By Tara Culp-Ressler on Jul 12, 2013 at 4:08 pm
On Friday afternoon, the Texas Senate will vote on a package of abortion restrictions that Republican lawmakers have been attempting to push through a special session. After State Sen. Wendy Davis (D-TX) successfully blocked a vote on the legislation last month with a 13-hour filibuster that was aided by disruptions from hundreds of protesters in the gallery, Senate Republicans aren’t taking any chances this time.
According to Jessica Luther, a freelance writer and pro-choice activist who has been coordinating much of the push-back to the proposed abortion restrictions over the past few weeks, Senate officials are confiscating any objects they believe may cause a similar disruption in the gallery during Friday’s vote. Protesters aren’t allowed to carry water bottles or even feminine hygiene products, just in case they might throw them at lawmakers:
Even though the Texas legislature may not be comfortable with feminine hygiene products, it’s a bit more relaxed when it comes to firearms. Individuals with concealed carry licenses are permitted to bring their guns into the Senate gallery. In fact, a Texas Republican recently insinuated he might do just that during the current special session.
In a recent interview with the National Review Online, state Rep. Jonathan Strickland (R) expressed concern over becoming the target of violence as thousands of angry pro-choice activists rally at the capitol. When asked whether those concerns would inspire him to carry a hidden gun this session, he said he couldn’t legally answer that question. But he did add, “I very, very often do concealed-carry, I can say that.”
Since activists aren’t allowed to carry tampons or pads on their person, they have asked supporters to send feminine products to the capitol building so they can stock the bathrooms for the women who may need them.
This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.
The confiscation of Tampons and Kotex at the Texas Statehouse started a trend on Twitter: #FamousTamponQuotes. Some of the modified quotes were hilarious.
- Life, liberty, and the confiscation of tampons.
- "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Tampon Party?" ~ Sen Eugene McCarthy
- When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a tampon
- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all tampons are created to annoy Republicans.
- If they outlaw tampons, only outlaws will have tampons. CANNOT STOP LAUGHING
- ROTFLMAO—RT "Take their tampons, pads, and uhh whats the third one?"—Rick Perry
- The hills are alive with the sound of tampons!
- "If it’s a legitimate tampon, the TX legislature has a way of shutting the whole thing down."
- "If its a legitimate tampon, the body has a way of shutting that whole thing down."
- "You put the tampon in, you take the tampon out, you put the tampon in, and you shake it all about!"
- Look up in the sky its a bird, its a plane no its a Tampon!
- I’ll Glady Pay You Tuesday For A Tampon Today.
- I Have Only One Tampon To Give For My Country
- You want the tampons? You can’t handle the tampons!
- Is that a tampon in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
- These are not the tampons you’re looking for – Obi Wan Kenobi
- The Texas leg is a loony bin wrapped in a maxipad inside a tampon.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s tampon.
#FamousTamponQuotes #txlege #gop
- Imagine if Texas had tried to take condoms from all the men entering state building on similar grounds?
The military justice system needs a 21st century wake-up call.
— by Colleen Teubner
I remember when I first started watching Mad Men. Like most of America, I got hooked. How could I not? The glitz and glamour of 1960s Manhattan was irresistible. But from the very first episode, I knew there was something deeply wrong with this world — the business-as-usual, casual attitude towards sexual harassment.
As a modern “working gal,” I can’t imagine being productive in that kind of environment. In fact, I know I wouldn’t be. I’d be uncomfortable and unhappy, and my performance would suffer. We may not have equal pay for women yet, but at least workplace sexual harassment is no longer considered playful banter.
Aren’t we mostly past the Mad Men era? Not if you’re in the armed forces.
Our military men and women risk their safety everyday — but not in the ways you might think. The most recent Pentagon survey revealed that out of the estimated 26,000 sexual assaults that occurred in the military in 2012, only 3,374 cases were reported. That brings the report rate to a meager 13 percent, compared with the national average of 46 percent.
With all the progress women have made in the military, why is the sexual assault reporting rate so low?
The answer is clear: Military commanders have created an environment where women are afraid to stand up to their attackers. Of the women who reported instances of sexual assault, 62 percent suffered retaliation. The current system forces survivors to make an impossible choice: career or due process? It looks like the military justice system needs a 21st century wake-up call.
And Senator Kirsten Gillibrand agrees. The New York Democrat proposed a bill that would remove prosecuting power from the military chain of command. She wants to replace this outdated system with a new one that would inspire confidence through accountability.
