Women’s Rights

J.E.B.(!) fumblin’ bumblin’ stumblin’ on women’s health issues

by

Before Keegan-Michael Key invented the comic character Luther, Obama’s Anger Translator, Obama’s predecessor George “W” Bush had a translator of sorts of his own, sometimes with unintended comic effect.

You see, “W” frequently spoke in unintelligible gibberish or said something that he was not supposed to say in the way it was perceived or understood by the media. Invariably, every time that “W” spoke, within an hour after he spoke the White House had to send out a translator to explain that the president misspoke, “what he really meant to say was ….”

This apparently is a Bush family trait. Recall Texas Governor Ann Richards’ famous 1988 DNC  National Convention speech about “W’s” daddy, George H. W. Bush: “Poor George, he can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

Already this year, J.E.B.(!) Bush has had to have his campaign spokesmen issue a correction on several occasions to explain “what he really meant to say was ….” See, Jeb(!) fumblin’ bumblin’ stumblin’ on the Iraq question; and Out of touch Plutocrat Jeb(!) says Americans need to work longer hours and be more productive, for example.

Cartoon_31

J.E.B.(!) managed to put his silver foot in his mouth yet again this week over funding women’s health care while pandering to the GOP crazy base over Planned Parenthood.

Read more

GOP threatens government shutdown over Confederate flags and Planned Parenthood, but will not consider a bill to restore the Voting Rights Act

by

This coming Thursday, August 6, is the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in American history.

Voting-RightsWhen the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the coverage section, Section 4 of the Act, in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data.

The Tea-Publican controlled Congress has failed to act on this suggestion from the Court, preferring the status quo of a gutted Voting Rights Act, followed by the largest number of voting restrictions enacted by GOP states since the Jim Crow era.

A bipartisan bill introduced by Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) in response to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 4 of the law in 2013 was introduced in 2014, and again earlier this year (The Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill, known as the Voting Rights Amendment Act). Bill To Restore Voting Rights Act Gets Another Bipartisan Push. A separate Democratic bill has also been introduced. Democrats Unveil Bill To Restore Gutted Voting Rights Act (The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, which goes beyond the version introduced in 2014).

Democrats have made a push for Congress to vote on these bills on the eve of the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, but Tea-Publican congressional leaders have refused.

Read more

SCOTUS temporarily blocks Texas abortion law

by

After its Conference today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a brief order (.pdf) temporarily blockimg Texas from enforcing two new requirements that abortion clinic operators say will force many clinics to close. The Court was divided 5-4.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Court blocks Texas abortion law:

uterus-stateThe order will keep those rules on hold at least until the Court decides whether to rule on their constitutionality.

One provision requires all doctors performing abortions in the state to have the right to send patients to a nearby hospital, while the other requires all abortion clinics in the state to have facilities equal to a surgical center.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld both provisions.

In a one-paragraph order, the Justices did not explain why they were postponing the law.  If review of the law is denied later, the order will be lifted; if review is granted, it will stay in effect until a final ruling emerges.  The actual petition for review has not yet been filed by the doctors and clinics involved.

Read more

Supreme Court rejects North Carolina’s ultrasound ‘informed consent’ law

by

uterus-stateOver the dissent of Justice Antonin “Nito” Scalia, without writing an opinion, “the Supreme Court on Monday silently added an implied measure of protection for the private choice of a woman to seek an abortion, sparing her doctor and her a state-mandated use of vivid fetal images to try to dissuade her.” A gesture in favor of a woman’s abortion choice (Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog). “The order has the practical effect of leaving undisturbed a lower-court ruling striking down that law on the premise that it was “ideological in intent and in kind” and thus not a valid form of state regulation of medical practice.”

North Carolina will not be allowed to enact one of the most radical forced ultrasound laws in the country, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to avoid reviewing the law. Think Progress reports, Supreme Court Spikes North Carolina’s Forced Ultrasound Law:

The Court’s decision is a victory for reproductive rights proponents, who challenged North Carolina’s law on First Amendment grounds — pointing out that the measure essentially forced doctors to deliver an anti-abortion message on behalf of the state. The justices are allowing to stand a unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that agreed the law violated doctors’ right to free speech.

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