jackie Speier vs. the sanctimonious, woman-hating Chris Smith of New Jersey:

Real women who have undergone abortions need to come forward. These men who would take away women's humanity and turn them into breeding machines who can be cast into the garbage, these men whose first priority is not creating jobs, or repairing our infrastructure, or ensuring that future children have some quality of life, but instead punishing people they believe to be nothing but dirty sluts, need to be called out on this.

Bravo, bravo, bravo to Rep. Speier.

Go ahead, Republicans...keep showing your misogyny.

There's actually something refreshing about how emboldened right-wing Republican Christofascist zombies have become in their quest to turn American women into nothing but breeding machines. For decades, the fetophiles have succeeded in framing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-women", feigning concern for the emotional problems they claim all women have after abortion (as if anyone is somehow entitled to make decisions based on what is right for them at the time); convincing far too many people that THEY are the righteous ones, even as they slash programs that might help women they would force to bear children against their will take care of the actual babies that result from forced childbearing. They used to even go so far as to say that those of us with the radical view that women are actual human beings are protectors of child molesters because legal abortion allows those who prey on young girls to hide the result of their crimes, as if forcing twelve-year-olds to walk around with pregnant bellies is somehow a badge of shame for the impregnator, rather than the impregnatee.

But as Congressional Republicans abandon all thought of job creation and resume their long-standing jihad against American women, particularly their sexuality, out in the hinterlands Teh Crazy is in full flower, and shows just what these people are:

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

Yes, folks, the so-called "pro-life" movement finally admits that its reverence for human life is highly selective. Yesterday I linked to an article about a small survey which showed that men who are domestic abusers of women will often sabotage their partner's birth control in an attempt to have them become pregnant and therefore dependent (or otherwise linked to them in a permanent way). And now in South Dakota, Republican legislators would give these domestic abusers the right to go into a clinic with guns blazing in the name of killing the doctor who would dare usurp their right to keep their wives, partners, or daughters from exercising their own free will.

We hear over and over again that using the term "American Taliban" is unfairly inflammatory. Markos Moulitsas took a great deal of crap from even Bill Maher about the title of his recent book with that title. But when you have a movement in our very own country that would justify homicide against those who believe they have a right to help women make their own decisions, what else can you call these people?

Republican men can be said to be domestic abusers too

If controlling behavior and wanting to see women powerless and pregnant is the mark of the abuser, then every last Republican male who has decided that forced childbearing is their first priority is a domestic (i.e. within the U.S.) abuser.

And another hallmark of the domestic abuser is sabotaging birth control:

Men who abuse women physically and emotionally may also sabotage their partners’ birth control, pressuring them to become pregnant against their will, new reports suggest.

Several small studies have described this kind of coercion among low-income teenagers and young adults with a history of violence by intimate partners. Now, a report being released Tuesday by the federally financed National Domestic Violence Hotline says 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling the hot line said a partner had pressured them to become pregnant, told them not to use contraceptives, or forced them to have unprotected sex.

The report was based on answers from more than 3,000 women, but it was not a research study, those involved said.

“It was very eye-opening,” said Lisa James, director of health at the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco, which worked with the hot line on the report. “There were stories about men refusing to wear a condom, forcing sex without a condom, poking holes in condoms, flushing birth control pills down the toilet.

“There were lots of stories about hiding the birth control pills — that she kept ‘losing’ her birth control pills, until she realized that he was hiding them,” Ms. James added.

One respondent described having to hide in the bathroom to take her pill. Another said that when she got her period recently, her partner was “furious.”

The hot line’s report did not include a comparison group and did not gather information about the participants, who were questioned anonymously; nor was it published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was based on answers to four questions posed to 3,169 women around the country who contacted the domestic violence hot line between Aug. 16 and Sept. 26, 2010, who were not in immediate danger and who agreed to participate. About 6,800 callers refused to answer the questions.

Of those who did respond, about a quarter said yes to one or more of these three questions: “Has your partner or ex ever told you not to use any birth control?” “Has your partner or ex-partner ever tried to force or pressure you to become pregnant?” “Has your partner or ex ever made you have sex without a condom so that you would get pregnant?”

One in six answered yes to the question “Has your partner or ex-partner ever taken off the condom during sex so that you would get pregnant?”

The questions were devised by Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, whose earlier papers on reproductive coercion prompted interest in the subject.

“It’s really important to recognize reproductive coercion as another mechanism for control in an unhealthy relationship,” Dr. Miller said. At the same time, she added, younger women and girls dating older men may be confused by the pressure to become pregnant.

“If you can put yourself in the shoes of a 15-year-old dating an 18- or 19-year-old man, which is not an unusual scenario, and he says to her, ‘We’re going to make beautiful babies together,’ that’s pretty seductive.”

Now remember, until there was a sizable enough outcry, Republican men wanted to remove this kind of statutory rape from the bans on federal funding of abortion, instead forcing fifteen-year-olds to bear the children of the men who exploited them. And as for sabotaging birth control, well, Republicans fit that description too:

Republicans are looking to wipe out funding for Title X, a 40-year-old family planning program.

The cut would be a hard hit against Planned Parenthood, which received $16.9 million of Title X funding in 2009. By law, the funds must be spent on health care such as contraceptives, pelvic exams, and safer-sex counseling, and cannot be spent on abortion services.

The cuts are part of the continuing resolution, a Republican spending proposal released Wednesday.

Started in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, Title X is the only source of federal funds dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health. Some 5 million women and men received services through 4,500 community-based clinics in 2008, according to the Department of Health & Human Services.

The House Appropriations Committee said in a Wednesday press release that it would cut $327 million from the family planning program. That would effectively wipe out the program’s budget: for fiscal 2011, Title X was authorized at $327 million and appropriated $317 million.

Republicans were already eyeing the Title X program as ripe for attacks. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced separate legislation that would strip Planned Parenthood of its Title X funding.

But while his legislation bar abortion providers from participating in Title X, the Republicans’ continuing resolution would wipe it out entirely.

A glimpse of what the "Christian nation" so beloved of Republicans would look like

Here's a taste of what the Christian theocracy that's the goal of so many conservatives would look like:

Nineteen-year-old Keshia Canter handed three burgers, fries and milkshakes to a car-load of Tuesday afternoon customers at the Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-though window. A lady sitting in the backseat leaned forward, between the two men in front, and handed her a leaflet: “Women & Girls” it said across the top.

“Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly,” Canter recalled the woman telling her. “You make men want to be sinful.”

[snip]

“You may have been given this leaflet because of the way you are dressed,” it begins. “Have you thought about standing before the true and living God to be judged?”

It continues with one essential theme: The sins of men are, in part, the fault of women, specifically women in tight-fitting clothing. Yates was annoyed. Then she got to a section on page two:

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states. “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”

In Theocratic America, women are by their very nature evil, even criminals. This pamphlet was being distributed in Bristol, Virginia -- a state where now you can carry a gun into a bar. This is so that when the drunk at the end of the bar starts making disparaging remarks about your mother, you can shoot to kill.

Meanwhile, out in Utah, the nightmare scenario of women who miscarry having to prove they weren't trying to self-abort is just waiting for the governor's signature. And in Florida, which always seems to be doing everything it can to become more Alabama than Alabama is, new legislation would punish doctors who perform abortions with up to life sentences in prison.

Isn't it funny how efforts to create a "moral, Christian America" focus on the genitalia of women and what women do with those? Isn't it funny how the legislatures that come up with stuff like this are ALWAYS dominated by men? And isn't it funny how the ENTIRE burden of making "moral" choices always falls on women in their world? For decades we've heard about baby boomers and hedonism and self-indulgence, and yet these guys are not only terrified of themselves, but also seemingly completely unable to keep it in their pants unless all women dress like the Warren Jeffs polygamy cult women and are punished severely for exercising any kind of sexual self-determination.

These are just a few tastes of the Christian utopia envisioned in those states where a preponderance of people are simply unable to make behavioral without some punitive big white alpha male daddy figure in the sky. And it's interesting how that big white alpha male seems to forgive an awful lot of male transgressions, and none of the female.

I only WISH this were from The Onion

But it isn't:

A version of the anti-abortion initiative soundly defeated by Colorado voters in 2008 is making its way to the 2010 ballot, this time reworked as an “egg-as-a-person” initiative.

This new version would move the legal definition of a person further back into the reproductive cycle, granting cells the full spectrum of citizen rights. Opposition groups, including Colorado genetic and fertilization researchers, say the law would have spiraling consequences, that it would put women at risk and freeze current work in medicine and reproduction.

Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, the groups behind proposed Initiative 25, are undeterred by the fact that Coloradans voted against the test-run amendment last year by a margin of three to one. The new amendment is even farther reaching, moving the initial marker for the beginning of life from “fertilization” to “the beginning of the biological development of a human being.”

