You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (70)

PLAYS: (215)

November 18, 2009 C-SPAN Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice

From Air America's blog--Al Franken Takes On Eric Holder Over Rape Kit Backlogs:

But Franken, staying true to his welcome focus on women's issues, asked Holder what Justice is doing about the immense backlog of untested rape kits, which can often yield DNA evidence that allows the police and prosecutors to close cases. Congress provided money under the Debbie Smith Rape Kit Backlog Reduction Act in 2004 and 2008 to reduce those backlogs, but there is no reliable database of how many rape kits haven't been tested and major backlogs remain in many errors.

And from Sen. Franken--Remarks By Sen. Franken to the Innocence Project:

The work of the Innocence Project has already led to 245 post-conviction DNA exonerations. And in four out of every ten of those exonerated, DNA testing identified the actual perpetrator.

When you consider that you’ve only looked at a small subset of all of the cases out there, the conclusion is pretty clear: there are innocent people in prison and on death row, and guilty people walking the streets.

The former should weigh heavy on our conscience. Both should be a cause for concern… and action.

Some people think efforts to exonerate the wrongly convicted are somehow soft on crime. I think it’s just the opposite – your efforts are not just morally right, they’re tactically smart – they help us ensure that innocent people are not wrongly incarcerated while the actual perpetrators walk free to commit more crimes.

There’s a lot of debate in progressive circles about what has changed under the Obama administration, and what hasn’t. But one thing has certainly changed: We have a government that believes in science once again.

Believing in science means acting on what the science tells you.

So what does the science tell us when it comes to crime?

Well, this February, the National Academy of Sciences released their comprehensive, two-year review of forensic science in use throughout American crime labs.

They concluded, and I’m quoting:

“Many forensic tests… have never been exposed to stringent scientific scrutiny. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis… no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”

I participated in the hearing where those findings were released, and as we questioned witnesses, what became clear is that there have been many false convictions based on improper, or at best ineffective, forensic techniques.

And that tells us we need to reassess how our criminal justice system does business.

Continue reading...

Heather: As Megan Carpenter noted Sen. Franken pressed A.G. Eric Holder about the number of non-violent offenders incarcerated in America every year and stayed true to form with caring about women's issues. Everyone from Minnesota should be very proud to have Al Franken as their Senator with the good work he's doing.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (797)

PLAYS: (1576)

Peggy Noonan thinks she knows what's good for Democrats and that this Stupak-Pitts abortion amendment is somehow good for the party—but only in a “funny, little political way”. How quaint of you Peggy to be so completely dismissive of what the real life impact of that amendment passing would actually mean to the lives of women, especially those with low incomes that are the least capable of doing anything to fight back against what’s happening but most likely to be impacted by it.

Noonan had this bit of condescending wisdom to share with all of us on this weekend’s edition of The Chris Matthews Show.

Matthews: Peggy every four years the Democrats meet and write a platform and it says pro-choice, abortion rights, but you know a third of the Democratic people in this country, who vote Democrat are pro-life. Did they ever, ever have a plan here to bring them all together?—because that’s what they have to do.

Noonan: I don’t know if they had a plan but I’ll tell you in a purely political sense, for the Democratic Party to shake off for the first time in like 35 years the general understanding that they are the pro-choice and you cannot be pro-life and be in this party—it hurts the Democratic Party—everybody always said it hurt the Republicans to be pro-life. It hurt the Democrats to be rigidly pro-choice—to not let pro-life people speak at their conventions etc. In a funny, little political way this is a benefit to the Democratic Party that, that pro-life people have a serious place at the table at this moment. It’s good for them.

What’s pathetic is that religion is allowed to be used at all to get working people to vote against their own economic interests and that people don’t have the sense to see past that. And if Peggy Noonan thinks that it is acceptable to call any aspect of this debate “funny” or “little”, she needs to go read Digby’s post from last week-Goldilocks Was Betrayed:

In case you are wondering about the real life effects of playing cheap politics with pregnancy, read this. And this. Contra McGaskill and Tweety, who are misinformed about just about everything, this is actually a big deal. This amendment doesn't just punish Lord Saletan's little sluts. All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. Click those links for what that means in real life.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1496)

PLAYS: (3499)

Rachel Maddow runs down the list for us of C-Street family members who also voted for Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment yesterday. Nothing like having what amounts to a secretive religious cult making health care policy for women in the United States. As Rachel noted that list includes:

Rep. Bart Stupak D-MI
Rep. Joe Pitts R-PA
Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO
Rep. Mike McIntyre D-NC
Rep. John Tanner D-TN
Rep. Lincoln Davis D-TN
Rep. Dan Boren D-OK
Rep. Heath Shuler D-NC

Jeff Sharlet joined Rachel to discuss The C-Street Family's ever growing influence within the Democratic Party.