That makes sense, doesn’t it? Not to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Instead, Levin agrees with the top brass that the prosecution of assault cases should be kept within the ranks.
This won’t work. It’s already failed.
And James Taranto isn’t helping. The Wall Street Journal writer offers living proof that misogyny remains alive and well today. Taranto wrote that any attempt to address the military’s sexual assault problem is the equivalent of declaring a “war on men” and an “effort to criminalize male sexuality.”
Really? Justice for sexual assault survivors threatens your sexuality? Tell that to the 70 women and men who are attacked every day.
I think we can all agree that this hasn’t been the best year for women. First, there was the media sympathy toward the Steubenville rapists. Then came the news that the already overwhelming number of sexual assaults in the military had increased yet again. And recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would prohibit abortion procedures after 20 weeks of pregnancy, down from the current 24 weeks.
It’s unrealistic to expect that the sources of these problems — the media, military, and the misinformed — can, or will, develop constructive solutions.
I understand that military commanders want the opportunity to reform from within, but the time for Mad Men style, backroom meetings is over. When Gillibrand reintroduces her bill later this summer, Congress needs to give change a chance.
Earlier this week, the Republicans in Congress (including NV2′s Mark Amodei) voted for passage of yet another bill limiting a woman’s reproductive rights. It not only would shorten the time frame during which a woman could choose to end a pregnancy, but would also require rape/incest victims to report that assault to authorities to be able to exercise that choice. That bill would be HR1797. That’s right, despite not having passed a single jobs bill, the REPUBLIBAN brethren in Congress would rather waste time and our taxpayer dollars on a bill the President has already promised to veto. Their actions are shameful and out of touch with what our country needs.
Available legislative time on the agenda is finite. That means if the folks in charge of the House of Representatives, that would be the REPUBLIBAN brethren, choose to use their time to debate and process crap bills like this, the alternative cost is that there is NO TIME to devote to meaningful actions necessary to say, pass a jobs bill, pass comprehensive immigration reform, fix the still lingering foreclosure problems still facing many families, or ensure that students will be able to secure reasonable loan interest rates such that they don’t become mere indentured servants to the mighty megabanks.
Just looking at the time wasted on HR1797, here’s what’s shown on Thomas:
4/26/2013: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
4/26/2013: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (41 members)
4/26/2013: Referred to House Judiciary Committee (40 members)
5/23/2013: Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. (15 members)
5/23/2013: Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. (12 members)
5/23/2013: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
6/04/2013: Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
6/04/2013: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 6 – 4 .
6/12/2013: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
6/12/2013: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 – 12.
6/14/2013 10:09pm: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-109, Part I.
6/14/2013 10:09pm: Committee on Oversight and Government discharged.
6/14/2013 10:10pm: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 77.
6/17/2013 7:32pm: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 266 Reported to House. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 1947 and provides for consideration of H.R. 1797 with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
6/18/2013 4:41pm: The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 1947 and provides for consideration of H.R. 1797 with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
6/18/2013 4:41pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1797.
6/18/2013 6:01pm: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H3743)
6/18/2013 6:01pm: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS – At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 1797, the Chair put the question on passage and, by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until later in the legislative day.
6/18/2013 6:15pm: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3743-3744)
6/18/2013 6:45pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
6/18/2013 6:45pm: The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
6/19/2013: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
So, what kind of alternative costs are we talking about? Well, let’s start with the annual salary of a U.S. Representative to Congress. That would be $174,000/yr. Now, let’s look at the number of legislative days each of our Representatives will work this year. That would be 126 days (out of 365 calendar days). Given that they’re only scheduled to be in DC for 4 consecutive days in any calendar week, I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt and say they work 10 hour days. That means available legislative hours = 126 days x 10 hrs/day =1260 hrs. That means that the cost for each legislative hour for each representative = $174,000 /1260 hrs =$138.10/hr.
So, for each subcommittee and each committee, and then the House as a whole spent only an hour dealing with this bill what did that cost us as taxpayers (you know, the folks who pay their salaries)?
