Rachel Maddow covers this topic almost every night on her show.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

http://www.rachelmaddow.com/


Rachel Maddow is the host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” which airs on MSNBC at 9:00 pm Eastern, Monday through Friday, and is rebroadcast at midnight Eastern.

Reproductive choice is a fundamental right under the Oklahoma Constitution.
 

From The Center For Reproductive Rights today:

Moments ago, we received the thrilling news that Oklahoma’s law banning medication abortion—a safe, non-surgical option used by more than 1.4 million U.S. women—has been permanently blocked.

Judge Donald Worthington’s decision is groundbreaking. He ruled that the bill’s restrictions are “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that [the bill] can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those women who do.”

Judge Worthington’s words send a clear message to our opponents:
Reproductive choice is a fundamental right under the Oklahoma Constitution.

Today’s ruling is simply unprecedented. For the first time ever, a court recognized that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a woman’s right to abortion. This ruling reaffirms that the Legislature can’t use women’s health to advance a radical anti-choice agenda.

The court made it clear what you and I already know: This law was never about protecting women. It was about banning safe and effective methods of terminating a pregnancy, and making it impossible for women to exercise the full range of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our victory today sends a strong message to anti-choice legislators in Oklahoma—and all across the country—that their disingenuous tactics for restricting access to abortion will not stand.

Anti-choice organizations have targeted Oklahoma as a testing ground for their most extreme tactics—and we’ve been beating back one after another. Just last month, the Center defeated the state’s attempt at a so-called “personhood” ballot initiative that would have given every fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person.

Even with these triumphs, we know that anti-choice zealots won’t stop attacking our rights. We remain vigilant and ready to fight back—but today’s victory is ours to celebrate.

DC Congresswoman Norton denied request to speak on abortion bill again
 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded Thursday to a question about Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) not being able to testify at a hearing about restrictions on abortions in D.C., saying that "it's wrong."

Norton asked to testify in front of a hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution which is considering legislation that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy in the District.

The Subcommittee, which is chaired by notoriously anti-abortion Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), denied her request to testify at the 4 p.m. hearing. Norton said she will offer written testimony instead.

"We have a member of Congress who wants to come in and talk about her district, I can't even imagine a situation where someone else would be denied that opportunity and I think it's wrong," Pelosi said. "And I think it's not civil and if we don't raise the level of civility around here it just further alienates the public."

Pelosi continued:

"What are they afraid of? The facts? The impact on the District of Columbia? The persuasiveness of the Congresswoman to represent her people? ... They have prevented her from having a vote on the floor, now they don't want her to have a voice in a committee on a subject of concern to her district, I think it's wrong."

Norton said she will hold a 2:30 p.m. press conference, where she will be joined by Professor Christy Zink, a District resident who had an abortion at 21 weeks after doctors found severe brain abnormalities in the fetus; Mayor Vincent Gray; Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution; and National Abortion Federation President Vicki Saporta.

Norton provided the written testimony she will present below:

What matters in the submission of this testimony is what H.R. 3803 and this subcommittee are attempting to do to the citizens I represent, and, therefore, I submit this testimony as part of my responsibility to them, and ask that it be included in the record of today’s hearing. However, my constituents would also count on me to note for the record the subcommittee’s callous disregard of long-standing congressional courtesy in denying my request to testify, in addition to the invited witnesses, particularly considering that the subject matter under consideration affects only my district. Unlike every member of this subcommittee, I am elected by, and am accountable to, the residents of the District of Columbia.

This is the second time in the 112th Congress that the majority has focused exclusively on my district while denying my request to testify. How very easy it is for the majority to gang up on the District of Columbia after supporting the continuing denial of its tax-paying citizens to representation in the House and Senate. How irresistible it has been to pick on the District of Columbia and its citizens with not one but two bills that the majority dares not try to apply to all citizens of the United States. The lack of courage of the majority’s convictions is breathtaking. Common courtesy and the congressional tradition of comity and respect demand that the Member elected to speak for the only Americans affected by a bill be allowed to speak for them, regardless of other witnesses who may speak to the underlying issue. Last year, I was denied to speak on H.R. 3, a bill that would permanently prohibit only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, from spending its local funds on abortions for low-income women. Today it is H.R. 3803, which would bar the women of only one district, the District of Columbia, from having abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Fortunately, the majority has not yet found a way to completely silence our residents. I thank the minority for inviting Professor Christy Zink, who has agreed to speak for us, as few others could, as a mother whose tragic experience compelled an abortion after 20 weeks into her pregnancy.

Some are debating whether Republicans have been engaging in a “war on women” in our country. What is not debatable is the Republican fixation on the women of the District of Columbia. The Republican majority, which was elected on a promise of jobs and devolving power to state and local governments, brought the federal government (and with it, the District of Columbia government) to within an hour of shutting down in April 2011, and relented only after it succeeded in re-imposing an undemocratic rider on a spending bill that prohibits the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women. Although the abortion rider remains in place today, it has not satisfied the apparently insatiable hunger of Republicans to expand the reach of the federal government into local affairs. Today, they are moving from interfering with the decisions of low-income women in the District of Columbia, to attacking every woman in the District of Columbia.

H.R. 3803 is unprincipled twice over. It is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would deny constitutional rights to the citizens of only one jurisdiction in the United States, and it is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would ban abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy. Republicans claim that the bill does not usurp local authority because Congress has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. However, that argument has been unavailing for 39 years, since Congress gave up that power over the District of Columbia, except for a small number of enumerated exceptions, with passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973. The right to reproductive choice was not among those exceptions.

The supporters of H.R. 3803 surely know that it is unconstitutional on two counts. The bill violates the reproductive rights spelled out in Roe v. Wade, as well as the 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the law by intentionally discriminating against women who live in the nation’s capital. D.C. residents are used to Members piling on, but we will never hesitate to fight back, especially when Members have the audacity to try to place our citizens outside the protections of the U.S. Constitution, as H.R. 3803 does. As the Supreme Court said in Callan v. Wilson, “There is nothing in the history of the Constitution or of the original amendments to justify the assertion that the people of th[e] District [of Columbia] may be lawfully deprived of the benefit of any of the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and property.”

Why, then, a hearing today on a bill that violates the right to reproductive freedom, equal protection, and federalism all at once? The answers are inescapable. Republicans do not dare take on the women of this country who have voting Members of the House and Senate with a post-20-week ban on abortions. Instead, the majority has chosen a cheap and cynical way to make its ideological point during an election year. With last year’s civil disobedience, D.C. residents and officials showed that we will never accept second-class treatment of our city. Today we want this subcommittee to know that we will never accept second-class treatment of our citizens, either.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/f...151895255.html

North Dakota's Dangerous Measure 3 - Religious Liberty Amendment
 

Measure 3 will add the following to the North Dakota Constitution:

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

----

The North Dakota Women’s Network serves as a catalyst for improving the lives of women. Our organization passed a resolution to stand against Measure 3 for the core reasons our mission implies.