Maddow: What are Congressman Stupak and Congressman Pitts’ connections to C-Street and The Family? Is one of them more deeply involved than the other?

Sharlet: Yeah, well Congressman Pitts has been involved with The Family since 1976 and in the 1980’s he was instrumental in bringing anti-abortion politics into this kind of elite fundamentalism that until that point had been focused on economics and foreign affairs. Bart Stupak meanwhile has been living at C-Street since at least 2002 when he told the Los Angeles Times “we kind of don’t talk about what happens here”.

Maddow: Are there signs that The Family had anything to do with the Stupak-Pitts amendment? I mean this is quite a legislative coup that they’ve pulled off.

Sharlet: Well, you have to consider that Congressman Pitts is what The Family calls a core member. This is a little like being on the board of directors. You can go on line and find video of him talking about the objectives of the group is to create a god led government. He has worked over the years to prevent not only abortion but AIDS education overseas and so this has been a life-long project for him going back years and years and years. Stupak is a little bit newer to this issue and I think what you really have to question here is Pitts who’s been active in this for a long time and was bringing up these amendments I think in Stupak and his brother in The Family as it was called, found a Democrat to carry the issue for him.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1706)

PLAYS: (2225)

Dr. Nancy Snyderman sums up how a lot of us feel about this absolutely horrid Stupak amendment. No, it's not fair and it is outrageous. It's bad enough we've got one party that wants to keep women living in the 1950's. We don't need two. And we don't need the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops writing legislation for Democrats.

Snyderman: Kelly I must admit this one caught me by surprise because I thought the public option was going to be the real rallying cry for Saturday. Because the Hyde amendment was in place over the summer we kept saying no federal money spent on abortions, and then the Stupak came in, really tightening the chance for a woman’s right to choose. Clarify for me.

O’Donnell: Yes, this issue has been bubbling under the surface for quite a while now and those who have strong views about abortion rights have been paying attention but you’re right, more generally we’ve been focused on the public option. What this would do is restrict the ability to have insurance coverage pay for abortion services. Now looking at the House plan it would create a public option and a market place that they call the exchange which would basically be a menu of insurance plans that people could choose from and if any of those plans take federal money or if as an individual you receive federal subsidies you would not be able to get abortion coverage. One alternative is to be able to purchase what they call a rider, an extra sort of mini-insurance plan specifically targeted for covering abortion services. But women, especially on the progressive side really stood up against that and said that would really require women to anticipate someday having the need for an abortion and they really strongly oppose that. But this amendment passed.

Why? Well certainly it had Republican support because you have a stronger abortion opposition on the Republicans side, but among Democrats there is a group that really feels strongly about abortion rights as well and they wanted to make very clear that no federal money could in any way be traced to abortion services and they had a lot of pressure from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who wanted to see health care pass but wanted to be certain that no federal money would be in any way connected with to the potential for abortion services. So this really became a hot-button issue over the weekend and as you mentioned the Hyde amendment which goes back thirty years, which prohibits federal money being used for abortion with the exception of rape, incest or life of the mother, this now brings it into the issue of insurance coverage and even private plans if people get help from the government to pay for that insurance, they would be subject to this new rule.

Snyderman: Kelly, you know what I find so infuriating about this? I mean, absolutely infuriating? And this isn't about being pro-choice or pro-abortion or any of the hot button lingo. We know women pay more for insurance than men. We know women are restricted in the states. And now it's basically, if you're a 50 year old woman and you're in a monogamous relationship you suddenly find yourself pregnant, you better know that have an abortion rider in order to access health care that you thought you had? It is one more pressure on women. I mean, I'm surprised that frankly there isn't more outrage over the fact that ...this isn't fair!

