DOWNLOADS: (83)

PLAYS: (532)

Embed

A Republican congressman from North Dakota suggested to the graduating class at University of Mary earlier this month that the Boston Marathon bombings, the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks and multiple school shootings were all connected to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.

In a video clip pointed out by The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel on Thursday, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) says that the ideal of American Exceptionalism has been "turned upside down."

Cramer notes that Bismarck news anchor A.J. Clemente had been fired for uttering a "vulgarity on live television."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (133)

PLAYS: (937)

Embed

It seems David Brooks wasn't the only conservative op-ed writer on the airways fearmongering over those activist judges on the Supreme Court supposedly imposing their will on the American people. On ABC's This Week, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan told host George Stephanopoulos that we should be leaving the matter of gay marriage to the states.

Conservative Pundit Says Country Shouldn’t Move Too Fast In Granting Equal Marriage Rights To Gays:

Noonan said on ABC’s This Week that Americans “don’t take it well” when the Supreme Court makes decisions that affect the entire country — such as declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act — and said one of the “great sins” of Roe v. Wade was that it took power away from the states: [...]

Noonan’s reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from a speech the Supreme Court justice gave at Columbia Law school last year, in which she said Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast.” But Noonan’s appeal to let the issue take time to “settle itself out” ignores the fact that activists have been fighting for marriage equality for nearly 40 years. And her insinuation that Americans won’t like it if the Court declares a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional ignores that support for marriage equality is at an all time high: a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage rights, up from 37 percent in 2003. That 58 percent includes 81 percent of youth, which lends credibility to Noonan’s insight that opposition to marriage equality is dying out.

As I said in the post on Brooks, they all love these "blacked robed masters" when it comes to decisions like Citizens United, but not so much for civil rights. Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (127)

PLAYS: (400)

Embed

Republican state Rep. Ann Clemmer on Wednesday explained that Arkansas lawmakers were "not eliminating choice at all" by overriding Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy.

"I really believe that we are not eliminating choice at all," Clemmer told KUAR. "We're just saying after 12 weeks, the choice is over. You have a choice for the first 12 weeks. That's almost three months. We're talking the second trimester here -- we're talking about second trimester abortions."

Benton also insisted to the public radio station that her bill, which is the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation, would not jeopardize women's health.

"I don't think that having an abortion aids a woman's health," she said. "I don't know under what circumstances having an abortion aids a woman's health because this bill deals with women who have serious health issues, this bill deals with babies who have lethal fetal disorders and it deals with rape and incest."

The Arkansas House on Wednesday overrode Beebe's veto by a vote of 56 to 33. The state Senate have voted to override it just one day earlier.

Before the vote, Clemmer argued that Republicans should support the abortion ban because state law declared "a 12-week-old baby in utero a person … [whose] life is to be protected not only from a third party, but from a mother herself."

A federal judge on Wednesday found for the first time that a 20-week abortion ban in Idaho was unconstitutional because it put "an absolute obstacle" the the path of women seeking abortions.

DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (534)

Embed

An anti-abortion group is using the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision -- a ruling that the group vehemently disagrees with -- to argue that a Texas teen cannot be forced by her parents to get an abortion because the law gives her a "choice."

Lawyers with the Texas Center for Defense of Life said that they had asked Harris County, Texas district court to grant a temporary restraining order on behalf of a 16-year-old girl who is nine weeks pregnant.

"We were asking judge to stop them physically forcing her to have an abortion," attorney Stephen Casey told KPRC. "She is legally protected. So, they cannot drag her to an abortion clinic and force an abortion on our client."

The teen girl, who was not identified by name, alleged that her mother "invited the paternal grandparents to a bar for further discussion, where she suggested that she might slip her an abortion pill through deception," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also said that the girl's father told her that "he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."

Casey, however, contended that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting a woman's decision to have an abortion also gave her the "choice" not to have one.

Continue reading »

It seems Romney surrogate Norm Coleman is just the latest member of his team to catch a bad case of Romnesia -- Say Anything: Top Romney Surrogate Claims Romney Justices Won’t Kill Roe v. Wade:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney wants the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. He called Roe “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history.” And there is video of him saying that he wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse Roe.

Yet, at a Republican Jewish Coalition event on Monday, former senator and top Romney surrogate Norm Coleman (R-MN) was asked to address the concerns of “voters who are worried about the influence of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.” Rather than accurately convey Romney’s position on the issue, Coleman pretended that Romney would somehow be powerless against Roe:

The reality is, uh, choice is an issue for a lot of people, an important issue. President Bush was president eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. It’s not going to be reversed.