The language of the measure will create loopholes due to the lack of protection for individuals’ civil rights.

What does this mean? It means people who break a law or discriminate against another person have a protected defense and that the state must prove (in court) otherwise.

If Measure 3 passes, it could allow a person to take advantage and use personal religious beliefs to claim the right to break important laws that are meant to protect all of us, like laws against abuse and discrimination.

For example, an employer could use religious beliefs to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried.

Let’s think this through. We now have a single mother unemployed and struggling to care for the welfare of her family. Her employer would have a protected defense for his action and a judge would have to determine otherwise.

Supporters of Measure 3 claim that concerns about abuse and discrimination aren’t warranted because the government has a compelling interest to protect victims in those situations. However, Measure 3 would mean the government would have to prove its case each and every time someone takes advantage of the law — giving those people the upper hand while taxpayers foot the bill for endless litigation. Most importantly, it would delay the state’s ability to protect women and children.

Measure 3 is worded very differently than laws in other states intended to protect religious freedom; it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

The truth is, Measure 3 could lead to endless litigation and serious, even harmful, consequences for North Dakotans.



Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opin...#ixzz1veUDjxHx

-------------

As we head into the election season, there are many daunting initiatives coming our way in many states. One election that is speeding our way is in North Dakota on June 12th, and one particularly frightening Measure being voted on in the state is the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment.

Although religious freedom is already thoroughly covered in our United States Constitution, the Catholic Conference and North Dakota Family Alliance has proposed a vague and extreme measure to be added to the state constitution.

The North Dakota Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, led a petition drive that collected signatures to put the plan before the voters. Also spearheading this measure is the North Dakota Family Alliance, the state’s leading Religious Right group and local affiliate of the James Dobson-founded Focus on the Family.

Measure Three states that a person has “the right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief” and includes “indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

If this state constitutional amendment were to pass, it could have far reaching and possibly unintended consequences. Last week North Dakotans against Measure Three launched its website and new campaign to fight this harmful measure. On the new website, they give three reasons to vote against Measure 3:

1. Measure Three is not needed. Religious rights and freedom were the foundation of the United States Constitution and is protected by the First Amendment. Measure Three would put individuals’ beliefs above the common good of all North Dakotans.

2. Measure Three would waste resources. It is so poorly written and vague that it will open the door to endless legal problems and litigation, clogging the courts and costing tax payers money.

3. Measure Three would mean unintended consequences. If anyone can claim religious liberty, what is to stop those who will take advantage of such an Amendment to the extreme in matters such as domestic violence if their religion requires a man disciplining his wife? Other potential consequences of this Measure are vast, but could include circumstances such as denying numerous forms of healthcare and services and discriminating against individuals and groups.

Of course, women’s rights advocates including Feminist Majority Foundation worry about the effects of such an Amendment on women and young people. The first services that may be denied to North Dakota women and girls based on “religious liberty” could be reproductive health care and family planning. In a sparsely populated state like North Dakota, where would a student turn if their local pharmacies and health centers refuse to provide birth control or Plan B?

So what can you do?

Feminist Majority Foundation will be working with our student groups in North Dakota to get the word out on campuses. We need all the help we can get to alert voters of the harmful consequences of Measure Three and get them out to vote. If you are from North Dakota or know folks interested in working to defeat Measure Three, please contact me at sshanks@feminist.org so we can connect you with those working on the ground. If you are not in the state, TELL EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE in North Dakota about the Measure, and get them out to vote! We will have more volunteer opportunities and updates as the elections approach, but make sure you are getting the word out! We must stop an amendment that may result in taking away women’s rights.

http://feministcampus.org/blog/index...-on-june-12th/

'Pro-Choice' Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds
 

The percent of Americans who identify as "pro-choice" regarding legalized abortion is at a new low of 41 percent, according to a newly released Gallup poll. The figure is one percent lower than the previous all-time low registered by Gallup, which was in May 2009.

The decline appears to fall along party lines, with the percent of Republicans identifying as "pro-choice" decreasing from 28 percent last May, to 22 percent in this most recent poll. Democrats remain somewhat consistent, around 60 percent identify as pro-choice.

Pro-choice and pro-life was the language used in the Gallup poll questionnaire.

Potentially troubling for Democrats heading into the fall is the drop among voters who are registered as Independents identifying as "pro-choice." The survey found 41 percent of Independents identified as "pro-choice," while 47 percent identified as "pro-life," marking only the second time since 2001 that the number of "pro-life" Independents has outweighed the number of "pro-choice" Independents.

The reason for the shift in numbers is unclear, but the potential political implications may not actually be that great.

When polled on the question of legality, 52 percent of Americans said they believe that abortion should be legal "in certain circumstances." That number remains consistent with polling from May 2011.

Gallup found that 25 percent believe that abortion should be legal "in all cases," while 20 percent believe it should be illegal "in all cases." Those numbers are also consistent with polling from the same time last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-choice-ame...-politics.html

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act Coming Up for Vote on Wednesday
 

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote Wednesday on a bill seeking to penalize abortionists who knowingly help women carry out gender-selective abortions.

If signed into law, H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would send to prison for up to five years anyone who performs a gender-selective abortion, coerces a woman to have one, solicits or accepts funds to perform one, or transports a woman across state lines for that purpose.

Because the bill was fast-tracked through a procedural maneuver last Friday, it will need support from two-thirds of the House, rather than a simple majority, to pass.

“We know that sex-selective abortions are taking place around the world, and that we are missing more than 163 million women as a result,” said Father Shenan J. Boquet, president of the pro-life advocacy group Human Life International. “Those in the pro-abortion movement want us to pretend that gendercide isn’t an issue in the West, but a recent study by the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests that sex-selective abortions are indeed taking place in North America.”

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., is sponsoring the bill. At a hearing he chaired last December, Population Research Institute President Steven. W. Mosher testified that gender-selective abortions are shockingly common in the U.S., particularly among Southeast Asian and Indian communities. He cited a study conducted by an Asian-Indian doctor, who found 89 percent of the women she interviewed had aborted girls at least once.

“These women told … how they were the victims of family violence; how their husbands or in-laws had shoved them around, kicked them in the abdomen, or denied them food, water, rest in an attempt to make them miscarry the girls they were carrying,” Mosher testified. “Even the women who were carrying boys told of their guilt over past sex-selection abortions, and the feeling of being unable to ‘save’ their daughters.”

Though it is traditional for some cultures to value boys over girls, advances in medical technology have allowed gender to be determined earlier than ever before. That technology, in turn, is playing a role in the number of gender-selective abortions being performed in the U.S.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/05/2...-on-wednesday/

No offense Kobi...but damn I hate seeing this thread come up. It just means that some other stupid shit is happening against women. :mad:

24 Hours to Stop Anti-Choice Bill in Congress
 

interesting that the link doesn't work. not surprised.

couldnt do it... go to prochoiceamerica.org
go to get involved tab
drop down menu click on take action

you can tell congress how to vote

“Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act" vote delayed until tomorrow
 

The so-called “Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act,” introduced last year by Rep. Trent Franks and sponsored by 98 members of the House, pretends to care about sex discrimination and gender inequity.