O'Donnell: What you're voicing is what woman after woman on the Democrat side, the progressive side of the party, said on the House floor. They came out one after another, speaking in very strong terms against this amendment. The amendment did pass despite their objections. And they really said it puts, as you describe it so pressure on women to anticipate a need for something that is a very difficult personal experience—there are a lot moral implications. It's not an easy situation for any woman and to now ask them to plan ahead for the potential and to buy an extra policy, those who oppose this amendment say that is simply too much. Nancy.

Snyderman: A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous—just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much.

And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system. Before I blow my top, time to turn to Monica Novotny at the news desk. Monica, get me out of here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (56)

PLAYS: (85)

Clair McCaskill appeared on Morning Joe today to talk about the health care bill that just passed the House and what's next for the Senate. When asked to respond to Rachel Maddow’s comments on Meet the Press that the Stupak amendment is a poison pill that will lose a lot of support for Democrats by women if the amendment is not taken out in conference, Clair McCaskill said this.

McCaskill: Well, I am not sure that it is. Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. but we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has any coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government. The vast majority of America are going to continue to get their insurance at the workplace just like they do now.

And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill, and frankly, once again, this is an example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate.

Since when does “moderate” have to mean anti-choice? Here’s McCaskill’s contact information if you’re as unhappy about this as I am.

Apparently some House progressives aren't going to stand for this as well as Sam Stein reports at the Huffington Post:

If, indeed, the Stupak language makes it into the Senate bill, it would be a major blow to pro-choice advocates. It would also seemingly ensure that the restrictions on abortion access would survive conference committee with the House and end up in the final piece of legislation. If that is the case it sets up a major showdown, once again, in the people's chamber. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), for one, has insisted she and 40 additional colleagues will oppose any final bill that includes the Stupak amendment.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette told The Washington Post. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

Update: Well what do you know. Looks like Sen. McCaskill may be having a change of heart from this morning.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1419)

PLAYS: (822)

Well isn't this lovely? 64 Democrats decided to sell out women's health with this horrid vote.

Final vote tally 240-194 with Shadegg voting present.

Word is it will be stripped out in committee. We'll see. I agree with Rayne over at FDL--Stupak Amendment Passes; 64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents.

Final roll call for the Stupak amendment with the yeas and nays here.

And here's the roll call for the final bill. Ayes 220 with one Republican, Cao, voting yes, noes 215.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (866)

PLAYS: (1912)

Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News Sunday this week and when asked by Chris Wallace if his thesis he wrote back in 1989 was advocating a "radical agenda", McDonnell did his best to downplay it.

Wallace: You enjoyed according to the polls, a solid lead in this race until it was revealed that in 1989 you wrote a master’s thesis in which you said, and let’s put up some of the things on the screen, this has obviously been a big issue here in Virginia-- The new trend of working women and feminism that is ultimately detrimental to the family. You criticize tax credits for child care. And you even opposed a Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for married couples. Mr. McDonnell, isn’t that a pretty radical agenda?

McDonnell: No. I think those are a couple of quotes out of a 100-page document, Chris, and what the whole purpose of the, of the thesis was to say, look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.

Look, it’s been twenty years ago and some of my views over time have changed. I strongly support women in the work force. That was one of the criticisms my opponent made. My daughter’s been in Iraq, my daughters both work, my wife is working and outside the home, I mean… those allegations that I think have been inferences from a quote or two out of an old thesis is simply not accurate.

Wallace: But if I may, your opponent says and I’m going to represent his interests here because he’s not here to speak for himself, that it isn’t just what you wrote twenty years ago when you were age 34 in a master’s thesis, that you have followed these as a state legislator. Let’s put up an ad that Creigh Deeds is running.

After playing the clip Wallace points out McDonnell's voting record.

Wallace: In face we checked the record. As a legislator you voted against a resolution that would have called for ending wage discrimination based on gender. You voted against extending child care services and you voted against extending or requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control. So it’s not just a thesis.

McDonnell’s defense… "You have to look at my entire record" and he claims that many of the ads run against him are “outright lies” and are not honest, but he does not say just what those distortions are. Of course Wallace doesn’t follow up and make him give specifics as to what he disagrees with in the ads. That said I think when even Chris Wallace is calling you "radical", that's not a good sign for what the voters are going to think as they learn more about this guy.