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Hearing/Markup: 15 members x 3 hr x $138.10/hr = $6214.50
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Hearing/Markup:12 members x 3 hr x $138.10/hr = $4971.60
Full Judiciary Committee
Amendment/Vote of Yeas & Nays: 40 mbrs x 2 hrs x $138.10 = $11,048.00
Full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Vote of Yeas & Nays: 41 mbrs x 1 hr x $138.10 = $5662.10
Full House of Representatives (424 Voting/10 Not Voting)
Debate & Votes: 424 Mbrs x 2 hrs x 138.10/hr = $117,108.80
And none of these figures include the monies paid to that folks in the background, the clerks on the floor of the house, any payments made to those who testified for their travel (etc.), the webmasters who need to post information about the hearings, markups, debates, and votes. But as you can see, the nominal cost of just the Representatives themselves for consideration of this onerous bill amounts to:
$6214.50 + $4971.60 + 11,048.00 + $5662.10 + $117,108.80 = $145,005.00
Just for reference sake, the average U.S. per capita personal income in 2012 was $42,693. Thus, the alternative costs the Speaker Boehner and his REPUBLIBAN brethren chose to waste would have basically employed 3.4 individuals (3 full time jobs + 1 part-time job) for a year! In Nevada, the 2012 per capita Income was only $37, 361 … so in Nevada, that same wasted money, on just that one bill, could have employed 3.9 individuals!
Today, our congressional representative, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV2), essentially declared WAR on the women of Nevada by voting FOR passage of HR1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ). This onerous bill bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on the medically disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point. While it contains exceptions for women whose lives are in danger, it requires that rape and incest victims must prove that they reported their assaults to criminal authorities. In addition, it contains no exceptions for severe fetal anomalies or situations in which the woman’s health is threatened by her pregnancy. Here’s a summary of what the brethren of the REPUBLIBAN feel is the “appropriate choice” for women throughout our nation:
- Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any person from performing or attempting to perform an abortion except in conformity with this Act’s requirements.
- Requires the physician to first determine the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child, or reasonably rely upon such a determination made by another physician, by making inquiries of the pregnant woman and performing such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent physician would consider necessary.
- Prohibits the abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions. Permits a physician to terminate a pregnancy under such exception only in the manner that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless that manner would pose a greater risk than other available methods would pose of the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.
- Subjects individuals who violate this Act to a fine, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Bars prosecution of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this Act for violating or conspiring to violate this Act.
- Defines “abortion” to mean the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn child or to intentionally terminate a pregnancy with an intention other than: (1) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child; or (2) to remove a dead unborn child.
HE voted for passage of a such a bill based on propaganda and bogus science? Really? HE thinks women lie about being raped and therefore should have to PROVE they were actually raped? Really? HE thinks victims of incest must PROVE they were a victim of rape? Really? HE thinks HIS judgment about womens’ health issues is superior to any woman’s, and therefore, it’s HIS job to legislate that decision for every woman throughout our nation? Really?
HE thinks that fetus is just viable as a 9-month old fetus at a gestational age of just a mere 20 weeks? Really? This from the same guy who has voted to REPEAL health care reform how many times? This from the same guy whose party claims they want to “repeal and replace Obamacare”? UH … where’s the replacement? Who does HE think is going to pay the outrageous costs involved to care for a 20-week fetus delivered using the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive? What lifelong disabilities will that child/adult have related to all those “life-saving” procedures visited on that extremely, prematurely delivered child? My guess is that HE didn’t spend a single moment to ponder any of those questions. HE just voted the way Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor told him to vote!
Well Ladies, it’s time for a change in representation! HE clearly does NOT represent us. Who among us is going to step up to the plate and strike him out? Start your campaign early … build your support team to knock on doors throughout CD2 and help folks learn who you are and who/what you represent. This vote was the equivalent of one too many salvos over our front hedges. The vote for passage of HR1797 may just be symbolic to Rep. Amodei and his REPUBLIBAN brethren, but THAT vote was clearly a declaration of
If you are as appalled and disgusted as me by Rep. Amodei’s vote on HR1797, his DC phone# is 202-225-6155. Business hours may be over at the time of this writing, but don’t let that dissuade you. Please take the time to call his number and if nothing else, leave a voicemail expressing your displeasure with his YES vote for passage of HR1797.
— by Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary–Dept. of Health & Human Services
This week, starting with Mother’s Day, we celebrate National Women’s Health Week. As a nation, we honor the women in our lives – our mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, cousins, friends, and colleagues – by encouraging them to make their health a priority and to take steps to live healthier, happier lives.
Women are frequently the health care decision-makers in their families. We take time off from work to drive a parent to the doctor. We hold our children’s hands while they get their vaccinations. We make the appointments for our spouses’ checkups – and then make sure they actually go. We stretch and re-work our family budgets to pay the doctor’s bills. And too often, we put our own health last.
But the truth is unless we take care of ourselves first, we cannot really take care of our families. That means we have to eat right, exercise, and get the care we need to stay healthy. Unfortunately, preventive care has not always been easily accessible or affordable for everyone, including young women.