The proposed law would profile women based on race, place barriers between women and the reproductive health services they need, and force doctors to question the motives of their patients.

The lawmakers behind this bill have consistently opposed laws intended to protect women from violence and discrimination, such as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act. They are the same people gunning for Planned Parenthood’s funding and allowing women with life-threatening pregnancies to suffer and die rather than allow a doctor to provide abortion care.

Still time to let your Rep know how you feel about this.

House Rejects Ban on Sex-Selection Abortions
 

The House voted today to reject a measure that would have banned sex-selection abortions in the United States, pitting Republicans and Democrats in a showdown over a woman's right to choose, which opponents contended was "intended to chip away at woman's right to obtain safe, legal medical care."

The measure, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), was defeated 246-178. Under suspension of the House rules to permit consideration of the bill more quickly, approval of the measure was subject to a two-thirds majority, and with 414 members voting Republicans fell 30 votes short of passage.

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

Still, only 20 Democrats took the bait and broke from their party to vote with the majority of Republicans. Seven GOPers opposed the measure.

The House debated the bill Wednesday, but a vote was postponed until Thursday afternoon.

After the plight of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng captured international headlines this month, Republicans had hoped to capitalize on the momentum of that awareness to ensure that sex-selection abortions are not legal in the United States.

Many nations with staunchly pro-choice/pro-abortion rights laws and protections nevertheless ban sex-selection abortions. Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands all have laws banning sex-selection abortions.

Earlier this week, a pro-life group released an undercover video purportedly showing a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas assisting a woman seeking a sex-selection abortion. Gendercide, the practice of killing baby girls or terminating pregnancies solely because the fetus is female, is estimated to have produced a "gender imbalance" of more than 100 million girls around the world.

"For most of us, Mr. Speaker, 'it's a girl' is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said on the House floor Wednesday. "But in many countries including our own, it could be a death sentence. Today the three most dangerous words in China and India are, 'It's a girl.' We can't let that happen here."

http://news.yahoo.com/house-rejects-...-politics.html

For Massachusetts folks - HB 4127
 

Tomorrow, the Ma House of Representatives will begin debating HB 4127 - An Act Improving the Quality of Health Care and Reducing Costs through Increased Transparency, Efficiency, and Innovation. Amendment 32 is vital to protecting access to reproductive health as we reform payment and delivery systems.

For many women, reproductive-health providers are access points to appropriate primary and specialty care. For this reason, access to reproductive-health services is necessary to improve women's overall health as we move into new ways of delivering care. I urge you to support amendment 32, which requires that these health-care entities include women's reproductive-health services.

Amendment #32: Filed by Rep. Martha "Marty" Walz, this amendment specifies that new health-care entities be requires to offer reproductive-health services as part of their primary-care services.

Let your opinion be known today.

The War on Women by the Ridiculous Numbers
By Erin Gloria Ryan
Jun 6, 2012 3:50 PM

Over the last year and a half or so, conservative lawmakers have been feverishly at work enacting laws designed to shove the whole government into your vagina, since it's for damn sure not going to be looking over your boss's shoulder to make sure he's not screwing you over. Here's a run-down of the War on Women, in convenient digestible bits that hopefully won't interfere with that pregnancy you're working on.

1,100

Total number of reproductive rights-related laws introduced by state lawmakers in 2011.

604

Number of abortion and reproductive rights-related provisions introduced at the state level as of June 1.

8.2%

The US unemployment rate.

0

Number of jobs created by wasting time debating hundreds of reproductive rights-restricting laws.

408,425

Number of children who were in the US foster care system at the end of 2010.

96,772

Number of those children with caseworkers who said they were waiting to be adopted.

4,230

Number of adoptable foster children who would not have stadium seats if you tried to put all of them into the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.

25

United States' ranking on Save the Children's list of best countries for mothers.

0

Number of podium pounding speeches given by "pro-life" Congressional leaders on how embarrassing it is that the US has the fourth highest maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation.

Between $2 and $6

Amount of taxpayer money saved for every $1 spent on birth control.

$11 billion

Cost of unplanned pregnancies to the US taxpayer — per year.

$11.2 billion

Amount Broadway musicals contribute to New York City's economy per year.

$3.71 billion

Facebook's net revenues in 2011.

12 zillion

(Est.) Number of extremely irritating, almost Broadway musical-level overwrought debates Americans have gotten into about contraception on Facebook.

$270,000

Estimated cost of raising a child from birth to age 17 in the US.

$10,784

Average amount of additional income an American woman would earn annually if she were a man.

$431,360

Amount of money an American woman can expect to be stiffed out of during the duration of her working career.

$16,704

Amount a woman can expect to spend on birth control pills that cost $48 per month, if she takes them for the duration of her fertile years.

99%

Percentage of sexually active American women who will use birth control in their lifetimes.

Between $5,000 and $20,000

Average cost of childbirth in the US.

142

Number of advertisers who fled Rush Limbaugh's radio show after he called activist Sandra Fluke a "slut" and sarcastically suggested she perform in internet porn videos in exchange for taxpayer subsidized birth control.

142

Number of seconds a non-masochist can listen to Rush Limbaugh talk in that voice of his before they want to hire a man with meaty forearms to temporarily disable their sense of hearing.

72

Number of hours the state of South Dakota proposes women wait between receiving an ultrasound and having a legal medical procedure. That's 3 days.

72

Approximate number of hours that Christians believe elapsed between when Jesus was buried and when he rose from the dead.

0

Number of things Jesus said about abortion or zygotes.

47

Number of Senators who voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

0

Number of Republicans who voted in favor of the Paycheck Fairness Act

445

Number of elected legislators currently serving in the House or Senate who are men, out of 538 total.

55%

Proportion of immigrants to the US who are female.

3.5

Times more likely a Native American woman is to be victimized by domestic violence than a white woman.

221

Number of House Republicans who voted in favor of a version of the Violence Against Women Act that stripped protections for undocumented immigrant, Native, and LGBT women.

0

Difference in human-ness between an undocumented immigrant, a Native American woman, an LGBT woman and a straight white American woman with a passport.

http://jezebel.com/war-on-women/

55
Likely percentage of people in the US who can be counted on to vote against their own self-interest.

This is enough to make a woman cry, no less a feminist.

Sadly, it only received 4 reps.

Reminded me of this and it is quoted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ain't I A Woman by Sojourner Truth Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio, 1851

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."

Thank you for posting this.

Measure 3 defeated in North Dakota
 

According to NARAL - North Dakota voters defeated Measure 3, the anti-choice ballot initiative. What an amazing win!