This is good news, because public policy is far too often made by men who are oblivious of the effect on women:

In his latest gesture on women's issues, President Obama signed an executive order this afternoon creating a White House Council on Women and Girls.

“The purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy,” Obama said in a statement. “My administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people. I am confident that Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen will guide the Council wisely as its members address these important issues.”

The council, the White House says, "will provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families."

It will be led by close Obama adviser and friend Valerie Jarrett.

"I sign this order not just as president, but also as a son, a grandson, a husband and a father, because growing up, I saw my mother put herself through school to follow her passion for helping others," Obama said. "But I also saw how she struggled to raise me and my sister on her own, worrying about how she would pay the bills, educate herself and provide for us."

He said he signed the order (read it here) to honor all the women who came before him, such as his grandmother who was a bank vice president but was denied promotions because of her gender. He and said the fight for gender equality is far from over, citing pay disparities, domestic violence, and the relatively few women in Congress and in the executive offices of major companies.

"I think we need to take a hard look at where we're falling short, and who we're leaving out, and what that means for the prosperity and the vitality of our nation," said Obama, who as part of International Women's History Month also last week with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton jointly announced a new post of ambassador at large for women's issues around the world.

This new legislation is so disgusting that I'm surprised Bush didn't try to get this passed at the beginning of his second term. It's no shock that the right-wing freaks always target women with their extreme anti-choice agenda. Now they are trying to set back the medical world 200 years.

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”

Medicine should be religion free in America. Have you ever wondered why they don't ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?

From a press release:

In light of reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women and families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent the HHS rule from going into effect. The proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. The proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.

"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most.

The House is also introducing legislation to fight this too.

DeGette and Slaughter Introduce Legislation to Stop HHS Rule

Here's what John McCain said last night in his debate with Barack Obama about how he feels about providing an exception on late-term abortions considering the health or life of the mother:

He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

I'm just a doofy guy, but it sure doesn't seem like smart politics to be dismissing so blithely the very real concerns women have about their health when it comes to reproductive decisions. That's not "extreme pro-abortion," last I checked -- it's "normal human being."

Even that bastion of sensitivity, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, spotted this:

I believe that it was a big mistake by John McCain tonight with regards to abortion rights. If it was his goal to win over the Hillary voter, or younger women in Florida or South East Pennsylvania, then what he said is not going to help him.

You can’t belittle the health exception with regard to abortion. You can’t say the exception is “only her possible death.” The health exception is in Roe V. Wade and characterizing it in a diminutive way is going to lose a lot of pro-choice women.

More insightful, as always, was Rachel Maddow:

I think the line that someone is going to regret, one that will resonate and will hurt McCain the most is when McCain ridiculed the idea that the life of the mother should be a concern in the abortion debate.

Women everywhere will reflect on that – that they’ll be forced by the government to carry to term and give birth. This will be seared on women’s minds: the government is not going to excuse you, short of death, from giving birth. It’s the extreme [anti]-abortion position.

Why exactly did he select Sarah Palin as his running mate? It sure as hell wasn't for the Hillary voters ...

Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Liberal media, my Aunt Fanny.  McCain campaign proxy Carly Fiorina keeps pushing the Clinton PUMA meme as a way to reinforce for those women voters why they should vote for John McCain.  Sadly, George Stephanopoulos -- who, as a former member of the Clinton administration really ought to know better -- lets her get away with it.  Note that every time Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill tries to make a point, Stephanopoulos interrupts to give Fiorina the rebuttal. 

And proving that while they absolutely cannot govern, Republicans are masters at campaigning, as McCaskill tries over and over again to show that McCain's own record belies his stated support for women's issues (a patronizing concept in and of itself--these are everyone's issues), Fiorina goes personal against Obama himself, while providing herself the alibi that Obama has gone negative despite his rhetoric of hope.   And Stephanopoulos doesn't bat an eye, nor ask Fiorina to rebut the specific legislation that McCaskill brings up.

The final indignity?  After Fiorina spins that really, she and McCaskill agree that women vote on issues and that's why they're going to vote for McCain, Stephanopoulos cuts off the interview with a Rovian let's "end on that point of agreement." Point of agreement, really?  How about corporately-pushed-low-info-voter propaganda, George?

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »