Go Home

news

6 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (289)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4029)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

A woman in Iowa on Thursday gave Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney a lesson in why his support for a state constitutional amendment to define life as beginning at conception would have effectively ended up banning many forms of birth control.

Earlier this month, the candidate told Fox News host and evangelical Christian Mike Huckabee that he would have supported a state constitutional amendment to ban abortion if it would have prevented abortions from being covered by the health care law he enacted while serving as the governor of Massachusetts.

"Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established definition of life beginning of life at conception?" Huckabee asked.

"Absolutely," Romney replied.

At a town hall event in Sioux City, Iowa Thursday, a woman told Romney that she was concerned about what this meant for hormonal birth control.

"That would essentially mean banning most forms of birth control," she noted. "Ninety-eight percent of American women, including me, use birth control. So, could you help me understand why you oppose the use of birth control?"

"I don't," Romney declared. "Life begins at conception; birth control prevents conception."

"What I believe is the right course as regards to abortion and life is that I would like to see the Supreme Court return this right to the states and let states create their own legislation with regards to life. That's my view. And states will make different decisions which is their right to do so. And my view is that I'm not out campaigning for an amendment of some kind. I am campaigning to see justices ultimately appointed to the Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, return to the states the right to make decision themselves."

Romney's plan to "return the right to the states" would allow them to enforce life-begins-at-conception laws, effectively banning the forms of birth control that he claims not to be against.

"I don't know if you want to have some staff look into this, but hormonal forms of birth control work a little differently," the woman pointed out. "They actually prevent implantation, not conception. So, it would ban hormonal forms of birth control which is what most women use."

"As someone who uses birth control, this is a very terrifying prospect for me so I hope that you can, you know, look into that."

In fact, many anti-abortion advocates define conception and fertilization as the same thing.

"At the moment of conception, a male sperm unites with a female ovum," according to the Pro-Life Action League. "After fertilization, the tiny human being travels down the fallopian tube. Implantation, which occurs 8 to 10 days after fertilization, refers to the point at which the baby (now scientifically referred to as an "embryo"), implants in the mother's uterus and begins to draw nourishment."

A 2005 Guttmacher Institute report found that 18 states, including Massachusetts, defined pregnancy as beginning with fertilization or conception.

"[I]t is likely that the proponents of the state laws may have been unaware of how the various contraceptive methods actually work, and were probably not taking aim at them directly," the report states. "On the other hand, many in the antiabortion movement clearly understand the modes of action for contraceptive methods, especially the hormonal methods. Understanding that, they have to know that the end result of enforcing a definition that pregnancy begins at fertilization would implicate not just some hormonal methods, but all of them."

The fringe anti-abortion group Personhood USA has recently been successful at getting more states to take up their legislation that defines life as beginning at fertilization.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (631)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4053)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night was a response to Ted Koppel's "Death of Real News" op-ed, wherein he writes:

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of [Keith] Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly – individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

Keith responds by asking Ted Koppel after reporting night after night on the Iranian hostage crisis, why he remained silent in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

UPDATE: Here's transcript from Keith's post at Daily KOS.

When Walter Cronkite died sixteen months ago, he was rightly lionized for the quality of his work, and the impact he effected on television news. He was praised for his utter objectivity and impartiality, and implicitly – and in some cases explicitly – there was wailing that this objectivity had died with him.

Yet invariably the same few clips were shown with each obituary: There was the night Cronkite devoted fourteen minutes of the thirty-minute long CBS Evening News to a report on Watergate which devastated the Nixon Administration, one so strong that the Administration pressured CBS just to shorten the next night’s follow-up to eight minutes. There was the extraordinary broadcast on Vietnam from four-and-a-half years earlier in which he insisted that nothing better than stalemate was possible and that America should negotiate its way out, “not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.” All that newscast did was convince the 36th President of the United States to not seek reelection. The deserved and heartfelt sadness at the loss of a great journalist and a great man had been turned into a metaphor for the loss of a style of utterly uninvolved, neutral “objective” reporting. Yet most of the highlights of the man’s career had been of those moments when he correctly and fearlessly threw off those shackles and said what was true, and not merely what was factual.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (748)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (7564)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Larry King spent the hour with Comedy Central's Jon Stewart on his show Wednesday night and Stewart was asked what he thought about CNN's Rick Sanchez being fired after calling Jon Stewart a "bigot" and saying that CNN and other news networks are run by Jewish people. Stewart did not think that Sanchez should have been fired just for his statements on Pete Dominick's radio show and that CNN was just looking for an excuse to fire him anyway.

When asked by King why Stewart picks on CNN so much Stewart replied "You're terrible!" and went on to chastise the network for squandering the opportunity "to be a real arbiter" of the news rather than running so many of their fake balance segments that they're so fond of.

Stewart also had some praise for Fox News, but not because he agrees with them or thinks that they are a news organization. He is absolutely correct that they are not a news organization, but an extremely effective political organization.

KING: Jon Stewart. We have several Tweets to Kings Things.

STEWART: This is a problem. News people shouldn't be going, we've got some Tweets. It's like you walked out in the middle of this and said, I was in the bathroom and a guy mentioned to me, you know --

KING: These are human beings and they're Tweeting us. Do you have no respect for them?

STEWART: No.

KING: OK.

STEWART: I don't know who they are. They could be anybody. They could be pretending to be -- who the hell knows who they are?

KING: They're asking this: what you thought about CNN, us, firing Rick Sanchez after he called you a bigot?

STEWART: Is that 140 characters, because that sounded a lot more than 140 characters. It sounded like somebody sent you a double or triple Tweet.

KING: May have been a double Tweet.

STEWART: We're on a news program and you're saying to me, so there's a Tweet. Isn't that a question you probably could have thought of yourself?

KING: We like to involve the audience. It's a gimmick.

STEWART: All right.

KING: Well, what do you think?

STEWART: Should they have fired him for that? No.

KING: You think they made a mistake?

STEWART: With the crap you guys have put on over the last ten years. What, are you kidding me? Fire somebody if you don't think they're doing a good job as a news person. This whole idea that people -- you know, they fired a woman for Tweeting something on her thing on her blog. They fired Sanchez for saying what he said.

I think it's absolute insanity. I think this idea that people have to be held to account for everything that comes out of their mouths as far as their livelihoods is concerned -- does he do a good job? Were you pleased with his job? Or was it an excuse to -- you know, to get rid of him?

Continue reading »



Friday Night Double Creature-Feature!

Aliens! Zombies! Make some popcorn and turn down the lights for Area 51: The Truth is Outsourced followed by Attack of the Town Hall Zombies



Generic News Report

Seems the Brits are subjected to the same canned news as those of us on the other side of the pond. More Charlie Booker brilliance.



Pentagon Rating News Reporters

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (145)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (426)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

August 27, 2009 News Corp