Even with a persistent gender gap in a presidential election year, House Republicans have not given up on their campaign to narrow access to birth control, abortion care and lifesaving cancer screenings. Far from it.
A new Republican spending proposal revives some of the more extreme attacks on women’s health and freedom that were blocked by the Senate earlier in this Congress. The resurrection is part of an alarming national crusade that goes beyond abortion rights and strikes broadly at women’s health in general.
These setbacks are recycled from the Congressional trash bin in the fiscal 2013 spending bill for federal health, labor and education programs approved by a House appropriations subcommittee on July 18 over loud objections from Democratic members to these and other provisions.
The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision. It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die, and unintended pregnancies would rise, resulting in some 400,000 more abortions a year and increases in Medicaid-related costs, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health.
On top of that, the bill would prevent implementation of most of the Affordable Care Act, wiping out its numerous advances for women’s health. It would seriously weaken the requirement that employee insurance plans cover birth control and other preventive health services by allowing any employer to opt out based on personal religious beliefs or moral objections."
- 17 b’ak’tuns in newly discovered, oldest known Mayan calendar source
» A bad day for the doomsday industry: You’ve almost certainly heard over the past few years that 2012 would be the year in which the world ended, right? Because the Mayan calendar says so? Well, not that we were…
so, any chance people will shut up about it now?Source: shortformblog
(Rebloggable format by request)
No, I can’t.
That’s the thing: I literally cannot explain why someone who believes the things that Rick Santorum believes and says the things that Rick Santorum says can be a leading contender for a major party’s Presidential nomination this late in a campaign…
I was about to write something about why I have such a massive distaste for santorum (all of the puns) but then I realized Dead Presidents was a few steps ahead of me.Source: deadpresidents
We read Michele Bachmann’s book so you don’t have to.
I think there’s a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science – Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.
The Republican Party has to remember that we’re drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And we’ve got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can’t remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a – a party that – that was antithetical to science. I’m not sure that’s good for our future and it’s not a winning formula.
GOP presidential hopeful Jon “call me crazy” Huntsman, on ABC News’ This Week, when asked about Rick Perry’s stance on evolution and climate change.
Distinguishing yourself from the pack: you’re doing it right.
While I don’t think Huntsman is particularly electable, he’s definitely earning points with the moderates with statements like this.
Fred Karger: the gay Jewish Republican presidential candidate whose biggest opponent is his own party
Fred Karger will not be the next President of the United States. He won’t be the next Republican nominee. He probably won’t even be in any Republican presidential debates, though not by his own choice.
“It sounds crazy,” Karger told the LA Times, on running for president. I must disagree.
I have a particular affection for candidates who break with their own party line on even just one issue when they’re well aware it would inevitably hinder their ultimate purpose: to get the political seat. This is why, loathe I am to admit it, I dislike Ron Paul less than the rest of the GOP frontrunners.
What you see in the photo above is why I can’t help but adore Fred Karger. In the race for 2012, his sexuality will be his downfall. This absurdity is our reality. As Alex Pareene said in March:
While coastal elites at the RNC have been friendly to Karger, the true Republicans… at the RNC… have also already blocked him from participating in one debate, and they are likely to continue banning him from all future debates, at least until he stops being gay.
Karger calls himself progressive on social issues and says he wants to bring the Republican party back to the days of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. In the run-up to the 2012 election, his biggest opponent wouldn’t be the majority of the American public. Rather, his biggest opponent is big ol’ conservative influence.
Karger may be wealthy from his time as a political operative for nine presidential campaigns and working as a strategist for big corporate names, but he isn’t made of Mitt Bucks. To get on the radar of the attention-deficit American mindset, he needs money and air time, both necessary through the support of high-level Republican think tanks, a well-funded PAC and media coverage.
If he doesn’t have the Grand Ol’ Party behind him, he will have a very difficult time obtaining name recognition. This is something he surely understands since his campaign bears the motto, “Fred Who?”. For this reason, Karger’s got a hell of a challenge… coming from his own party.
In 2010, RNC member Steve Scheffler gave Karger the email equivalent of a middle finger:
you and the radical homosexual community want to harass supporters of REAL marriage. I am the Republican National Committeeman for Iowa. As a private citizen and knowing literally thousands of caucus goers, I will work overtime to help ensure that your political aspirations are aborted right here in Iowa. Have you studied our past caucuses–you have NO chance here in Iowa! [Mother Jones]
No surprise really, since Karger is a strong proponent against Prop. 8 and founded Californians Against Hate. He has worked to expose the Mormon Church’s influence over the passing of Prop 8 and once filed a complaint against Scheffler for violating federal election laws. Karger also filed an ethics complaint against James Bopp, the man appointed by the RNC to oversee debates. No surprise, part deux: Karger was excluded from the FOX News Iowa debate, despite meeting their criteria. He is now preparing to file another FEC complaint.
His existence in the race does something we need, if we’re willing to open our eyes: it points a finger at the incessant bigotry of the Republican party, lest we forget it. Yes, gay Republicans exist. Fiscal conservatism is their priority rather than embarking on a crusade for “family values,” which I find to be the most eye-roll worthy phrase on the political spectrum. Unfortunately, for the time being, Republicans like Karger will not garner the support necessary to elevate themselves to the front of the pack due to opposition from the party within.
I have this photo of Karger hanging in my room (next to a photo of Roosevelt and Churchill at the Casablanca Conference, so hopefully anyone who walks into my room will be mildly confused). I won’t agree with Karger on everything, but this picture serves as a reminder that not every Republican harbors beliefs I am completely against. Additionally, we mustn’t forget that his existence in the 2012 race makes him the first openly gay presidential candidate in U.S. history. That alone is a beautiful thing, no matter how little we pay attention to him.
[Photo: Adam Bouska]