But the health care law is helping to usher in a new day for women’s health. The Affordable Care Act is making it easier for women to take control of their own health. For many women, preventive services like mammograms, Pap smears, birth control, and yearly well-woman visits are now available without cost sharing. The health care law improves women’s access to appropriate preventive health screenings, which can help detect diseases early, when treatment is most effective and least costly.
Starting next year, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to refuse us coverage just because we’re battling breast cancer or have another pre-existing condition – and they won’t be allowed to charge us more just because we are women.
If you’re one of the millions of women who are uninsured or who buy insurance on their own, more options are on the way because of the Affordable Care Act. Starting October 1, 2013, you will be able to visit a new Health Insurance Marketplace where you can compare and choose from a range of plans to find one that best fits your needs and budget. All of these plans must cover a package of essential health benefits, including maternity and newborn care.
To get more information about the Marketplace and to sign up for email and text updates to get ready for October, visit HealthCare.gov.
Being healthy starts with each of us taking control. So Monday on National Women’s Checkup Day, and during National Women’s Health Week, I encourage you to sit down with your doctor or health care provider and talk about what you can do to take control of your health.
- Learn more about National Women’s Health Week and find a health week event in your community.
- Follow #NWHW on Twitter.
- For more information on how the health care law is addressing women’s unique health needs, visithttp://www.womenshealth.gov/NWHW/activity-planning/NWHW-Infographic-508.pdf
A few legislators want to weaken Nevada’s strong laws protecting reproductive freedom, and they’re doing it by claiming they’re protecting religion. The Religious Freedom Preservation bill (Senate Bill 192), which passed in the Senate and is now in the Assembly, would allow health care providers to deny needed services to patients because of their personal views about race, religion, gender, social status, and type of illness or injury.
Should your health needs be subject to a religious test? That would be a definite, “NO!”
We’ve asked the supporters of this bill why Nevada needs these so-called religious protections. We have not received an answer. Maybe it’s because religious freedom is currently well-protected under state and federal law. On the other hand, we have seen numerous real-life attempts to use laws like this to deny access to health care in other states:
- Pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or emergency contraception because it is “dangerous” or “not right” for women
- Doctors and entire hospitals refusing to terminate pregnancies, even to save the life of the mother
- A hospital denying HIV medication to a patient because of his sexual orientation
- Dozens of companies suing to escape the contraceptive provisions of President Obama’s health care program
Health care professionals’ primary concern must be a patient’s welfare. Their job is to provide needed health care services, not to impose their personal, religious beliefs on their patients.
Urge your Assemblyperson to protect access to health care that is free from discrimination. Ask them to oppose this troubling and unnecessary bill.
ACLU of Nevada
One corporation, Myriad Genetics, holds a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which are a ‘product of nature.’ Because they hold the patent, that means no one other than them can develop even a simple test to test for mutations in these genes because it would be a patent violation.
What that means is that YOU could die because you relied on a test that said you’re negative for cancer, when you were actually POSITIVE for CANCER.
How many women have to needlessly DIE before the BRCA1/BRCA2 patent held by Myriad Genetics is repealed?
- The Case of Myriad Genetics: Should Companies Own Patents on Human Genes? (minyanville.com)
- Myriad Genetics Wins Australian Bid to Patent Human Genes – Bloomberg(bloomberg.com)
- Who Invented Your Genes? (leaksource.wordpress.com)
- Argument preview: The right to study genes (scotusblog.com)
- U.S. justices wary of wide human gene patent ruling
- U.S. top court weighs patentability of human genes
Veena Trehan, Op-Ed: Fifty years ago, Betty Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique” explained how wives were not fulfilled by homemaking and childbearing. Woman couldn’t get credit, were fired when their pregnancy showed and held mostly assistant or teaching positions in the 1960s. We’ve come a long way. Today, women comprise 58 percent of college students, 33 percent more college graduates than men, and a strong presence in most industries. Yet, they make up only 20 percent of Congress, 4 percent of Fortune 500 companies’ CEOs, and 15 percent of senior executives.
Anthony Gucciardi, News Report: In case you’re not familiar, the Monsanto Protection Act is the name given to what’s known as a legislative rider that was inserted into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill. Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Sec. 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto the immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous. Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GM crops that are thought even by the US government to be a danger to health or the environment.