North Dakota voters understood that freedom of religion is already protected in the U.S. Constitution. North Dakotans understood that this measure was dangerous. For example, it could have allowed a man to claim that domestic-violence and child-abuse laws don’t apply to him because his religion tells him he has the right to discipline his wife and children as he sees fit.

As we celebrate this victory, we cannot forget that Measure 3 is part of a much larger and dangerous strategy to take away women’s rights.

Remember the all-male panel that railed against birth control? The groups and politicians behind that panel also backed Measure 3. They’re pouring in millions of dollars to enact their extreme agenda to take away key rights and choices from women.

Remember, an attack on a woman’s right to choose in one state is an attack on a woman’s right to choose everywhere.

The Vagina Dialogue
 

After Saying ‘Vagina,’ a Woman Legislator is Banned From Speaking on House Floor....

Two women representatives were indefinitely barred from speaking during Michigan House debates yesterday by Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas during one debate about a highly contentious omnibus abortion bill.

One of the offenders, State Representative Barb Byrum (D), was barred for shouting at the presiding officer after he refused to give her the floor, despite her repeated requests to speak. The other barred representative, Lisa Brown (D), suspects that she is being punished for using the word “vagina.” At the end of an impassioned speech against the measure in question—which, among other provisions, bans all abortions after 20 weeks, without exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother—Brown said “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no.’” (See the video above for full remarks and reactions.)

Stamas hasn’t said what specifically offended him — only that the women did not maintain decorum on the floor — but Brown and her supporters argue that the majority leader was put off by her use of an “anatomically correct word.”

“Apparently, “vagina” is another v-word that Must Not Be Named. Like Voldemort,” Brown told Jezebel.com’s Gloria Erin Ryan.

Michigan Radio reports that “this is the first time in memory that lawmakers have been formally barred from participating in floor debates.”



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/15/...#ixzz1xwoKkpaf

Heads up fellow Catholics
 

From NARAL:

The men featured at the all-male panel attacking birth control are back. Starting Thursday for two weeks, the anti-choice United States Conference on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is organizing nationwide rallies as part of its “Fortnight for Freedom.”

There’s no question what the bishops hope to achieve with these rallies: pressure Congress to back down on requiring insurance companies to cover contraception without a copay.

During the “Fortnight for Freedom,” the bishops could send tens if not hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress. But that’s not the only way they are targeting birth control.

*They already organized more than 100 demonstrations across the country, featuring extreme anti-choice speakers like Rep. Michele Bachmann.

*The bishops have championed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the contraceptive-coverage policy from religiously affiliated institutions.

*The USCCB’s North Dakota affiliate backed Measure 3, a ballot initiative that, under the guise of religious freedom, would have allowed employers who oppose contraception to deny such coverage to their employees. Fortunately, North Dakota voters rejected Measure 3 by a wide margin last week.

These next two weeks will be critical. We can’t allow the bishops to mobilize without a challenge – but it’s going to take our massive people power to counter their millions of dollars.
---------

Time to keep in touch with your Congresspeople and make your views known.

Now, if you really want to get sick....read the following article which calls the HHS mandate one more momentous step in the "repaganization of the West".


---------


Preparing for a Fortnight for Freedom: A Short History Lesson

The American bishops have declared a “Fortnight for Freedom,” running the 14 days from June 21 (the Vigil of the Feast of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More) to July 4, Independence Day. “Culminating on Independence Day,” the bishops explain, “this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”

Well said. In that same spirit, here is a little history lesson to help prepare us for a Fortnight for Freedom.

First, current history. The Fortnight for Freedom was declared because President Obama is trying to force Catholic institutions, through a Health and Human Services mandate, to provide contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization through their insurance coverage.

And now for a little ancient history to put current events into the widest possible context. To truly see what’s at stake with Obama’s HHS mandate, you must go all the way back to ancient Rome, to the pagan empire into which Christianity was born.

We might think of contraception as something new, a modern thing, just as we think abortion was rare before Roe v. Wade. But that is historically as inaccurate as one could possibly get. The truth is this: contraception, abortion, and infanticide were widely practiced and entirely acceptable in all ancient cultures, including Rome. The acceptability was the result of attitudes toward sexuality. “In antiquity,” historian John Riddle notes, “the evidence suggests, sexual restraint was largely ignored; pagan religion normally did not attempt to regulate sexual activity. Free males could do almost anything sexually, even if they had to resort to slaves, with no moral or societal consequences to themselves.”

Elevating the goal of sexual satisfaction meant that babies were often considered unwanted side effects. Most ancient pagans saw nothing wrong with stopping babies from happening, and used a variety of contraceptive and abortifacient concoctions, ingested or applied, to accomplish this—everything from pomegranate peels, giant fennel, acacia gum, crushed juniper berries, cabbage flowers, date palm, rue, and myrrh, to crocodile dung. If all that failed, they had back-up plans to induce something like a modern-day abortion (hot baths, vigorous exercise, horseback riding, carrying heavy loads, bleeding, punching the stomach, more poisons). The final back-up was infanticide, usually by exposure.

The earliest Christians rejected the whole spectrum, from contraception to infanticide—and this is obviously an essential point for understanding the historical importance of the current standoff between Obama’s HHS and the Catholic bishops. We find their explicit rejection in the Didache, the first-century AD catechetical manual used in the house churches and directed at converts coming, not through Judaism, but from among the pagans.

Pagan converts were confronted with a list of commands in the Didache, including, “You will not have illicit sex” (ou porneuseis) and, “You will not murder offspring by means of abortion [and] you will not kill one having been born [i.e., infanticide].” The list also includes, “You will not make potions” (ou pharmakeuseis), a prohibition against the wide-scale use among pagans of potions intended as contraceptives and abortifacients.

St. Paul’s list of sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-20 is very interesting in this regard. The list begins with fornication or illicit sex (porneia), impurity, sensuality or lewdness, and idolatry, and then lists what is often translated as sorcery (pharmakeia). Sorcery and potion-making went together in the ancient world, and we cannot exclude the possibility that St. Paul (given the duplication of pharmakeia in the Didache) was intending to include makers of contraceptives and abortifacients.

Such prohibitions would have been more familiar to Jews than Roman pagans, but even the Jews, it seems, were not dead-set against the use of contraception. According to John Riddle, “While there is no mention of intentional abortion [via abortifacients] or contraception in the Old Testament, both practices are in the Talmud, Tosefta, and Mishnah.” More accurately, “rabbinic opinion was divided,” and even those that affirmed the use of contraception and abortifacients did so only under restricted conditions.

As with the command against adultery, the Christians intensified the Jewish prohibitions, and condemned all use of contraceptives and abortifacients, thereby setting themselves at the most complete odds with the accepted Roman pagan sexual practices. That is a very important point to make in regard to the HHS mandate: it means that Christianity alone is the historical cause of the moral prohibition against contraceptives and abortifacients.