Math is a notoriously difficult subject for Romney and his campaign, but there is a simple explanation for why President Bush was not able to overrule Roe. Overruling a Supreme Court precedent requires five votes, and the two justices Bush appointed — plus staunchly anti-Roe Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — add up to less than five. Now, however, three justices who have at times voted to uphold abortion rights are over the age of 74. If just one leaves the Court, the next president could easily appoint the fifth vote to kill Roe. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (111)

PLAYS: (640)

Embed

From this Sunday's This Week, apparently George Will believes women aren't capable of worrying about more than one topic at a time and doesn't realize that it's the likes of him pretending that women's ability to control their own contraception is not an economic issue as well as a health issue is what's really offensive to "educated" women.

WILL: There has been a big change. It's not a particular state. It's the change in Romney's gain among women. And that, I think, represents a huge recoil by professional women with college degrees against the condescension of the Obama campaign, which says -- Austan, hang on -- which says, essentially, don't you trouble your pretty little heads about these men's issue like unemployment and all the rest. Worry about contraception, which has been a constitutional right for 47 years. It's a distraction, the entire war on women trope, and I think professional, educated women find it offensive.

Here's more from Media Matters on why he's so dangerously wrong as well -- George Will Dismisses Romney's Anti-Women's Rights Stances:

While it is true that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut that state governments cannot ban access to contraception, Mitt Romney supports the Blunt Amendment, legislation that would allow business owners to withdraw insurance coverage for contraception or any other medical treatment.

Moreover, Clarence Thomas, one of the justices that Romney has said will serve as a model for his judicial nominations, has said that he agreed with the dissenting judge in Griswold, who said that contraception bans are constitutionally valid.

In addition to his stance on contraception, Romney has said that he would appoint Supreme Court justices that would likely try to overturn the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision -- a goal Romney has had since at least 2007. Appointing anti-Roe v. Wade judges to the Supreme Court could have drastic consequences. According to Tony Mauro of USA Today: "If a President Romney gets to appoint replacements for liberals Ginsburg and Breyer, then abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action and campaign-finance reform could well be in serious jeopardy." Romney has also reportedly opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provides women more legal room to file pay discrimination claims against employers.

The Roe v. Wade decision awarded women a fundamental right in 1973, which Romney has repeatedly promised to revoke, calling it "one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history." To George Will and other conservative media, women's rights remain a "distraction."

DOWNLOADS: (181)

PLAYS: (741)

Embed

Rachel Maddow takes us through the list of anti-choice legislators, among them, Republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, who believe that all abortions should be illegal, even in instances of incest and rape and gives us a stark reminder of what's at stake this election when it comes to women still having the right to safe and legal abortions in the United States.

As she noted, the problems with Republicans Senate candidates don't end with "forcible rape" Todd Akin. Here's the GOP candidate from North Dakota -- Rick Berg tackles abortion, rape victims:

One of the more interesting U.S. Senate races in the country right now is in North Dakota, where incumbent Sen. Kent Conrad (D) is retiring, creating an open seat Republicans assumed they'd pick up.

That's proving to be far more difficult than the GOP expected. Former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D) is proving to be an exceptionally good candidate, and polls show her running even with Republican congressman Rick Berg.

Interviews like these, highlighted by Amanda Terkel, aren't going to help Berg's case (thanks to my colleague Rebekah Dryden for the tip).

For those who can't watch clips online, Berg sat down with Jim Shaw, the news director of the local Fox affiliate, who asked whether the candidate would make any exceptions to a ban on abortion. The lawmaker said he "make an exception for the life of the mother," but not if a woman is impregnated by a rapist. [...]

Here's the thing: Berg is a member of Congress and a U.S. Senate candidate. If he were to work with other federal lawmaker to end reproductive rights for American women, it would be up to him to come up with criminal penalties for those who broke the law. Shaw's question wasn't hypothetical -- Berg would make it illegal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, even if it was the result of rape. How would he choose to penalize that woman? He'll "leave that up to others to come up with" the specifics, but that doesn't make any sense.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Berg can't leave it up "to others" if he's a U.S. senator; he'll have to vote on what the law would be if he's successful in his own stated goals.

And as Maddow reported, you can add Josh Mandel, Michael Baumgartner, Pete Hoekstra and Tom Smith to the list of those running for Senate who share their extremist views.

DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (913)

Embed

Here we go with another flip flop from Mitt Romney with his stance on abortion and the Supreme Court. As Jed Lewison explained, here was his flip flopping from a couple of weeks ago: Romney campaign denies Romney's claim that he supports health exception for abortion:

Mitt Romney in an interview released by CBS News this afternoon:

My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother.

That's not true—Romney was against all abortion until last Monday, when he decided to support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life was in danger. But he didn't support abortion in cases "merely" involving health—that exception was entirely new. Never fear, though, Greg Sargent reports Romneyland has already walked that back.

