Women’s Rights

House Tea-Publicans pass a symbolic anti-abortion bill to save face

by

After the Tea-Publican House leadership failed to muster a majority among its own members for Rep. Trent Franks’ unconstitutional 20-week ban on abortions, being forced to pull the bill Wednesday night,  they finally settled upon a replacement with a symbolic, but potentially far more damaging bill, HR 7.  Bill PDF.

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos reports, House Republicans include a tax hike in their latest abortion bill:

Taliban[Tea-Publicans] revived their long-standing effort to codify a ban on federal funding of abortion that even extends to private insurance, and plans sold in Obamacare insurance exchanges. But it’s also a tax-hike on small businesses who provide employees with health insurance that covers abortion.

Under the SHOP exchange, a part of the Affordable Care Act, small businesses receive a tax credit if they include abortion care in their plans. Roughly 87 percent of private plans include abortion services as part of comprehensive coverage, meaning the bulk of small businesses would be hit with a tax hike if the bill, called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, were to become law.

As Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pointed out, House Republicans have shifted their attack from the thousands of women with the 20-week abortion ban to millions of women who would have this legal medical procedure stripped from their private insurance, for which they are paying.

[The bill also includes limitations on federal facilities and employees (e.g., military/veteran hospitals),  and local government funding for the District of Columbia.]

Read more

Rep. Victoria Steele reintroduces an ERA Resolution

by

ERA-1Last year Rep. Victoria Steele (D-Tucson) introduced HCR 2016 (.pdf), a resolution recommending the ratification of the federal Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It had bipartisan support among its cosponsors, but went nowhere.

Rep. Steele has refiled her ERA resolution in this session, HCR 2020 (.pdf). Steele’s 26 cosponsors, so far, are all Democrats.

What, Republicans do not believe that women should enjoy equal rights under the law equal to men? The ERA has always had bipartisan support.

Last year’s Republican cosponsors were Karen Fann, Michelle Ugenti, and Kelly Townsend (Ethan Orr is no longer in the legislature). Step up, ladies! And bring some of those Republican men with you.

Read more

U.S. Supreme Court declines review of Arizona abortion case

by

uterus-stateThe “forced birth” religious zealots of the Arizona legislature and Cathi Herrod’s Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), the author of the RU-486 abortion bill, lost another round in the U.S. Supreme Court today after having lost in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Court passes up RU-486 abortion issue, again:

The Supreme Court chose again today to bypass a dispute over state authority to strictly limit the access of pregnant women to abortion procedures that use drugs instead of surgery.  This time, the Court declined to review a case from Arizona — a state where nearly half of all abortions have been performed without surgery (Humble v. Planned Parenthood Arizona).  Last Term the Court dismissed a similar case that was an appeal from Oklahoma.

Read more

The GOP war on women stumbles at the Supreme Court

by

Two weeks ago the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a major blow to women’s reproductive rights in Texas, allowing the state to begin enforcing the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation.

Screenshot-13Acting with unusual speed on a request for a stay of the Fifth Circuit Court order, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday enjoined the Texas anti-abortion law from being enforced while the case is on appeal. Even more surprising to court observers was that the decision was 6-3, with only Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito dissenting that the law should be allowed to be enforced.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog writes, Court blocks abortion limits in Texas:

Over the dissents of three Justices, the Supreme Court on Tuesday evening barred Texas from enforcing two parts of its new abortion-restriction law — one part as it applied throughout the state, the other as it applied to two clinics in the southwest part of the state.

The state may not now enforce a requirement that all clinics in the state upgrade their facilities to be hospital-like surgical centers, even when they perform abortions only through the use of drugs, not surgery.  And it may not enforce, against the clinics in McAllen and El Paso, a requirement that all doctors performing abortions have privileges to admit patients to a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic.  That requirement can continue to be enforced elsewhere in Texas, the Court indicated.

Read more

Martha McSally: I support Hobby Lobby decision

by

Screenshot from 2014-04-19 09:46:19Ahhh, that’s so cute. Martha McSally pretending to be a lawyer — she claims “I actually took the time to read” the Hobby Lobby decision. Maybe so, but she clearly did not comprehend what she read, and is unaware of related court matters.

Per usual, on the rare occasion McSally actually takes a position on an issue, she tries to straddle the fence on both sides of the issue.

The Tucson Weekly reports McSally’s response to the Hobby Lobby decision Hobby Lobby Decision: Barber & McSally React:

McSally’s take:

I support women’s access to contraception as well as the protection of religious liberty. [Straddle that fence!] Unlike many commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court verdict, I actually took the time to read the opinion and my statement here is based on the facts of the very narrow ruling. At issue is not whether women should have access to contraception without cost, but whether the Obamacare mandates and substantial penalties are the legal way to provide that access. The court ruled that the Obamacare mandate for employers to provide twenty methods of contraception for free, including four post-fertilization methods, substantially burdens the religious freedom of closely held companies owned by individuals with sincerely held religious beliefs that life begins at conception. The court ruled that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which “prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

Read more