But history attests not just this single, early prohibition. Following the lead of the Didache, we find contraception and abortion condemned by a string of eminent early churchmen: Athenagoras (c. 133-190), Clement (c. 150-215), Marcus Minucius Felix (c. 150-270), Jerome (c. 347-420), and John Chrysostom (347-407).

This condemnation continued as pagan Rome crumbled and Christendom emerged from its ruins. Bishop Caesarius of Arles condemned contraception and abortifacients in the early sixth century AD, and Abbot Regino, writing from Lorraine about 830 AD, asserted that if someone does something to stop childbearing, such as ingesting some potion so that no generation or conception can take place, “let it be held as homicide.” Ivo, bishop of Chartres from 1090 to 1115, brought these prohibitions against contraception, abortifacients, and abortion together, and his account was taken up by Peter Lombard in his Sentences (c. 1096-1164), which in turn was incorporated by Gratian in the 12th century into the Church’s canon law. Canon law formed the Church’s unified, authoritative approach to these issues, and this allowed church moral doctrine to influence and define the civil law of the West.

There is no other historical source for the laws against abortion that were struck down with a single blow by Roe v. Wade in 1972, and no other source for the laws against contraception that were struck down with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. And finally, there is no other source of the current antagonism created by the HHS mandate, demanding that that the Church violate its two-millennium-old condemnation of contraceptives and abortifacients.

When we put the HHS mandate into the larger historical framework, we realize something quite ominous about what’s really at stake. The HHS mandate is just one more momentous battle in the long struggle between Christians and pagans. For we in the West have been, for some time, undergoing what could quite accurately be called “repaganization.”

Repaganization? Yes. Over the last two centuries, our culture has become increasingly secularized. The Christian-based understanding of sexual purity that for so long had formed Western society has been largely abandoned by a kind of secular hedonism, with quite predictable effects. The release of sexual desire from Christian-based moral restrictions in the 19th and 20th century led immediately to the desire for contraception, abortion, and, as we’re seeing more and more, infanticide. As a result, Christians now find themselves in much the same situation as they were in ancient, pagan Rome: surrounded by an antagonistic, sexually-saturated pagan culture, demanding contraceptives, abortifacients, direct abortion, and infanticide to remove the unwanted “side-effects” of sexual libertinism. Our secularism looks suspiciously like ancient paganism.

The HHS mandate is a throwing down of the gauntlet by the new pagans. At issue is whether the enormous moral influence of Christianity, and Christianity itself, will be erased from history—that is, whether the seamless spectrum of “reproductive rights” cherished in ancient, pagan Rome will be re-imposed by the secular state.

The HHS mandate is not like Roe v Wade, which used raw judicial power to demand full access to the abortion-infanticide aspect of the pagan spectrum for those who desire it. It is not like Griswold, which used just as raw judicial power to remove the Christian hold on law, so that contraception would be freely available for those who desired it. It is the imperial state demanding that the Catholic Church must pick up the dagger and turn it against itself, and act against its own moral law, just as the ancient, pagan emperors demanded that, in order to save their lives, Christians must curse Christ, throw the Scriptures in the fire, and offer ritual sacrifice to the divinized emperor and the Roman gods.

With the HHS mandate, the secular state is moving from, “Christians, do what you like among yourselves, but don’t impose your moral views on us,” to, “Christians, you must now do what we like—or else.”

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...ry_lesson.aspx

Repulsive
 

Quick way to tell your senators and house representatives not to block
abortion access for raped, female, soldiers who fight for our democracy...
democracy? equality and justice for all?

http://www.credoaction.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-rape-abortion
Stop the House from blocking abortion access for raped soldiers.

This is shocking, even for our U.S. Congress.

If a female employee of the U.S. State Department is raped while serving abroad in Afghanistan, her federal health plan will pay for an abortion should she become pregnant. However if a woman serving abroad as a member of the U.S. military is raped, her military health plan will NOT provide for an abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of that violent and reprehensible act.

According to a recent report from Mother Jones,1 the Pentagon has an even more drastic policy on access to abortion than the Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal funds for abortion care unless a woman has been the victim of rape, incest or she could literally die unless she her pregnancy is terminated.

This disparity is so unsettling that the Senate Armed Services Committee recently passed a proposal that would fix this loophole in federal law on a rare bipartisan vote. But the extremists in Congress will almost certainly strip this proposal from the National Defense Authorization Act when it comes up for a vote in the House. The only way we can hope to stop it is with massive public pushback.

Tell Republicans and anti-choice Democrats in the House: Don't block abortion access for raped soldiers

According to Kate Sheppard's report in Mother Jones,2 there are 200,000 women serving on active duty in our military and in 2011 alone there were 471 reported instances of rape. But with the Pentagon itself estimating that only 13.5% of rapes are officially reported, that means around 3,500 service members are raped per year.

Women who are serving on military bases abroad can't simply go to their local Planned Parenthood should they seek an abortion after finding themselves pregnant as a result of rape. And if there hasn't been a formal finding of rape, a rape survivor in the military can't even pay to have the procedure done in the medical facility on base. Many women serving in our armed forces are stationed in foreign countries where safe abortion care is not easily obtained outside our military bases. And it may not be possible or affordable for a raped woman soldier to travel to the United States in order to receive the care she needs. Our policies need to be reformed to ensure that women in the military who have been raped have access to the medical care they need.

As Senator Jean Shaheen who introduced the proposal change to this heinous policy explained to Mother Jones, "Most of the women affected here are enlisted women who are making about $18,000 a year. They're young, they don't have access to a lot of resources. Many of them are overseas."

Tell Republicans and anti-choice Democrats in the House: Don't block abortion access for raped soldiers.

A handful of Republicans in the Senate realized that protecting rape survivors is not a partisan issue and joined Democrats to pass this bill out of committee and work to provide relief to women in our armed services. But their colleagues in the House will not join them in helping to pass this much needed bill unless we force them to take action. We need to tell Republicans as well as anti-choice Democrats in the House (including the so-called Stupak Democrats who voted against women's reproductive health in the Affordable Care Act)3 that we cannot let this policy stand.

CREDO is a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose and we will continue to work for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. But until then, even in our polarized Congress which is packed with anti-choice zealots, there are some lines that Republicans and anti-choice Democrats should be very afraid to cross. This is one of them. We cannot stand by and let women serving in the U.S. military be subjected to a stricter standard for abortion access than the already horribly restrictive Hyde Amendment.

This is one we can win if enough of us speak out. Thank you for taking action.

1 House GOP Blocking Abortion Access for Raped Soldiers, Mother Jones, June 13, 2012.
2ibid.
3Many Previously Pro-Choice Dems Voted for Stupak Amendment, FiveThirtyEight.com, November 9, 2009

Mississippi's only abortion clinic may be forced to close July 1st.
 

From the Center for Reproductive Rights today:

In three days, Mississippi becomes the first state in the country with no abortion clinic.