William Astore, Op-Ed: Today’s unmanned aerial vehicles, most famously Predator and Reaper drones, have been celebrated as the culmination of the longtime dreams of airpower enthusiasts, offering the possibility of victory through quick, clean and selective destruction. Those drones, so the (very old) story goes, assure the U.S. military of command of the high ground and so provide the royal road to a speedy and decisive triumph over helpless enemies below. Fantasies about the certain success of air power in transforming, even ending, war as we know it arose with the plane itself.
Nina Rogozen, News Report: Millions of Americans lack adequate health care, using emergency rooms as a costly alternative or getting no care at all. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called “Obamacare,” opened the door for an affordable option. The December 31, 2012 deal between Congress and the administration that avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff” has, at least for the moment, closed that door for 26 states. The ACA funds private, nonprofit health insurers called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans—CO-OPs. It originally set aside $3.4 billion for low-interest loans—seed money for at least one health cooperative in each state, plus Washington, D.C.
Amy Goodman, Video Interview: As Washington lawmakers pushes new austerity measures, economist Richard Wolff calls for a radical restructuring of the U.S. economic and financial systems. We talk about the $85 billion budget cuts as part of the sequester, banks too big to fail, Congress’ failure to learn the lessons of the 2008 economic collapse and his new book, “Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism.” Wolff also gives FOX news host Bill O’Reilly a lesson in economics 101.
Paul Buchheit, Op-Ed: The first step is to learn the facts, and then to get angry and to ask ourselves as progressives and caring human beings, what we can do about the relentless transfer of wealth to a small group of well-positioned Americans. End the capital gains giveaway, which benefits the wealthy almost exclusively. Institute a Financial Speculation Tax; both to raise needed funds from a currently untaxed subsidy on stock purchases and to reduce the risk of the irresponsible trading that nearly brought down the economy.
Ian Millhiser, News Report: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the first of two cases which could end discrimination against same-sex couples and ensure that all Americans can marry the person they love. Whatever happens in those two cases, one thing is all but certain: Justice Antonin Scalia will vote to maintain marriage discrimination and he will spend much of this week’s oral arguments making insulting comments about LGBT Americans. After the offensive things Scalia compared homosexuality to in his past opinions, Scalia concludes his Lawrence dissent with a plea that he is not in the least bit anti-gay. “Let me be clear,” Scalia writes, “that I have nothing against homosexuals.”
Yuriko Koike, Op-Ed: When the consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ten years ago are fully assessed, the importance of the subsequent rise of political Islam there—and throughout the wider Middle East—may well pale in comparison to that of a geostrategic shift that no one foresaw at the time. That shift, however, has now come into view. With America approaching energy self-sufficiency, a U.S. strategic disengagement from the region may become a reality. China’s dependence on Middle East energy imports means that it is almost certain to seek to fill any regional security vacuum.
Anthony Gucciardi, News Report: Thanks to corporate loopholes and profit-driven manufacturers, it’s harder than ever to really know what you are putting into your body — or perhaps even more importantly the mouths of your children. That said, it is possible to make sure you’re getting what is not just labeled organic and shipped from a contaminated facility in China, but actually high quality. The fact of the matter is that the decision to switch to organic food is one that signifies a serious change in lifestyle across the board, leading to a wealth of information and serious optimizations for your health.
News Report: One month after the largest climate rally in U.S. history urging President Obama to deny the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline’s northern segment, protesters in dozens of cities throughout the U.S. are confronting Keystone XL’s corporate backers directly. Thirty-seven have been arrested over the last 10 days for disrupting business as usual at TransCanada and their investors’ offices, with more actions planned over the next couple of days.
Robert J. Shiller, Op-Ed: With much of the global economy apparently trapped in a long and painful austerity-induced slump, it is time to admit that the trap is entirely of our own making. We have constructed it from unfortunate habits of thought about how to handle spiraling public debt. People developed these habits on the basis of the experiences of their families and friends: when in debt trouble, one must cut spending and pass through a period of austerity until the burden (debt relative to income) is reduced.
Igor Volsky, News Report: During a roundtable discussion on Friday, Fox News’ Lou Dobbs agreed with a network contributor who argued that Americans need to access military-style assault weapons to protect themselves from an Iranian invasion. “What scares the hell out of me we have a president, as we were discussing during break, that wants to take away our guns, but yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack us here, we don’t have the right to bear arms under this Obama administration,” Angela McGlowan, a former lobbyist for News Corp., said in the midst of a conversation about violence in Syria.