But there is no shift, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul tells me. She emails:

“Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”

That means no health exception.

So now the question is which side is telling the truth: Mitt Romney ... or his campaign?

And there lingers another important question. In the interview, Romney said that he believed the legality of abortion was a settled issue and shouldn't be a political topic. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years," he said, "but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."

Romney's claim that the legality of abortion is "settled" is a huge deal. If he sticks to that position, he'll basically be coming full circle to his 1994 position, which was that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and that it was time to move on to other issues. It would be great if Republicans were actually willing to do that, but they're not. That's why time and time again Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn Roe v. Wade, a position utterly in conflict with his claim that Roe v. Wade is "settled" and shouldn't be an issue in elections.

Now this week, he says he "recognizes" that the life of the mother is an issue as well. How kind of him. And he claims he'll nominate judges who he hopes will overturn Roe v. Wade. So much for that "settled" law comment. As Jed noted, he's been on so many sides on the abortion issue that he should be getting hammered by all sides. I don't know how anyone can believe a thing that comes out of his mouth.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (80)

PLAYS: (426)

Embed

From this Tuesday evening's Out Front with Erin Burnett, Rep. Marsha Blackburn did her best to attempt to backtrack on the Republican Party's extreme views on abortion in the wake of the Todd Akin dust up and their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney along with the rest of the Republican establishment throwing him under the bus. The one problem for Republicans is they just passed an extreme right wing party platform in the run up to their convention this year, and Blackburn had a lot of trouble defending what she just voted on here.

Keep in mind this is the same woman who was a co-sponsor of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" which as Nick Baumann at Mother Jones wrote about here, would have redefined rape and that language was only withdrawn after plenty of public outrage over what the House Republicans had passed.

And Blackburn just came from voting for, once again, the Republicans including a "Human Life Amendment" as part of their party's platform before doing this interview which you can read a bit about here. Blackburn tried to pretend that the states could make provisions for the life of a mother when questioned by Burnett about the platform, but from my reading, I don't see anything that allows the states to do anything but make the law more restrictive, and not the other way around.

So it would appear to me that Blackburn is lying here when she pretends that Republicans do not want to ban all abortions with no regard for the life of the mother, or for rape or incest and that Burnett allowed her to get away with some massive hypocrisy when pretending she's not on exactly the same page as Todd Akin, who they're trying to drum out of the race because he dared to tell the truth about what these people actually believe and unfortunately for them, the national media is paying attention. And because, more importantly to them, that exposure might cost them a senate seat and worse. They're really not enjoying the sunshine on their extremism. I say it's long, long overdue.

Transcript below the fold and if I'm missing something on this "Human Life Amendment" and whether it would allow the states to make provisions to protect a women not allowed at the federal level as Blackburn tried to assert here, someone please let me know, but I'm not seeing it in any of the material I've read on it.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (303)

PLAYS: (927)

Embed

It appears the House Republicans, this time lead by Arizona Rep. Trent Franks are about to give us a sort of a rerun of the Sandra Fluke debacle, only this time the woman they're refusing to allow to testify before a Congressional hearing is D.C.'s only elected representative, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton:

Trent Franks Blocks D.C. Representative From Testifying About Proposed D.C. Abortion Ban:

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) wants to restrict abortions in the District of Columbia, but he refuses to allow D.C.’s delegate from testifying on behalf of the city’s residents during a hearing about his proposal. Franks’ “fetal pain” bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in D.C. even though there is no scientific proof that a fetus can feel pain at that point and a fetus is not viable.

Del. Eleanor Norton (D), D.C.’s only elected represetative, asked Franks last week if she could testify about the bill at an upcoming Thursday hearing. Franks denied her request, which Norton said breaks tradition of allowing members of Congress to testify about a bill that affects their constituents. Similarly, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) prevented women from testifying on a panel about contraception back in February.

Norton told the Huffington Post that her constituents are “up in arms” about the proposed abortion ban:

“This is the first bill in history that attempts to take the residents of the District of Columbia outside of the protection of the Constitution,” she continued. “The right to have an abortion until viability is a mandated right under Roe v. Wade. I think it takes a lot of nerve to single out the constituents of another member’s district for discriminatory treatment, and we deeply resent it.” [...]

D.C. is an easy target for anti-abortion bills, Norton said, because it doesn’t have any elected officials who can vote in Congress.

“Why wouldn’t they put this bill in for the entire country if they feel so deeply about it?”

In December, House Republicans forced a ban on funding for abortion services in D.C. to avoid a government shutdown and even prevented the city from using local taxes to pay for abortion care, reinstating a 13-year ban on abortion funding in D.C. that President Obama overturned in 2009.

Del. Norton spoke to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow about the upcoming hearing in the video clip above.