We just got word that the Mississippi Department of Health is forcing Jackson Women's Health Organization, the last remaining abortion clinic in the state, to immediately comply with a ridiculous new law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

To date, none of the highly qualified doctors who regularly provide abortions at the clinic have been granted those privileges.

This unreasonable law puts women's lives in danger and deprives them of their constitutionally-protected right to decide whether and when to carry a pregnancy to term.

Right now, thousands of women travel from all corners of the state, and beyond, to reach the clinic. If Jackson Women's Health Organization has to shut down, you and I know that women won't stop seeking abortions. Instead, they'll be forced to travel out of state to the nearest clinic or they'll turn to unsafe options putting their health and even their lives at risk.

But the lawmakers responsible for this callous law don't care about women or the resulting hardships. In fact, State Representative Sam Mims, the sponsor of the law, was quoted by the New York Times saying, "If this abortion clinic is closed, I think it's a great day for Mississippi." Gov. Phil Bryant similarly said, "If [the law] closes that clinic, then so be it."

The Center stands with the women of Mississippi and refuses to return to the dark days of back alley abortions.

What's happening in Mississippi is an injustice. The Center for Reproductive Rights is fighting back because women have a fundamental right to make decisions about their health and futures.

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/fai...heck%20Act.pdf

We as women need to stand up for women and stop the crap that is happening. It's sickening to see these things happening.

We are women here us roar!

The victory and the fallout.......
 

From the Center for Reproductive Rights:

The news out of Washington today is excellent for women across the United States.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act is a victory for all Americans—securing constitutional protection for the greatest step forward for women's reproductive health in decades.

The preventive benefits advanced under the law represent vital progress toward the fulfillment of a fundamental right to affordable reproductive health care for all women. By broadening access to affordable care, the law reinforces every woman's right to make her own decisions about her family, her future, and her reproductive health.

President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law two years ago and initiated a set of rules that vastly expand women's access to copay-free preventive health care—including contraception, cancer screenings, HIV testing, well-woman visits, prenatal and post-partum care and counseling, and other essential services.

The act also bars the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions—including those unique to women, such as pregnancy.

Not surprisingly, the opponents of reproductive rights are furious about today's decision. The anti-choice group Americans United for Life just launched an alert rallying their supporters to "sustain the attack against tax-payer funded abortion." They've created the "Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act"—which eight states have already used to block insurance plans currently covering abortion from receiving federal funding in their state exchanges.

We will continue to fight back hard against their attacks, and we will continue our work with those who support this advancement for women's health to ensure robust and far-reaching access to affordable, essential health care for all American women.

There's still a long road ahead of us, but today we have won a landmark victory that will set the stage for the still greater progress we are working tirelessly to secure.

US judge temporarily blocks Miss. abortion law
 

JACKSON, Miss.—A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Mississippi law that could shut down the only abortion clinic in the state.

U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan in Jackson issued a temporary restraining order the day the new law took effect.

He set a July 11 hearing to determine whether to block the law for a longer time.

"Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow," Jordan wrote.

The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state's only clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business. A clinic spokeswoman, Betty Thompson, has said the two physicians who do abortions there are OB-GYNs who travel from other states.

The clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the law. The suit says the admitting privileges requirement is not medically necessary and is designed to put the clinic out of business.

If Jackson Women's Health Organization closes, Mississippi would be the only state without an abortion clinic.

When Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the law, House Bill 1390, he said he wants Mississippi to be "abortion-free."

"Gov. Bryant believes HB 1390 is an important step in strengthening abortion regulations and protecting the health and safety of women," Bryant spokesman Mick Bullock said in a statement Sunday night. "The federal judge's decision is disappointing, and Gov. Bryant plans to work with state leaders to ensure this legislation properly takes effect as soon as possible."

In the order, Jordan wrote: "Plaintiffs have offered evidence -- including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers -- that the Act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted."

Jordan also wrote that Jackson Women's Health Organization is "the only regular provider of abortions in Mississippi, and as of the Act's effective date, JWHO cannot comply with its requirements."

The Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, helped file the lawsuit for the Mississippi clinic. The center's president and CEO, Nancy Northup, said in statement Sunday: "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years.

"The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi," Northup said. "Their hostility toward women, reproductive health care providers, and the rights of both would unquestionably put the lives and health of countless women at risk of grave harm."

Republican Rep. Sam Mims of McComb, who sponsored the new law, said it is designed to protect the health of every woman who has an abortion.

"We know for a fact that this is a serious procedure," Mims said in an interview Sunday. "Women can have complications."

Mississippi physicians who perform fewer than 10 abortions a month can avoid having their offices regulated as an abortion clinic, and thus avoid restrictions in the new law. The Health Department said it doesn't have a record of how many physicians perform fewer than 10 abortions a month. Clinic operators say almost all the abortions in the state are done in their building.

The clinic says if it closes, most women would have to go out of state to terminate a pregnancy -- something that could create financial problems for people in one of the poorest states in the nation. From Jackson, it's about a 200-mile drive to clinics in New Orleans; Mobile, Ala.; or Memphis, Tenn.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...--+Latest+news

In new abortion battle, Planned Parenthood sues Arizona
 

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Planned Parenthood sued the state of Arizona on Monday in an effort to overturn a law that blocks funding for its health clinics because the organization also performs abortions.

The law, signed by Governor Jan Brewer in May, is part of a national campaign against Planned Parenthood orchestrated by conservative Republican lawmakers who oppose abortions. In the past two years, 13 states have taken steps to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and the organization has filed lawsuits in six of them, including Arizona.

Planned Parenthood says abortions account for only 3 percent of its services, which include cancer screening and birth control.

"It is wrong for the state to tell Arizonans who they can and cannot see for their healthcare. The men and women of this state have the right to see the healthcare provider they deem is best for them," said Bryan Howard, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood Arizona.

The group, whose legal team for the case includes the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Arizona, according to Planned Parenthood.

"Governor Brewer is confident in the constitutionality of this law and confident it will be upheld by the court," Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said.

Planned Parenthood has won injunctions in five states -- Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas -- arguing that it is being punished for providing constitutionally protected services and that women's access to preventive healthcare is being blocked.

The lawsuit challenging the Arizona law is the latest salvo in trench warfare between conservative Republicans and Planned Parenthood across the country.

"We're in court and in legislatures in almost every state in the country," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "It has just gotten crazy. This is what I hear from women -- Republican women, independent women all over the country: They cannot believe that the Republican Party leadership is on a crusade to end birth-control access in America."

A DIFFERENT ERA

The issue of reproductive rights was not always a partisan one, as the history of Planned Parenthood in Arizona shows. Peggy Goldwater, the wife of conservative icon Barry Goldwater, the U.S. senator and 1964 Republican presidential nominee, was a co-founder of Phoenix's Planned Parenthood in the 1930s.