And to think I used to joke about having to send your used tampons to the government for inspection to make sure you didn't pass any fertilized eggs. Now you'll have to send them every time you have a period, because by this law, every menstrual period is an abortion.

Next up:

How about we have them refuse to cover Viagra instead?

Very light blogging this week, folks. I am on a killer project which runs until mid-September, but right now I'm in full-bore crunch mode, which is why I was up doing work at 3:45 AM -- an ungodly hour that by all rights ought to have a Jamaican beach as its reward. But today this ungodly hour has a week with 20 hours of meetings after which I still have about 60 hours of actual work to do.

But this little find caught my eye and I simply had to pass on the news from ThinkProgress that Your Democratic Party is willing to sacrifice women's right to legal health care options on the altar of bipartisanship with Republican nutjobs:

As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) prepares to unveil the Senate Finance Committee’s bipartisan health care reform legislation later this week, several blogs are reporting that Republicans on the Committee are pushing legislation that would require insurers operating within the new Exchange to to deny coverage for abortion services. From Raising Women’s Voices:

The Senate Finance Committee has been writing a health care reform bill and struggling to create legislation that will have bipartisan support. Chairman Max Baucus (pictured left) considered several compromises to win Republican support, so they can claim it is bipartisan legislation. One of these potential compromises comes in the form of an abortion exclusion, which would prevent abortion services from being covered by some or all insurance plans in the Health Insurance Exchange. We fear that members of the Senate Finance Committee are considering such a compromise.

Should it pass, the Senate Finance version would be the only bill that specifically prohibits a medical service. As the Wonk Room points out, “if denying abortion services to women is the price of bipartisanship, then perhaps winning those one or two Republican votes isn’t worth the price of jeopardizing women’s health and well-being.”

Max Baucus, who is owned lock, stock and barrel by health insurance companies, is holding a gun to women's heads and saying "You choose. You can have your right to have your health care covered, or you can have the right to abortion. You can't have both.

In case you had any doubts that Mr. Brilliant has been right all along; that the Democrats are simply there to make it LOOK like you have a choice, when in reality, BOTH parties serve only the moneyed and religious crazies, here's your proof.

You know, I'm working 60-80 hour weeks pretty routinely these days. At one point I was delusional enough to think that I, my letters to my elected officials, and by extension, this blog, could help make a difference. But here we are, in 2009, with our party having what should be a filibuster-proof majority, and on the social issues that have been important to us for decades, our party is falling on the side of, and sometimes to the right of, the Republicans. So why the hell do I even bother?

(h/t)

Sarkozy Says No To Burqa Wearing in France

In a show of real balls, French President Nikolas Sarkozy told the French Parliament that the wearing of burqas represents an unacceptable form of "enslavement."
The New York Times reports today that Sarkozy is drawing a line when it comes to something that he finds unacceptable in French society.

The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a sober address in which he frequently looked at his notes. “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.”

“I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory,” he said to enthusiastic applause.

Sarkozy's unusual appearance before Parliament was the result of changes brought about by his party, allowing the President to speak directly to Parliment, and his speech was mainly concerning the economic crisis. The issue of the spread of burqa wearing is a hot button issue in France, and there has been much debate about how to deal with it. The French Muslim Council expressed relief that the tone of the President's speech was respectful of Islam, but firm on the point that burqa wearing is not welcomed in France. The Muslim Council urges a less conservative form of Muslim practice and does not encourage the wearing of the burqa.

This issue is important as a woman's rights issue, of course, but its also a huge social statement by a pretty liberal society that might just as easily try to take the politically correct way out, as America tends to do. The fact is that not only does the hard line conservative Islam create a difficult life for women, but it creates an unintegrated society in which there is a subclass of people who are unable to live full, safe lives. The burqa also creates a huge responsibility for the men in the society because along with it comes all the rules for how a woman moves around, often requiring men to accompany them and watch over them, creating another layer of responsibility for already overburdened families.

Say what you will about the French, but in a world where the line between the extremists who would go and blow themselves up over an issue like this, and the political correctness of trying to allow for religious freedom, grows ever finer, Sarkozy kicked some ass and made a strong statement about what is expected of those who wish to live in France. This is not a free speech/personal choice/religious issue, but an issue of ingrained abuse of women that is making a comeback in certain areas, and which is disruptive to the entire society. The women may say that they want to wear these garments, but this is beyond what any one person wants; its what is demanded by a free and fair society that is taking into account all of it's citizens.





RIP Coco