Civil & Human Rights

McCarthyite religious bigot Rep. Trent Franks shames Arizona (again)

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona has more than its fair share of embarrassing politicians somehow elected to public office. But a contender for the title of "most embarrassing Arizona politician" is Rep. Trent Franks. This guy is such a rank embarrassment, the rest of Arizona has the right to demand from the constituents of his district "what the hell were you thinking?" Don't make the rest of Arizona come to your district to beat some sense into you. . . get rid of this clown!

Back in October 2009, "A quartet of Republican Congressmen, including Arizona's own Reps. Trent Franks and John Shadegg, convened a press conference this week to demand that the House Sergeant at Arms investigate the organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), because this advocacy organization does what every other advocacy organization does, but they do it while being Muslim."

They claimed that "(CAIR) is infiltrating Capitol Hill with undercover interns, and they're basing the charge on a World Net Daily-published book that itself is based on the work of a man who posed as a Muslim to infiltrate CAIR as … an intern!" Reps. Trent Franks an John Shadegg engage in McCarthyism, religious bigotry againt Muslim-Americans:

Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson put this loony right conspiracy into it's proper context:

RACHEL MADDOW: Do you think that the secret ploy to "Islamize" America starts with interns?

EUGENE ROBINSON: (laughing) Yeah, that's where you want to start. You know the interns, they're the one's who control the real power on Capitol Hill. If you get the interns then you've got the whole city, and then you've got the world! You know this would be funny, it actually brings to mind that other great old movie Doctor Strangelove and General Jack D. Ripper and the plot he perceived to zap and impurity all our precious bodily fluids, that's kind of the way they sounded. But it's not funny, because it's dangerous and bigoted…

George Bush after 9/11, from the beginning, tried to make clear to everyone that the war on terror that he was prepared to wage was not a war against Islam, that this was not a religious war, that this was not a clash of civilizations, yet World Net Daily clearly didn't get the memo, and nor, amazingly, did some members of the U.S. Congress, and this is really scary stuff in that sense.

Planned Parenthood sues to block defunding of women’s health clinics

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our lawless state legislature and Governor are like a full employment program for lawyers and judges. Tea-Publican authoritarianism and religious extremism leads them to violate the law and the constitution constantly. How many times do they have to be beat down by the Arizona Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court?

Uterus-stateA lawsuit was filed last week to challenge the unconstitutional abortion bill passed by our lawless legislature. On Monday, another lawsuit was filed to challenge the unconstitutional attempt by our lawless legislature to defund Planned Parenthood women's health clinics. Planned Parenthood wants court to block law forbidding Medicaid funding to abortion providers – East Valley Tribune:

Planned Parenthood asked a federal judge Monday to block a new law which would bar it from getting state Medicaid funds.

The complaint says the Legislature acted illegally in approving a measure which forbids any funding from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's health insurance for the poor, to any organization which also provides abortions. It asks Judge Neil Wake to prohibit Arizona from implementing the law as scheduled on Aug. 2 and, eventually, to declare it void and unenforceable.

* * *

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood has more than 66,000 patient visits a year, including about 3,000 from those eligible for AHCCCS. Services provided include pap smears, breast exams, contraceptives and tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.

It also provides abortions at five of its 13 Arizona locations.

Current federal law precludes Medicaid funding for abortions except in narrow circumstances.

A little manufactured outrage perhaps?

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic's AZ/DC blog today published second quarter fundraising numbers in the new CD 2, AZ/DC Blog – Quick look at fundraising reports:

Incumbent Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., raised $333,000, with cash on hand of $195,000, blowing past his Democratic primary challenger state Rep. Matt Heinz. . . Heinz reported donations of $34,000, with cash on hand of $42,000.

Ouch! Heinz received most of his donations in the last two weeks of June after the Special Election, and after Ron Barber cast a couple of inexplicable votes for which he has been roundly criticized by Democrats.

Which may explain the press release today from his opponent, Matt Heinz, trying to manufacture outrage (for fundraising purposes) where I believe "outrage" is unwarranted in this instance, especially since this story is from last week — suspect timing given the above report:

The GOP War on Women: Lawsuit to block Arizona’s most restrictive abortion law in the nation

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Uterus-stateEarlier this year our Tea-Publican legislature pased the most restrictive abortion law in the nation. It bans abortions after 20 weeks, but has a unique provision for calculating the start of the 20 weeks from the date of the woman's last menstrual period. As critics pointed out at the time, this means that a woman could be deemed pregnant two weeks before having had sexual intercourse — talk about your miraculous conception!

On Thursday, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU sued on behalf of three doctors to halt the new law from going int effect in August. Lawsuit challenges Arizona abortion restrictions:

Three Arizona abortion providers went to federal court Thursday to try to block an Arizona law that bans most abortions beginning at 20 weeks.

They are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law before it takes effect Aug.2.

The suit alleges the legislation violates the protections outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, which permits abortions before a fetus is viable. Medical experts and abortion clinics typically consider a fetus viable at 22 to 24 weeks. The suit states that the only exception to the new 20-week ban in the Arizona law is so narrow it "places significant burdens on the health of some women seeking abortion care."

(Update) The GOP war on voting in the D.C. Circuit Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The trial has wrapped up with closing argments on Friday morning. Based upon this reporting from the Dallas Morning News, it isn't looking good for the state of Texas — the judges appear inclined to uphold the voting rights of minority voters under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Texas Voter ID Trial: Closing Arguments:

A 3-judge panel will now decide whether to let Texas implement its controversial voter ID law.

In closing arguments at federal court, a lawyer for the state, John Hughes, insisted that even if non-white Texans lack an acceptable photo ID under the law, the “ultimate question” for the judges to consider is whether that disparity translates into people being turned away from the polls.

* * *

“People who want to vote already have an ID or can easily obtain it,” he insisted repeatedly. He noted that the Justice Department – which refused to let the state implement the law, prompting the state to turn to the federal courts – claims that 1.5 million Texas voters lack an acceptable photo ID.

* * *

The judges seemed deeply skeptical. “The record does tell us that there is a substantial number of registered voters that lack photo ID,” said U.S. Circuit Court Judge David Tatel.

And District Court Judge Robert Wilkins noted that there was uncontested evidence that some Texans would have to travel 120 miles one way to the nearest state office where they could obtain a voter ID card – and that federal court rules bar subpoenas for anyone more than 100 miles from a courthouse on grounds that would be “unduly burdensome.”