Some years later, when Peggy's college-age daughter Joanne became pregnant before she was ready to have a family, it was Barry Goldwater who arranged an abortion, Joanne Goldwater said.

In those days before the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling made abortion legal, Joanne Goldwater had to stand on a street corner waiting for a van to take her to a remote house, where the procedure was done on a table, she said.

"I will absolutely never forget that as long as I live," Joanne Goldwater said. "That night was just imprinted in my mind. I wouldn't want any young person to have to go through it. It was a traumatic experience for me."

Joanne Goldwater's daughter CC Goldwater, a political independent, has continued the family tradition and serves as a trustee of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.

"To see the funding be taken away -- it's just ignorance; it's unbelievable," said Barry Goldwater's granddaughter.

A FACTOR IN NOVEMBER?

Activists have recently broadened their focus beyond restricting access to abortion to cutting funds for family planning. They say it is not right to force taxpayers to send money to Planned Parenthood because it is impossible to separate its family planning services from the abortions it provides.

"Legislators want to enact policies that protect taxpayers from subsidizing the abortion industry," said Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life. "They've sent a clear message to Planned Parenthood or any other agency that provides abortion: Stop doing abortion, and you can have all the health-care dollars you want."

Planned Parenthood oversees a network of nearly 800 clinics offering birth control, gynecological exams and care for sexually transmitted diseases. It gets almost half its revenue, $488 million in 2010, from government grants and reimbursements for services to low-income women. It is the nation's largest provider of abortions, but it says only about 12 percent of Planned Parenthood patients receive abortions.

Last year, Republicans unsuccessfully tried to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood.

The issue has not been prominent in the presidential election campaign, but Mark Jones, chairman of the political science department at Rice University in Houston, said that could change in the run-up to November.

Romney is fighting an uphill battle to win the votes of white women, and if Planned Parenthood and others succeed in persuading women that abortion rights are threatened, he said, some voters could turn out who otherwise would not vote.

"He's much better off if economic issues are highlighted rather than social issues," Jones said.

Planned Parenthood and its supporters say the latest assault threatens to leave low-income people without access to cancer screenings and birth control. It is fighting back by raising money, beefing up its legal team and campaigning against state and federal candidates such as Romney.

STATE-BY-STATE STRATEGY

The Arizona law challenged by Planned Parenthood on Monday could mean that almost 3,000 Medicaid patients receiving birth control and other preventive care at Planned Parenthood will no longer be eligible, said Howard of Planned Parenthood Arizona, who is a Republican. The law is scheduled to take effect August 2.

The lawsuit comes less than a week after the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union in Phoenix filed a lawsuit challenging another Arizona law that bans most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The 20-week limit is based on controversial research suggesting a fetus feels pain by that stage of development.

Abortion opponents have long wanted to target Planned Parenthood, but until recently it was not politically feasible, said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington, D.C., group that works to elect anti-abortion candidates.

"No one wanted to be perceived as being against family planning," said Dannenfelser, who said her group co-wrote model state legislation that was the basis for the Arizona law. "Any effort to defund (Planned Parenthood) was doomed to fail."

That changed in 2010, after anti-abortion Republicans swept federal and state elections. Richards said Planned Parenthood's state and federal battles stem from a proposal by U.S. Representative Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican who last year spearheaded an unsuccessful effort to strip funding for Planned Parenthood from the federal budget. Pence is the Republican nominee for governor of Indiana in the November election.

Pence's proposal followed the release of videos by an anti-abortion group that showed Planned Parenthood workers agreeing to help underage prostitutes get abortions. Planned Parenthood has said the videos were deceptively edited but that it would retain its staff.

Pence's campaign made it politically acceptable to attack Planned Parenthood, Dannenfelser said.

"There was a low rumbling that got louder. There was a tipping point, and now there is great momentum," she said.

There is momentum on Planned Parenthood's side, too.

In the past year it has gained more than 1.5 million supporters, financial and otherwise, Richards said.

At the end of May, Planned Parenthood Action Fund announced its endorsement of Obama and said it would spend more than $1.4 million on an anti-Romney ad campaign.

"We're going to make sure every woman in America knows where candidates stand," Richards said. "What we have seen consistently is that when a politician says they're going to get rid of Planned Parenthood, women don't support them."

During the 2010 election, Planned Parenthood political and advocacy organizations spent more than $900,000 on federal elections, mostly through ads benefiting Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Anti-abortion groups vow to keep the pressure on Planned Parenthood by scouring state budgets to identify and try to eliminate tax dollars for the group.

"We're making sure that we've found all the money, and we'll take it away if there's any left," said Texas Right to Life director Graham.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/abortion-ba...003707537.html

Win!................


http://jezebel.com/5926838/judge-dis...igious-freedom

They flipping make my head spin around!

Religious freedom my ass. A Nixon appointee no less! Tricky Dicky was good for something!

How about separation of church and state?? It does not appear to exist any more to me but this is indeed a win Corkey. Thanks for posting it.

Sadly, I am grateful for each little legal crumb women get these days.

Health-Spending Bill FY13 Continues its War on Women
 

From NARAL today:

Anti-choice House leadership unveiled its FY’13 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.

Under the chairmanship of anti-choice Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), the bill would eliminate programs that help millions of Americans get contraception and other basic health care. How does the bill do it?

This bill includes a long list of anti-choice attacks on women's reproductive health. Taken together, this legislation is highly dangerous to Americans' reproductive health.

* Eliminates Title X Family-Planning Program. Title X (ten) is the nation's cornerstone family-planning program for low-income women. Currently, this program receives $297 million. The House bill recommends zero dollars.

* Attacks Planned Parenthood. This bill tries yet again to disqualify Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funds. For many women, Title X clinics provide the only basic health care that they receive; if enacted, the provision would devastate the nation's family-planning network and leave many women without access to medical care. Thankfully, such attempts have been resoundingly defeated.

* Cuts Affordable Care Act Funding. This bill forbids any funds in the legislation from being used to implement the Affordable Care Act.

* Funds Failed "Abstinence-Only" Programs. This bill cuts funding for teen-pregnancy-prevention initiatives and redirects those funds into failed "abstinence-only" programs.

* Blocks Access to Critical Health Services. The bill would allow any health plan or employer nationwide to refuse to provide any benefit required under the Affordable Care Act. Among other effects, this provision would essentially gut the administration's contraceptive-coverage policy, similar to the Blunt amendment that failed in the Senate in March.

* Refusal Laws Expanded. The bill includes the bulk of the text of H.R.361, which would have the effect of broadening the organizations that are allowed to refuse abortion care and, specifically, training to include hospitals, HMOs, and insurance companies. This provision also would make permanent the Federal Refusal Clause.

These policies are way out of touch with our nation's values and priorities, and they put women's health in jeopardy.

Time to check in with your rep and let them know how you feel about this.

