Tag Archives: abortion

If Reagan Were President, He Would…Do Nothing Much About Ukraine

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On the Senate floor today, John McCain blistered his fellow Republicans over their holdup of an aid bill to Ukraine. “Don’t call yourself Reagan Republicans,” he said. “Reagan would never tolerate this.” Dan Drezner provides the history lesson via Twitter:

Read original article:  

If Reagan Were President, He Would…Do Nothing Much About Ukraine

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If Reagan Were President, He Would…Do Nothing Much About Ukraine

Tesla Pits Texas vs. the Free Market

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Tesla is having a lot of well-publicized problems selling its cars direct to the public. Most states mandate that cars can only be sold through independent dealers, and that’s shut Tesla out of the market in plenty of places, including ultra-free market bastions like Texas. Paul Waldman comments:

You’d think that if conservatives really believed all their rhetoric about the value of unfettered free markets, they would be all over this issue, advocating for Tesla’s side of the controversy and campaigning to break up the anti-free-enterprise car dealer oligopolies. But of course, we’re talking about Tesla, and liberals like electric cars, and therefore conservatives feel obligated to hate electric cars, so that probably won’t happen.

OK, sure, but here’s the thing: Teslas are also really expensive. That means they can only be purchased by rich people, and conservatives really like rich people. So this is a dilemma, no?

Now, I suppose that in Texas they don’t think much of any car that doesn’t run on refined hydrocarbon products, so maybe the cognitive dissonance there is less than I think. But North Carolina doesn’t have any oil. So what’s the deal there?

In any case, I want to know who’s buying these cars, anyway. Last Halloween, Marian and I decided to escape the house and eat out. In order to kill time, we walked around the shopping center we had gone to and I spied a Tesla store there. So I popped in and sat down in a Roadster. I didn’t even come close to fitting, and I’m only an inch or so taller than six feet. Am I just pickier than most tall people? Do tall people who buy Teslas slouch a lot? Or has Tesla simply abandoned the quarter of the market over six feet?

Visit site – 

Tesla Pits Texas vs. the Free Market

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tesla Pits Texas vs. the Free Market

House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Three years ago, House Republicans pushed a bill to permanently eliminate taxpayer funding for abortions. The proposed legislation included an exception for women who had been raped—but only if it the rape was “forcible.” That language—and later, off-color comments about abortion and rape by two GOP Senate candidates, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock—kicked off a national backlash against the Republican party. So this year, the House GOP is trying a new strategy: introducing almost the exact same bill to limit abortion rights, while hoping that cutting out controversial rape provisions will limit the political blowback.

To that end, the GOP-run House of Representatives will vote late Tuesday afternoon on the 2014 version of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill that would permanently ensconce the Hyde Amendment—a temporary measure that has been around since the 1970s and bans federal funding for abortions—in federal law. The bill doesn’t just ban federal funding for abortions, though—it also promises to limit Americans’ ability to buy private-sector health insurance that covers abortion.

Like previous versions of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that passed the House in 2011 and 2012, this year’s measure has no chance of becoming law so long as Democrats hold the Senate and President Barack Obama occupies the White House. The bills, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), are designed to signal the Republican party’s priorities to its most hardcore supporters—and more broadly, to provide a taste of what the GOP would have to offer if it gained control of the Senate and the White House. (House Republican leaders have given this year’s version of the bill the number H.R. 7; the low number is a symbolic nod to its high priority.)

Previous versions of Smith’s bill have cost the party politically. The 2011 version launched the “forcible rape” furor. And this year’s bill, which Smith introduced last May, appeared again to raise questions about what counts as rape. An earlier version of the proposal would have required the IRS to verify that a woman claiming a medical expense deduction for abortion on her tax return was not committing fraud. Women may only claim these deductions if their abortions were the result of rape, incest, or life-threatening medical situations—leading anti-abortion activists to assail the bill’s sponsors for mandating IRS “rape audits.”

The bill the House will vote on Tuesday drops the “rape audits” provision. But Sharon Levin, the director of federal reproductive health policy for the National Women’s Law Center, says this is more of a face-saving measure than an improvement.

“They took out the provision that the public had been focused on to make this more palatable, politically,” she says. “The core of what this bill is about has not changed—making it as difficult as possible for women to get access to abortion.”

Continue Reading »

Original link:  

House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Here’s Why You Don’t See Romney Reacting to the 47 Percent Video in "Mitt"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“I think I’m a flawed candidate,” says Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, in director Greg Whiteley‘s behind-the-scenes documentary Mitt, which premieres on Netflix on Friday. The film, which spans six years and two Romney presidential runs, offers some intimate moments of the Romney family on the campaign trail. We get to see Mitt privately acknowledging that his image was boiled down to “the flippin‘ Mormon,” the family playing in the snow, Ann Romney talking about her horse, and Mitt ironing his tux sleeve while wearing it.

But if you’re looking for a more thorough political history of the 2012 campaign and the GOP candidate, you’ll notice (as we previously pointed out here) a few things missing: Bain outsourcing jobs, self-deportation, Romneycare, Obamacare, the decision to pick Paul Ryan as running mate, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Afghanistan, Iraq, varmint-shooting, cheesy grits, abortion, China, “binders full of women,” Benghazi, “corporations are people, my friend,” and a whole lot more.

Furthermore, Whiteley’s film doesn’t include any scenes revealing how Romney and his team processed the release of the 47 percent video—news that came to reinforce Romney’s political persona. The reason? Limited access—and, according to Whiteley, the fact that the goal in making the movie wasn’t to please political junkies.

Continue Reading »

Credit – 

Here’s Why You Don’t See Romney Reacting to the 47 Percent Video in "Mitt"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why You Don’t See Romney Reacting to the 47 Percent Video in "Mitt"

Texas Anti-Abortion Law Looks Likely to Survive Court Challenge

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ever since the Republican landslide of 2010, conservative state legislatures around the country have been busily erecting barriers to abortion. The question is, how far can they go? At what point will the Supreme Court rule that these new laws have no legitimate motivation—improving patient safety, say, or guaranteeing informed consent—but are instead designed merely to make it burdensome for women to get abortions?1 Today brought a discouraging but oddly ambiguous omen on just how far the Court is likely to allow states to go:

The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital….Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in support of the high court order Tuesday, said the clinics could not overcome a heavy legal burden against overruling the appeals court. The justices may not do so “unless that court clearly and demonstrably erred,” Scalia said in an opinion that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion Tuesday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues.

This is discouraging because five justices voted to permit this Texas law to stand, despite abundant evidence that its only real purpose is to make it harder for clinics to hire doctors to perform abortions. But it’s weirdly ambiguous because Roberts and Kennedy declined to join the majority opinion. Unfortunately, my guess is that this is mostly for technical reasons, since this case will probably be back before the Court after the circuit court issues its final ruling. When that happens, I suspect that both Roberts and Kennedy will come down pretty firmly on the side of allowing states to enact virtually anything short of an outright ban.

1In case you’re not up on the lingo, these are known as TRAP laws—Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. They’re nothing new, but enactment of TRAP laws picked up serious steam after the 2010 midterms. More here if you’re interested.

Credit: 

Texas Anti-Abortion Law Looks Likely to Survive Court Challenge

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Texas Anti-Abortion Law Looks Likely to Survive Court Challenge