COVID-19 & Healthcare

Anti-choicers jailing women because they care?

by

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

pro choice logo

Anti-choicers are such prodigious and unabashed liars that when they don’t even bother pretending and just show their true natures it can startle even the jaded likes of me! Two developments this past week did just that. First was the conservative Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to uphold Texas’ draconian HB2, an anti-choice omnibus law passed in 2013 (amidst thunderous protest at the State Capitol and after then-Senator Wendy Davis’ now-famous filibuster) that imposed onerous and unnecessary “safety” requirements on abortion clinics in what was obviously an attempt to shut them down. The implementation of the law was delayed due to lawsuits, with a federal judge last summer calling the anti-choicers right out on their bullshit.

The most remarkable portion of Yeakel’s opinion, however, may be the fact that he does not simply analyze the effect of Texas’s law. He also accuses the state of outright dishonesty. Responding to the state’s argument that some Texans can seek abortions in New Mexico if they are unable to obtain one in Texas thanks to HB2, Yeakel notes that this argument completely undermines any suggestion that these laws are supposed to protect women’s health:

If the State’s true purpose in enacting the ambulatory-surgical-center requirement is to protect the health and safety of Texas women who seek abortions, it is disingenuous and incompatible with that goal to argue that Texas women can seek abortion care in a state with lesser regulations. If, however, the State’s underlying purpose in enacting the requirement was to reduce or eliminate abortion in parts or all of Texas, the State’s position is perfectly congruent with such a goal.

Yeakel, in other words, calls a sham a sham. He recognizes, in the words of the Supreme Court, that the purpose HB2 is to “place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” And he comes just one step from outright accusing the state of lying when it claims that the law was actually enacted to protect women’s health.

Read more

GOP states begin to chafe against Grover Norquist’s ‘no new taxes’ pledge

by

NorquistThe Ayatollah of the “No New Taxes” Pledge, Grover Norquist, has exercised far too much influence for far too long in this country. His destructive philosophy in the reason why so many states are in the dire circumstances they find themselves in, including Arizona.

Several Republican-run states — not including Arizona — are beginning to chafe against the Ayaytollah Norquist’s “No New Taxes” fatwa. It’s time to end his reign of error.

Bloomberg News reports, Norquist’s No-Tax Pledge Chafes Republicans in Tattered States:

Republican leaders who control U.S. states are confronting the consequences of no-new-tax pledges as they face shortfalls and try to preserve education and infrastructure.

Nevada, Kansas and Alabama have enacted or are debating increases in taxes on sales, tobacco, corporate income and other items, and six others have passed higher fuel levies despite a small-government dogma. In Louisiana, Republican lawmakers and Governor Bobby Jindal are engaged in a near-theological debate about what constitutes a tax increase as they seek to close a $1.6 billion budget gap.

Read more

Forced Birthers finally get the appeal they have been waiting for

by

TalibanThe Forced Birthers who want to end the constitutionally protected right of privacy of a woman to consult with her physician regarding her reproductive health care and to terminate a pregnancy within her “liberty of conscience” (as the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 12 refers to it), have had a litigation strategy for years to get a case back in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in order to force a reconsideration of the landmark Roe v. Wade (1973) (abortion) and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) (right of privacy/birth control) decisions.

This is why Republican-dominated legislatures keep enacting abortion restrictions that they know are in conflict with the law and Supreme Court precedents. They want a conflict. They hope that one of the appellate courts that Republican presidents have stacked with like-minded conservative activist judges will rule in their favor, giving them the vehicle they need to get a case back in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative activist court of all the appellate courts, through a three judge panel of conservative activist judges appointed by George W. Bush, upheld one of the most onerous anti-abortion laws in the country from the state of Texas.

This puts abortion rights activists in the unenviable position of having to appeal this adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court — a risky proposition given that there are six Catholics on the Court, five of whom are conservative activist Justices appointed by Republican presidents. How the Supreme Court would rule remains to be seen, however.

Read more

Well, whaddya know, states with the most abortion restrictions saw the least reduction in abortion!

by

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

pro choice logo

Associated Press released a survey they did of states that report abortion statistics where they found that while most states saw reductions in their abortion rates, states that passed no restrictions on abortion since 2011 had larger decreases in the number of procedures reported than red states touted by anti-abortion advocates as “pro-life” champions.

Despite anti-choicers passing several abortion restrictions under the bogus premises of “safety” and “informed consent”, Arizona saw a modest decrease in abortions since 2011, less than half the national average.

Preliminary statistics from the Arizona Department of Health Services for 2014 show Arizona saw a 5 percent decline in abortions since 2011, from 13,606 abortions in 2011 to 12,900 last year.
That compares with a 12 percent decline nationally since 2010, according to the AP survey of all 45 states where abortion reporting is required. Arizona changed its reporting requirements in 2010, so figures before 2011 are not comparable.

Abortion rights advocates say the small drop in Arizona compared with many other states shows that women are not dissuaded from having an abortion once they have made up their mind.

Read more

No, MSNBC is not the left mirror image of Fox

by

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

msnbc logo

I often encounter people who are so wedded to the “both sides do it” narrative that no matter how bad the Right gets, they will strain to find something, anything, that has the remotest appearance to being equal to it on the Left. One particularly tedious example of this is the belief that MSNBC is the liberal version of Fox News.

Now, let me stipulate to being sympathetic to those of you who think the entire cable news concept is garbage. The 24 hour news cycle leads to a lot of inane bullshit making its way on the air to fill time. So I’m not here to defend the overall quality of MSNBC, which is frankly lacking much of the time. What I am disputing – not that I should even have to since it should be bleedingly obvious to anyone who spends an hour watching each network – is the risible notion that MSNBC and Fox are ideological mirror images. They’re simply not.

Fox News is a major propaganda organ of reactionary conservatism and its political party, the GOP. The entire day’s programming is dominated by conservatives. There are no liberal hosts on the network and while they do keep a few token Democrats around, it is mainly to humiliate them or to set a torch to the latest liberal strawman. MSNBC, on the other hand, starts it’s programming day with Morning Joe, a two-hour show co-hosted by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough (who has not gone liberal).

Read more