Judge upholds Arizona late term abortion ban
 

PHOENIX (Reuters) - A federal judge refused on Monday to block an Arizona law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, saying it does not impose a "substantial obstacle" to the procedure, and cleared the way for the statute to take effect on Thursday.

The ruling marked a stinging legal defeat for abortion-rights advocates who cited the Arizona law as the most extreme example of late-term abortion prohibitions enacted in more than half a dozen states, and they vowed to immediately appeal the decision.

U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled that the measure, passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed into law in April by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, was consistent with the standards that federal courts have set on limits to late-term abortions.

The statute was challenged this month by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights in a lawsuit believed to be the first court case of its kind against late-term abortion bans, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

Under the Arizona law, physicians found in violation of the ban would face a misdemeanor criminal charge and possible suspension or revocation of their licenses.

Teilborg said Arizona's law "does not impose a substantial obstacle" to abortions generally and that Arizona had the right to enact such a measure.

The Arizona statute bars doctors from performing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in the case of a medical emergency, a circumstance critics say is defined more narrowly than exemptions permitted by other states with similar laws.

The Arizona ban provides an exemption only in cases in which an "immediate" abortion is required to avert death or risk of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

Late-term bans elsewhere, by comparison, generally allow an abortion when the mother's life or health would otherwise be in jeopardy, abortion-rights advocates say.

The judge denied a request by the plaintiffs for a court injunction blocking the law's implementation and threw out the case on its merits.

The opponents of the law said they would file an emergency appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a last-ditch bid to keep the ban from being implemented.

"This law forces a sick, pregnant woman to wait until she is on the brink of disaster before her doctor can provide her medically appropriate care," said Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Arizona.

Brewer said in a statement that she was pleased that the court ruling would allow "common sense restrictions" to be put on the state's books.

"I recognize that the issue of abortion remains a controversial one. With the Mother's Health and Safety Act, I'm hopeful most Arizonans can find common ground," she said.

The suit was thought to mark the first court test brought by physicians against similar abortion restrictions that have surfaced in a growing number of states since Republicans gained greater statehouse clout in the November 2010 elections, according to the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Although late-term abortions remain relatively rare, six states have put laws into effect in the past two years banning them, based on hotly debated medical research suggesting that a fetus feels pain starting at 20 weeks of gestation. North Carolina enacted its own such ban decades ago.

Arizona and two other states - Georgia and Louisiana - have enacted similar bans that have not yet taken effect, the Center for Reproductive Rights said.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 but allowed states to place restrictions on the procedure from the time when a fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, except when a woman's health was at risk.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-clear...015339507.html

Romney vp choice is an anti-choice extremist
 

From NARAL:

Just this morning, Mitt Romney announced his choice for his vice presidential running mate: Anti-choice extremist Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Anti-choice forces are thrilled with Ryan, and it's no wonder why:

During his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ryan cast 59 votes on abortion and other reproductive rights issues. He voted anti-choice each and every time.

Ryan repeatedly voted for and cosponsored the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services, endangers women's health, and carries a two-year prison sentence for doctors.

Ryan is outspoken about his anti-choice beliefs:

"I'm as pro-life as a person gets. You're not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they're unavoidable, and I'm never going to not vote pro-life."

Tenn. abortion clinic closes, citing new state law
 

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A new Tennessee law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals is being blamed for the closure of a longtime Tennessee abortion provider.

An executive director of the Abortion Care Network confirmed to The Tennessean (http://tnne.ws/S1m8aL ) that the Volunteer Women's Medical Center in Knoxville recently closed its doors.

The clinic had been operating for 38 years.

Executive Director Deb Walsh posted a public letter on the Abortion Care Network website saying the clinic was unable to keep operating in part due to the "Life Defense Act," which requires abortion physicians to obtain admitting privileges at area hospitals.

Walsh said while working on legal remedies, the clinic was unable to pay its bills because it could not see patients.

She said one of the clinics physicians had successfully obtained privileges, but recently died.

http://news.yahoo.com/tenn-abortion-...79.html?_esi=1

Obama On Todd Akin: 'Rape Is Rape'


In a surprise news conference Monday, President Barack Obama addressed the controversy surrounding a remark by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) that women who suffer "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant.

"The views expressed were offensive," said Obama. "Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me. So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."


The comments are the most high profile in a series of rebukes from both Democrats and Republicans. Earlier in the day, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney also condemned Akin, who is running to unseat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Obama did not call on Akin to leave the race, as some Republicans have done. "He was nominated by the Republicans in Missouri," he said, "I will let them sort that out." He did, however, use the opportunity to contrast his approach toward women's health care with that of the GOP.

"Although these particular comments have led Governor Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions, or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape, I think those are broader issues," Obama said. "And that is a significant difference in approach between me and the other party."

Unfortunately the GOP machinery has been at work and it looks like Akin is going to "pull out" of the race. I say unfortunate because he had pretty much guaranteed a win for the Democratic candidate.

Now, it is stories like this one that make me shake my head and wonder how any woman could possibly vote GOP and reconcile that choice.


Reports: Akin Advisers Make Preparations For Withdrawal Tomorrow

David Axelrod: Todd Akin's Comments Are 'Inconvenient' For Romney-Ryan, 'Not Inconsistent'

/snip
He predicted that the public would find the remarks even more distasteful once it became widely known that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), teamed up with Akin on strict anti-abortion measures.


"When you look at who Akin's partner was on all the anti-choice legislation, it was Paul Ryan," said Axelrod. "When you look at the legislation that would limit a women's right to choose, even for victims of rape and incest, that is the Akin-Ryan position. And frankly, by endorsing personhood amendments ... Romney has gone there too. This is the prevailing position of the Republican Party."

"I think they find Todd Akin's comment terribly inconvenient," Axelrod said. "It is very inopportune. But they are certainly not inconsistent, when Ryan joined with him and tried to limit the definition of rape to forcible rape. What does that mean? They are trying to run away from what has been their own position and yet, while Akin's proposition was particularly egregious and outrageous, on the underlining principle of whether you are going to limit a woman's right to choose, and how rape victims are dealt with and how they would approach this issue, they are very much in line with him."

Obama for America spokeswoman Lis Smith released the following statement:

“While Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are working overtime to distance themselves from Rep. Todd Akin’s comments on rape, they are contradicting their own records. Mr. Romney supports the Human Life Amendment, which would ban abortion in all instances, even in the case of rape and incest. In fact, that amendment is a central part of the Republican Party’s platform that is being voted on tomorrow. And, as a Republican leader in the House, Mr. Ryan worked with Mr. Akin to try to pass laws that would ban abortion in all cases, and even narrow the definition of ‘rape.’ Every day, women across America grapple with difficult and intensely personal health decisions—decisions that should ultimately be between a woman and her doctor. These decisions are not made any easier when Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan treat women’s health as a matter of partisan politics.”

For real. I don't get it either.

So completely horrifying. And yet, not at all surprising. More confirmation of what we already know to be the tenor of all manner of brutality towards women.

xojane