Jim Lobe, News Report: Defense establishments around the world increasingly see climate change as posing potentially serious threats to national and international security, according to a review of high-level statements by the world’s governments released here Thursday. The review, “The Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change: Preliminary Results,” found that nearly three out of four governments for which relevant information is available view the possible effects of climate change as a serious national security issue.
Michael Beckel, News Analysis: Natural gas executive James Willard Kinzer of Kentucky is one of more than 100 small business owners listed online as supporting Curtis Bostic, the former Charleston County council member who appears to have advanced to a runoff against former Gov. Mark Sanford following Tuesday’s 16-way GOP primary in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. But he’s much more than that. Not only did Kinzer donate the legal maximum to Bostic’s underdog campaign, he pumped $30,000 into a pro-Bostic super PAC called the “Coastal Conservative Fund.”
Amy Goodman, Video Feature: A shocking new report has been released by The Guardian newspaper and BBC Arabic detailing how the United States armed and trained Iraqi police commando units that ran torture centers and death squads. It’s a story that stretches from the U.S.-backed involvement in Latin America to the imprisoned Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. Amy Goodman is joined by Chief Reporter Maggie O’Kane
Dave Johnson, Op-Ed: The executives who run the giant multinationals want to be let off the hook for paying taxes on profits they make outside our borders. As an Apple executive said to The New York Times, giant multinationals “don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.” And to prove it, American corporations are holding $1.7 trillion in profits outside the country—just sitting there—rather than bringing that money home, paying the taxes due and then paying it out to shareholders or using it to “create jobs” with new factories, research facilities and equipment.
Bill Moyers, Video Interview: Sheila Bair, the longtime Republican who served as chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) during the fiscal meltdown five years ago, joins to talk about American banks’ continuing risky and manipulative practices, their seeming immunity from prosecution and growing anger from Congress and the public. Also, Richard Wolff, whose smart, blunt talk about the crisis of capitalism the first time around now answers questions sent in by viewers, diving further into economic inequality, the limitations of industry regulation and the widening gap between a booming stock market and a population that increasingly lives in poverty.
Carl Gibson, Op-Ed: Kentuckians live by the phrase, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” It’s emblazoned on our flag, and shows two men, a frontiersman (Daniel Boone) and a statesman (Henry Clay) standing together. They may be standing on opposite sides of the seal, but their embrace symbolizes a spirit of cooperation and caring for your fellow man even though you may sometimes disagree with him. Yet, as Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell proudly announced that his chief goal as the top Republican member was not to create jobs or help schools or look out for struggling middle class, but to deny President Obama a second term.
Anthony Gucciardi, News Report: Whether or not the FDA chooses to approve genetically modified salmon for sale in the marketplace, supermarkets themselves have decided to take a stand in the form of a mass boycott. One that would serve to crush the profits of the unlabeled seafood abomination. In a move that signifies the growing opposition to genetically modified creations from a grassroots level all the way to corporate understanding of consumer demand, chains like Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, and others are now all reporting that they will refuse the sale of AquaBounty Technology’s modified salmon.
William Boardman, News Report: The F-35 is a case study of government failure at all levels—civilian and military, federal, state, local, even airport authority. Not one critical government agency is meeting its obligation to protect the people it presumably represents. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who wrote the F-35 critique above, is hardly unique as an illustration of how government fails, but he sees no alternative to failure. The F-35 is a nuclear-capable weapon of mass destruction that was supposed to be the “fighter of the future” when it was undertaken in 2001.
By Tara Culp-Ressler on Mar 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm
North Dakota lawmakers voted on Friday afternoon to pass a “personhood” abortion ban, which would endow fertilized eggs with all the rights of U.S. citizens and effectively outlaw abortion. The measure, which passed the Senate last month, passed the House by a 57-35 vote and will now head to Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple’s desk.
The personhood ban will have far-reaching consequences even beyond abortion care, since it will charge doctors who damage embryos with criminal negligence. Doctors in the state say it will also prevent them from performing in vitro fertilization, and some medical professionals have vowed to leave the state if it is signed into law.
The measure is so extreme that some pro-life Republicans in the state have come out against it, planning to join a pro-choice rally in the state capital on Monday to oppose the far-right abortion restriction. “We have stepped over the line,” Republican state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) said of the recent push to pass personhood. “North Dakota hasn’t even passed a primary seatbelt law, but we have the most invasive attack on women’s health anywhere.”
Personhood advocates have pushed their agenda in states throughout the country over the past several years, but their measures have so far been unable to advance. North Dakota is the first state to pass a personhood abortion ban.
This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.